Researchers at the California Institute of Technology have just released the results of an exhaustive nationwide survey of the beliefs of the American people. With 129,226 votes cast, Pop leads Soda by the slimmest of margins, 39.2 percent to 37.2 percent. We are truly a nation divided.
The study monitored voting by state, and an interactive map is included with the statistics online; blue dots indicate Soda strongholds, while green dots do the same for Pop. California and the Northeast are dark blue, while the Midwest is completely green. Does this sound familiar?
Once upon a time, Soda was the undisputed king. No more. In the elections of 2002, Soda was defeated fairly soundly, although not quite as soundly as was reported in the media. It seems Soda thought Pop was very popular, so instead of attempting to convince Americans that those bubbly drinks should be called Soda, Soda instead decided to try to convince Americans that it was just like Pop. "Vote for Soda!" the commercials said. "We know you like Pop, so vote for Soda because we like Pop too!"
Confused?
Most Americans weren't. Americans who supported Pop voted for Pop. Americans who supported Soda stayed home, because they saw no reason to vote for Soda if it was going to be exactly the same as Pop. Americans who supported neither party either voted for Pop because it actually stood for something (namely, it stood for Pop) or they stayed home because they didn't like the real Pop (Pop) or the fake Pop (Soda). Meanwhile, everybody in the South voted for Coke, which makes absolutely no sense at all. But that's another story
Democrats simply have to grow a spine, and they have to do it for three reasons. First, they have to do it to save our democracy. Regardless of who is right (Soda) and who is wrong (Bush), a democracy thrives on debate. When congress voted to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan, only one member of congress voted no (Barbara Lee, D-CA). Again, regardless of whether or not the use of force against the Taliban was a good idea, without debate, why even have a congress? Why not just give all legislative, judicial, and executive power to Bush, and rename him King George II? After all, he was appointed president, so why not just complete the destruction of democracy in America?
Second, Democrats have to grow a spine to save our country. Without opposition, Bush's right-wing tax-cutting machine will continue to hand out money to people who don't need it until all the wealth in the country is in the hands of seven families. If I wanted to live in a feudal society, I would relocate to Saudi Arabia. Similarly, without opposition, the environment will be destroyed. If I wanted to live on a planet that cannot support life, I would relocate to Neptune. And without opposition, health care will continue to be a dream for millions of Americans. Democrats are the ones who need to wake up.
Finally, Democrats have to grow a spine to win. In the last election, only 39 percent of eligible voters in America bothered to cast a ballot. Of eligible voters, 17 percent were registered Republicans who voted, while 15 percent were registered Democrats who voted. In other words, if Republicans vote for Republicans and Democrats vote for Democrats, then Republicans got 17 of that 39 percent, and Democrats got 15. The other seven percent of the electorate that voted were Independents or members of third parties.
So Democrats are left with two choices. Either they can try to get from 15 to 17 by stealing Republican ideas, and thus winning a few Republican votes, or, they can concede the Republicans their 17, and try to convince the 61 percent of voters that did not vote at all to vote Democratic. If that 61 percent sees no difference between the two parties, they have no incentive to vote. But if they see a real choice, they might decide that it's worth it to participate in what's left of our democracy.
On election night 2002, liberal "Crossfire" anchor James Carville said just that: Democrats lost because they didn't stand for anything. Immediately, one of his conservative co-hosts asked incredulously if Carville really believed that Democrats should stand for "old" ideas like tax hikes and big government (as opposed to "new" Republican ideas, like war). To paraphrase Carville's response:
"I don't care what they stand for. They could stand for reduced fat Pringles. Just stand for something!"
If they don't, election night 2004 will be unbearable, and liberals across the country will be driven to drink. And I can guarantee that they won't be drinking Soda.
