Tuesday, for the first time, President George W. Bush proved he could win popular support from the voting public. And with close to one third of Bush supporters saying that in this election they cared more about moral values than any other issue, it’s clear why this happened. People voted with their groins. Or rather, they voted with other people’s groins.

For them, this was a vote against men diddling men and women diddling women. It was a vote against women diddling men and then choosing not to breed. It was a vote against using women’s decision not to breed to help develop cures for deadly diseases.

The groin was on the table as the moral issue of our time. Bush put it there, and John Kerry left it there. Not surprisingly, in the end, more voters wanted our collective groins in Bush’s hands. After all, for the past decade, Republicans have won these fights by being just plain better at appealing to people’s prejudices. And Kerry offered no substantive alternative.

But before we write off an entire section of the country as having morals entirely different from our own, let’s keep in mind that the morality debate was framed entirely around private morality. Among issues of public morality, issues that affect all of us collectively, there may be vast common ground.

While on Sunday mornings many Americans may hear a preacher espousing the moral deviance of “the gays,” they probably do not hear him championing the righteousness of torture.

While the preacher may speak out against the evils of abortion, he probably doesn’t hail the economic conditions that lead to increased unemployment and falling wages.

And while stem cell research may get his panties in a twist, he’s probably not motivating his congregation to organize against giving children the resources they need to get an education.

So how could Kerry have failed to make issues of public morality central to the debate? Who dropped the ball (or, perhaps, the balls)?

We did.

A year ago progressives quickly divided into two camps: the “Anybody but Bush” and the “No one but Ralph.” With Nader receiving not too many more votes than some Libertarian guy no one has heard of, it seems the latter crowd was smaller than many suspected (just as the conservative force in the electorate was much larger).

Regardless, few thought to strategize around a third candidate’s run for office. We could have organized around issues that are important to us and inspire the moral convictions of the rest of the country. We could have told Kerry as a voting block, “We will not vote for you unless you make these issues central to your campaign.” We had so much to gain. Not only a slightly better president in the Whitehouse, but a movement for grassroots democracy. And what’s the worst that could have happened? Kerry could have lost.

He lost anyway. Not in spite of our support, but because we offered it unconditionally.

We acted as subjects, instead of as citizens. “Anybody but Bush,” we agreed. “And then let’s get back to work.” We decided that at the moment when politicians had an incentive to meet our demands, we should muzzle ourselves. Afterwards, when they were no longer accountable in any real way, we could go to them with our requests, like subjects before a king.

Of course, voting for a third party candidate in a swing state was deemed acceptable. But in choosing a strategy that failed to pose a threat to the election’s outcome, we relinquished any power we had to affect Kerry’s platform.

And so, knowing they had our unconditional vote, they did what Democrats do. They became increasingly Republican.

On the issue of gay marriage, Kerry spoke Republicans’ language. He came out against gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions, and failed to differentiate between the two. He was George Bush, but with less conviction and zero inspiration.

Instead, we could have prodded him into acting like he belonged to an opposition party. Imagine if we had convinced him to run on a platform that was palatable, in part, both to us and to the religious conservatives Bush inspires. Maybe he would have said that the government’s role with regard to couples was to grant and ensure legal rights, but that the church has a role in marriage, too, which is to give it moral legitimacy. Maybe he would have asked Bush exactly what rights he thought the state should be able to deny gay couples. In short, he could have reaffirmed the importance of religion, while showing himself to be a principled supporter of civil rights.

And then maybe he would have put issues of public morality, upon which there is common ground among the right and the left, at the forefront of the race.

But without an organized progressive movement pushing him, he saw no reason to take on these issues. He had our vote, and failed to see that he had to appeal to religious conservatives on different issues than the ones already expertly commanded by the Republicans. Taking a whole new direction is anathema to the Democratic leadership. After all, they are largely funded by the same corporations, and beholden to many of the same interest groups.

Let’s learn from our mistakes. Let’s never again stifle our voices in the hopes that the Democratic leadership knows how to get itself elected. We’ll lose not only the election, but our momentum to organize as well.

As we move forward, let’s remember that the electoral system isn’t a panacea for change. And let’s also remember that though we suffered a great loss through Bush’s election, a Kerry win would only have been a small victory.

Instead of being disheartened, let’s use this experience as a springboard to movement build. We have many tools at our disposal and no dearth of problems to tackle. Let’s organize in schools, in churches and on the streets to demand that the government work for the public good.

Time is on our side. After all, people who vote their groins are only going to follow guys named Bush and Dick for so long. Eventually, their sensibilities will be offended.

---