Morning glory

Back in November of 2004, after I watched with incredulity as a majority of Americans switched off their brains long enough to re-elect George W. Bush president, I groused that the possibility of perpetual Republican victory seemed at hand.  Karl Rove's dream of one-Party hegenomy was coming to fruition. 

So much for that.

As you know by know, the Democrats have retaken the House, as expected, with a gain that will probably exceed 25 seasts by the time all the dust has settled.  They also appear headed for a surprising takeover of the Senate, as well, pending only the Virginia Senate race between Jim Webb and George "Sen. Macaca" Allen.  Webb has claimed victory, and has a tiny lead that is nonetheless probably recount-proof.  If Allen's seat falls, the Senate will be 49-49 with 2 independents who say they will caucus with Democrats; socialist Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman of the Joe Lieberman Party.

Without trying to compose an all-encompassing treatise on "what it all means," a couple of observations relating in particular to what it means for my main object of observation; the religious right.

Going into election night there was a possibility that an anti-gay marriage ban could fail to pass for the first time.  It happened, though not in a place I was looking.  The citizens of Arizona have the honor of being the first to turn back the foaming fundamentalist hate ammendment, by the narrowest of margins.  Some have pointed out the defeat came less at the hands of noble equal-rights activists and more at their ability to convince people that the bill's language would also strip benefits from unmarried straight couples, but the Virginia ammendment with similar extreme language survived what we thought could be a similar fate. 

A pleasantly-surprising near-miss came in South Dakota, which passed its hate ammendment with a 52-48 margin.  However, that was overshadowed by national attention on another SD ballot intiative; to reject the absolute abortion ban signed by the governor earlier this year. It passed 55-45.  The ban had no exception for rape, incest, or life of the mother, issues on which the anti-abortion side is loath to compromise as it leaves them in thorny philosophical waters.  In that respect, the loss in South Dakota represents a major defeat for them. 

Wait, this is South Dakota we are talking about here, right?  How did this supposedly solid "conservative" red state defeat a draconian abortion law and come far closer to beating the Hate Ammendment than supposedly progressive Wisconsin did?

The answer comes from the failure of the single-axis polarization narrative that prevails in mainstream punditry to accurately define the political situation in the United States.  South Dakota is a "red state," but it's a different shade.  What we saw yesterday is the difference between the libertarian conservative "prairie politics" of the Upper Midwest and interior West and the fundamentalist/authoritarian social conservativism that dominates the Republican party in the South, where the gay-bashing ammendments in Tennessee and South Carolina passed with over 75% of the vote.  They may agree on economics, or even on personal values, but the libertarians in South Dakota rejected the Big Brother, bedroom snooping government hawked by Christian Right. 

This may be no small thing, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out when the GOP lays out its strategy for 2008.