So I had a

bit of a political identity crisis earlier this year. Never one to follow current events, I decided that before the California Democratic primary this March, I should be informed about what--and whom--I was casting my votes for. So I set out to learn. I started following the news. I devoured political commentary from the left and the right, in an effort to really think about my positions on the issues, and why I held them.

After much thought, I came to this conclusion: I am a moderate liberal. I support gay marriage. I believe in a woman's right to choose. I am not a proponent of small government; I believe in using government to solve problems. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I am not opposed to tax hikes when necessary. I'm still feeling out my position on gun control.

Evidently I'm also moderate because I don't unequivocally believe that Republicans are subhuman. I was at a gathering this weekend, and I found myself surrounded by the sort of unreasoning lefty-ism that is regularly derided in conservative (and moderate) circles. I was never more aware of the increasing polarization of American politics--that I had read so much about but never experienced to such a degree personally--until then. Republicans and any conservatives were described as bumpkins, provincial, and just plain stupid (because everyone knows that only stupid people are conservative). Scorn dripped from every word uttered about conservatives and anyone who subscribed to an organized religion.

But yet more scorn was reserved for the conservative political operatives in Washington. Karl Rove is apparently devoid of any shred of morality. Which is evidently ironic, because the Republicans claim they represent morality and all that is right and good. This sounded to me like nothing more than sour grapes. Now, I don't know enough about Rove's history, and nor should anyone who is not personally acquainted with him, to make such a statement, or refute it. What he is, in my opinion, is a skilled and savvy strategist who brought his party to power with enviable efficiency and yes, ruthlessness. He's not called the boy genius for nothing. He's so good, in fact, that he becomes the scapegoat for every Democratic loss, in elections or in the public eye (like the ridiculous notion that he was somehow behind the whole CBS national guard memo fiasco--which, I might add, some liberals were suggesting with perfect seriousness). Had the Democrats someone like that, someone who fought in the trenches, took ruthless advantage of every opening and mobilized the left like Rove mobilized the right in 2000, they'd be crowing about him or her today. It's kind of like Chicago Bulls' fans' attitude toward Dennis Rodman when he joined the team. He was a jerk before, but now he was our jerk. We didn't mind if he threw the occasional elbow, as long as it helped the team win.

Let's get this straight, just for the record. I voted for Gore in 2000. I am no fan of George W. Bush. I fundamentally object to and disagree with nearly every one of his policies, be they foreign or domestic. I do not, however, believe he is the antichrist. And so while I would greatly prefer that he was not our president for the next 4 years, I don't want him out of office enough to vote for John "Facade" Kerry, whose new campaign slogan should be "Frontin'". I am not so virulently anti-Bush that I refuse to see what a poor candidate Kerry is. While I think it largely irrelevant what either candidate did during a 30-year old war, I do not dismiss the Swift Boat veterans' allegations, at least one of which was proved true, out of hand.

But since I recognize that Republicans are people, too, I have to tread carefully among these unreasoning leftists, lest I be suspected of being secretly Republican, or worse, French. I more or less believe in the same things as these people do, but because I'm willing to acknowledge that the other side occasionally has a point, I must be an undercover conservative operative. It's enough to make me pull out my hair.

If the whole Democratic party subscribes to these defeatist views (and I have reason to suspect that at least a significant portion of it does), if the whole party just complains about how the Republicans spin everything out of recognition (again, which they wouldn't be complaining about if they were successful doing the same thing--and they're not, even with most major media outlets shamelessly shilling for them!) and doesn't do anything, basically, but whine about their loss of control of America's agenda, then I am deeply doubtful that they're going to get their act together enough to become a serious political threat before at least 2008. They're going to have to become as desperate as the Republicans were during the Clinton years. Desperate enough that they reorganize from the ground up, get united and get inspired.