Time is ticking for a woman’s right to choose. Let the wealth transfer from the poor to the rich begin. Unions can kiss their bargaining power goodbye. Who will be the first to start dumping toxic chemicals in Lake Mendota and clear-cutting Alaskan forests? This is the beginning of the end for democracy in America.

Now that the evil Republicans have taken over the last stronghold of Democrats, the U.S. Senate, Americans can expect all of this and more. With right-wing zealots in charge of all three branches of the federal government, the coast is finally clear for conservatives to show their true intentions and steamroll their agenda of hate and classism past the futile resistance of populist opposition.

These sentiments are typical of what I have heard for the last week in the mainstream media, the ultra-leftist media and leftist radio talk shows (which I didn’t even know existed outside of Madison and the space-based weapons-free-zone of Berkley).

This group of outspoken political activists has been lamenting its electoral defeat with apocalyptic prophecies of things to come for America as it begins regrouping for the 2004 election. The only difference between these prophets of doom and the guy evangelizing on Library Mall is that they consider themselves enlightened for having caught a couple of women’s studies lectures in between their protests and sit-ins.

Just as the religious right has lost credibility with its predictions of damnation for all homosexuals and drug users, the activist class is losing credibility with its predictions of damnation for Republicans and those who vote for them. This is not an effective strategy for victory in 2004, empirically proven by the Republican victory last week and the Clinton victories of the ’90s.

Wise Republicans understand that their victory was not a mandate, simply a collection of effective campaigns and in some cases, a reaction to leftist wolf-crying.

Perhaps Republicans finally learned a lesson from their ineffective demonizing of Bill Clinton throughout the ’90s. Clinton was not a liberal who was going to destroy the moral fabric of America as Republicans would have liked America to believe. He was simply a politician who wanted to win. Winners don’t set agendas their constituents don’t agree with (take note, City Council), and Americans knew Republicans were bluffing when they assigned dramatic hyperbole to Clinton.

Now the tables have turned, and the electorate has called the bluff of the Democrats. The election of 2002 showed America doesn’t believe conservatives will make their children dumber, their health costs higher and their grandparents sicker. The only other explanation is that America does want dumber kids, higher hospital bills and dead grandparents. I’ll stick with my more intuitive hypothesis.

Demonizing your opponent is best left to college football fans. “Michigan sucks,” “Minnesota is garbage,” you know the drill. But in politics, most Americans see past the cheerleading and realize that no matter who wins, their lives will probably stay the same.

If this world is coming to an end thanks to George W. Bush’s leadership, not many people are losing sleep over it. People lose sleep over an unfairly graded paper or a meal from the Blue Chip Deli that just didn’t sit right; they don’t lose sleep over judicial nominees.

So having lost the middle-class masses, or at least 51 percent of them, some Democrats have realized prophetic statements about conservative governments are not the path to victory. But how can Democrats sway an electorate that is so content with status-quo conservatism? The answer for some is to mobilize the malcontents, presumed to be the poor, the minorities and the university students.

Democrats champion programs and policies they know malcontents support, but getting them out to vote is always a problem. The lack of voter participation among these groups is not for lack of trying. Democratic get-out-the-vote initiatives have included free cigarettes for the homeless and even free bingo games for the mentally ill.

Some argue that Republican negative campaigns are designed to depress voter turnout amongst the underprivileged, but it is quite presumptuous to assume these demographics cannot call a politician’s bluff any better than the “average” American.

Who was the last truly downtrodden alcoholic to run for office? The last woman living in a box or homeless shelter? Why believe that one privileged politician will be any better than another privileged politician? What candidate has truly inspired the truly malcontent? Perhaps their low turnout isn’t due to apathy, but rather a realization that the odds of a Democrat in a suit understanding the problems of the chronically unemployed are about as good as the odds of a Republican enacting a flat tax.

So as Democrats search for a message that will carry them to victory and Republicans try to not sound too arrogant, it is important to not lose sight of the general political trends in America.

Whether the winners are Republicans or Democrats, incumbents or challengers, not many Americans vote for revolutionary change. Time and time again, Americans vote for a representative who will tinker with the status quo, do nothing and maintain the status quo or perhaps roll things back to the “good ole days” of six months ago. The status quo does not survive because of inertia; it survives because Americans can live with it. Not only can Americans live with it, deep down inside they love it. Finally, they know their leaders won’t mess with it, no matter how many 30-second sound bites they hear telling them otherwise.

A.J. Hughes ([email protected]) is a software developer and a UW graduate.