Learning to deal with whatever it is we're learning to deal with.

I've been in a two week dry spell, recovering from trips out of town, from crises of confidence, and from, lately, this weird sort of fever-y cold that I hope to god isn't avian flu. I'm also suffering from a deep lack of interest in all things political right now, one of the phases of my intellectual moon where I'm inclined to say fuck it to the world of governance, because, honestly, what does any of our breathlessness and indignity change?

But I'm stirred to action again, mainly because I want to make sure that those of you who occasionally visit me here, lovable die hards that you are, don't eliminate The Bellows from your list of places to go when work gets boring. So it was that last night I was watching a rerun of the previous night's Daily Show and witnessed a bizarre display of political theater. John Stewart was hosting Nancy Soderbergh, come to discuss her book, recently published, on the use and misuse of Superpower-ness. What ensued was curious, the vivid presentation of the left's current intellectual tangles portrayed awkwardly on national television. The problem? Bush's diabolical and ill-planned adventures in the Middle East appear to be working like gangbusters. Now how the hell am I supposed to feel about it?

There are legitimate caveats to be expressed. Progress in Israeli-Palestinian relations (may it not be short-lived) resulted largely from Arafat's death, with which Bush presumably had nothing to do. Likewise, Lebanon's likely liberation resulted from an ill-timed assassination on the part of Syria. Still, it's difficult not to associate the changes in the region with the actions of the Bushies, and attempts to explain away Bush's influence smack of, well, a desire to minimize the importance of those events, if not to act out and out disappointed by them.

Of course, nothing is assured. Tom Friedman wrote this week that, despite the promise shown in the Middle East, peace and democracy are far from firm establishment. It's also just as possible that Bush could have orchestrated these changes in a less overbearing way, or that Gore could have done just as well at bringing these changes about. And, of course, Bush has woefully handled Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. All these things need to be said, but when they are bandied about, as they were between Soderbergh and Stewart, they sound, if not treasonous, at least a little like sour grapes over these notable happenings. Does anyone doubt that 1500 or 2000 or more American lives were a worthwhile price to pay for a democratic reshaping of the Middle East?

What's curiouser still is that Republicans don't seem much in the mood to gloat. Facing what appears to be sure defeat on the President's biggest second-term agenda item, the GOP seems to be enduring its own crisis of confidence, reexamining its bold congressional plans, and considering, perhaps, opting for the occasional skirmish until midterms are over and the 2008 race can begin. And the Republican media is busy full-time huffing and puffing over journalistic scandal, underage execution, and the public display of the tribal laws of a group of nomadic shepherds from over two millennia ago. What's more, the world seems ready to forgive Bush his trespasses, as long as he mumbles a conciliatory word and sends round Condoleeza in her best Carrie-Anne Moss get-up.

What am I getting at? I think many honest Democrats are extremely conflicted right now. We do not desire to concede to Bush his successes, while we are genuinely glad things in the Middle East are improving. We look with distaste toward Republican told-you-so's that don't seem to be coming. We feel proud of renewed Democratic congressional strength, then have doubts about our new party leader, whose anti-war stance looks decidedly short-sighted. And we see ourselves on talk shows looking more confused than ever, completely unsure of what we ought to be thinking, let alone saying.

Does anyone know what's going on?