It's been a week since the election and as expected, the focus has shifted. Instead of talking about what John Kerry is doing wrong, we are now being treated to pages and pages of theories about what Democrats in general are doing wrong. Which leads, of course, to a slightly smaller amount of pages and pages attempting to describe what Democrats should be doing now.

Even our Republican brothers and sisters are full of ideas on this subject, and feel no compunction in telling the Democrats what they can do for (or, in some cases, to) themselves. In the spirit of bi-partisanship and warm regards, we would like to offer some similar advice to the other side of the aisle. Let the healing begin.

The first thing to remember is not to rest on your laurels. You won in 2000 due to a confluence of fortunate events. What are the odds that Florida would experience massive election irregularities? There was no way you could have seen that coming. And the Supreme Court? Hey, there was no telling which way they would rule. Not to discount any of the hard work done by all of the parties involved, but George W. Bush's first term was hardly a sure thing.

Part of the problem was the fact that Bush seemed to come out of nowhere. Most Americans, who despite some of the nasty things that are said about exactly how much attention they pay to politics, had heard of John McCain before. It seemed almost certain that he would go on to take the Republican nomination in 2000. Except of course, his plans were frustrated by " ...a leader with the experience to make the tough decisions and the resolve to stick with them..." Opinions vary on exactly how Bush was able to take down McCain in the South Carolina primary, but the fact is, he did.

So, one of the first things Republicans should consider doing is picking out their next presidential nominee as soon as possible. Actually, they probably already have. But, the important thing is not to keep the man in hiding, but to make sure that the public is very familiar with him. Starting now. When he seizes the reigns of power, it shouldn't feel like some "new guy" has come along, and, after being anointed in some smoky back-room, foisted himself upon the country. He should be as familiar as a friendly pat-down by air-port security.

This year, the issue was "moral values". Exactly which moral values seems to be something that exit pollsters weren't very interested in codifying, so we'll just assume that the increased turn-out of the Christian Right indicates that we're talking about conservative Christian moral values here. Perhaps it had something to do with gay marriage? Or perhaps it was Iraq?

In any case, it's important to start thinking up new ways to mobilize this vast bloc of reliable voters for 2008. Sure, it would be nice to just trot out the same issues we had this year – but that might not be a good idea. After all, there's no telling what state Iraq will be in after the next four years. It's just not a smart bet. As for gay marriage, well...

You're going to have to do something about that. After all, the Democratic party opposes gay marriage. No doubt that's why Bush found himself having to flip-flop on the subject of a " gay marriage amendment", in order to prove that however much Democrats opposed it, he was even more opposed.

Now that he's promised to work towards that proposed amendment, he'd probably better do just that. Once the amendment has passed, you'll be forced to come up with a new wedge issue anyway, so you might as well start thinking up one right now. Choose to ignore this primary campaign promise to the Christian Right, and it will soon be shown to be a huge mistake. After all, the Republican party has developed a definite pattern: rile up the Evangelicals, get them to the polls, and then ignore them until the next election rolls around. If you don't deliver this time, you stand a chance of discouraging them from voting at all. Depending on other factors, that could be disastrous. The last thing you'd want to campaign on is your economic policy.

That's another thing. People might be willing to vote against their own economic interests -- up to a point. Evangelicals are willing to follow the Republican party into the very mouth of Hell, so they'd be happy to vote themselves into economic extinction – but you mustn't let them go that far. It's very noble to starve to death while voting for the party of huge corporate give-aways, but you can't vote if you're dead. (Except in certain Democratic strong-holds.)

In addition to doing something to improve the economic situation of your constituents, it would also be in your best interest to keep them as healthy as possible. The red-states are not exactly the wealthiest on the map, and affordable health-care is getting harder and harder to find in America today. Some sort of comprehensive health-plan might be in order. In short, three million people is a razor thin margin in a country as large as ours – you need to make sure that you don't lose a single vote due to disease or the link between mortality and poverty.

These are achievable goals. Follow them closely and you can be assured of a eternal period of hegemony. Well, at least for as long as Grover Nordquist holds out.

-B. C. Silvia
-11/10/2004