What has Changed?

If we are lucky, last week's election will change the political landscape not so much in which policies are adopted, but in the way we talk about government. The Republican Party leadership says it feels chastened, and that its basic approach needs to change. Tea Party attacks, the new statements say, cost the election and led to an embarrassing experience on Tuesday.



Perhaps most heartening is the repudiation of Karl Rove's cynical attempts to manipulate the system. After years of doing nothing but trying to suppress minority voting and issuing Orwellian untruths, Rove has been exposed as a liar and a rogue, who actually needs Fox News anchors to clue him in on reality. His Super PAC's and political gaming failed in this election, when President Obama and the Democrats should have been vulnerable to a whupping.

Now, maybe we can talk about actual policy and engage in meaningful debates. Having lost in every demographic other than aging white men, GOP strategists are suggesting that maybe the party should try something constructive, like passing immigration reform, bagging the Christian-hypocrite position on abortion, and applying sound conservative economic thinking rather than bizarre litmus tests like Grover Norquist's. That kind of thinking would result in a reinvigorated Republican Party, and that could only be good for American politics.

We're not out of the woods, Norquist, Rove and that other cynical stooge, Mitch McConnell, are still trying to defend their old practices. If more progressive and moderate Republicans -- or even conservative ones like Boehner -- succumb to this thinking, we will continue to suffer from political silliness that may prevent serious action on environmental, social and economic issues. The rest of us can't fight this battle; it has to be waged with the party itself, and I am rooting for the good guys, even if I am not a member (of any party.)