There has been much written about why Kerry lost, and what that means for strategy and tactics going forward. In my mind, why Kerry lost, on one hand, and what the Dems should claim is the reason Kerry lost are potentially separate concerns.
Although Kerry lost for a variety of reasons, it certainly seems that the "war on terrorism" (or, as Bush would have it, the "war on terror") is at last as important, and probably more so, as the categorically ambiguous "moral values." Raw exit poll numbers from one survey aside, (erroneous) perceptions of Bush and Kerry on terrorism moved the votes more than the values question.
So, if foreign policy/terrorism are again a staple of the next election cycle (which is certainly likely), I think an important lesson we take going forward is that we must have a candidate whom voters trust on national security in his/her own right, and as against the Republican opposition.
But I'd suggest we put that lesson in our back pocket, and enthusiastically embrace the meme that Bush won because of "moral value" southern evangelicals.
We embrace the "moral values" storyline not because it is necessarily true, but because the fundies can and should be used as a wedge issue, both to (1) draw moderates, independents, and some libertarians to our side, and (2) sow discord within the Republican Party.
As for drawing moderates, independents, and libertarians, we must capitalize on the fact that progressives are among the solid majority of Americans who are of a like-mind on the religious right's holy trinity of abortion, stem cells, and gay rights. That is, we, like most Americans, support Roe and the right to choose, support expanded stem cell research, and support civil unions (putting civil union and gay marriage advocates together, more of us than anti-legal rights for gays group). I am very much for redefining "values" to include fealty to economic and environmental justice as well, but even on the fundies' playing field, we have a powerful ethos of tolerance and liberty behind us. It is an ethos that can draw communities of faith to us, especially if we can put the fundies in sharp relief against majority positions.
Second, we can sow discord in the Republican Party. There are plenty of non-fundie factions in the Republican Party. In fact, we see it already. On stem cell research, the California initiative (and Arno's support of it) reflects divergence consistent with the majority position on the issue.
On abortion, Specter is getting his bell rung by the fundies for suggesting that anti-Roe nominees would be filibustered.
The fact of the matter is, however simplistic, there are plenty of Republicans and independents who view fundies with the same skepticism that progressives do; evangelicals and their evangelism are not widely embraced by other faiths and, in fact, fundies do not seek to embrace other faiths, but rather conquer them). That should be especially true of Catholics, and that is a group (incl. Latino Catholics) that we must hardwire into our base.
There are millions of self-identified Republicans who will feel very uncomfortable in a party that is defined as "captured by the religious right." Maybe not states like AL and MS and OK, but those are among the deep red states that, with 20-30% deficits, we are not getting back in the next election cycle (and for some time after that). In short, the fundies are NOT our target. Our goal should be helping make social moderates in the non-Ralph Reed wing of the Republican Party feel unwelcome by casting their party as fundie-ville.
A quick case study. There has been some debate on Kos-threads about whether to send words of encouragement to Specter and even to weigh in with Republicans to fight to keep Specter's chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. But a fundie wedge approach would look very different. It would seek to marginalize the Republican Party by fomenting its fundie wing's excesses.
How, without compromising Roe? Start with two assumptions. First, Specter is irrelevant to whether Bush will nominate an anti-choice judge for the SCt. We can be sure Bush will do so, with or without Specter in the chair. Second, Specter is irrelevant to whether that nominee gets confirmed. Specter will neither use his power as chair to block or undermine the nomination, and he will vote for the nomination on the floor of the Senate. More importantly, whether Specter is the chair or not with have no bearing on whether the Dems filibuster, and whether that filibuster is successful.
So, we should view Specter entirely from a tactical fundie-wedge standpoint. From that perspective, I believe we want Specter gone. If he stays and supports the Bush nominees (which he is sure to do), he puts a moderate, putatively pro-choice face on the process (and on the Republican Party). Much better for the Republicans religious right to be seen as marginalizing social moderates in their party, and putting a more extremist face on the process and the party. If Specter could save Roe, I would feel differently. But he can't. If Roe is put in jeopardy by Bush, only a successful Dem filibuster will do the trick.
At bottom, those who ranked the categorically ambiguous "moral values" as their top voting concern comprised 23% of the electorate, and went 80% Bush. That means approximately 35% of Bush's 58 million votes came, more or less, from fundies. On top of that, those 35% are seen as a cohesive voting block that will abandon the party (e.g. not vote) if their social conservative agenda is not enacted and, most especially, Roe is not attacked through judicial appointments. They are, in short, a critically important, and highly motivated, institutional constituency for the Republican power base.
But they are not a majority of the electorate, and they are not a majority on the "moral" issues they will be most-closely watching (and I say that advisedly with respect to civil unions -- I recognize the 11 initiatives (some of which included civil union bans), and know there could be more. Where they could easily overreach, however, is pushing hard for the federal constitutional amendment). As a result, the fundies can quite frequently put the Repubs in a no-win situation (some may call it "damned if you do, damned if you don't). Abandon the fundies and lose your base, or embrace the fundies and alienate moderates, independents, and libertarians.
Elections will still be won and lost on national security, the economy, etc. But we can fight a values war too. To the extent the press has made fundies the story of 11/2/04, and to the extent that meme is hardening in the minds of Americans, I believe it can work to our advantage. It does not come without a price (including cementing negative world view of the American electorate), but it does not require sacrificing our own values. Quite the contrary.
So, I say we wedge the fundies at every turn. On the web, in private discussion, through our political elites, we should paint the Republicans as a party captured by religious extremists, citing 11/2/04 as proof. The power in that approah is evidenced by the fact that Republican opinion-makers like Rove, Safire, and Brooks are running from this meme as fast as they can (not very fast in Rove's case).
The fundies can deliver us from evil -- that is from the fundies themselves -- by marginalizing the Republican Party. We'd be foolish not to give them a hand.
After all, it's the Christian thing to do.