So, now what?

One of the most persistent problems of political victory is governing. I repeat the obvious to impress upon you (and me) the seriousness of the task; it's been so long, we may not remember how to do it.

And we weren't altogether good at it before. It is not enough to say that the era of Tip O'Neill and other old-style Democrats is gone, we must be willing to be as politically brave and resolute as the Republicans (the ones like Newt, anyway) before us. That means being willing to lose.

The willingness to dare, to risk, to lose all is the only way that any progressive advances in political thought and practice are made. Now this ruins careers, destroys specific institutions, and generally infuriates everyone. But these are, in the end, results that can be borne, if not results that should be borne. People can always find other jobs (universities love to hire failed politicians, as a rule, for exorbitant salaries) , institutions that outlive their purpose should become extinct, and pissing people off is fun.

Being willing to lose means being willing to take actions that will consume your political capital, actions that will remain necessary long after you are gone.

I am not suggesting that our party rule from the left as the GOP ruled from the right. The second coming of the leftist Jesus (or Antichrist, depending on your perspective) has yet to immanentize , despite the jubilation of victory. I am suggesting that the necessary and vital issues of the day may lead us all into areas that none of us will be ideologically comfortable with.

For example:

• The best way to save Social Security is probably what most experts say it is - cut benefits and raise taxes.

• The best solution to Iraq may be to increase the amount of troops, not decrease the amount through withdrawal (my own knee-jerk sensibilities compel me to state that I don't accept this to be true, and I certainly don't want it to be true).

• Social, arts and science program cuts may required to balance the budget. And balancing the budget may be both pragmatically and politically necessary.

Frankly, this is just the tip of the iceberg. However, I don't want to be known as the leftist who advocated not demanding and end to the homophobic practice of marriage exclusion. Some things are not worth capitulating for. The rub is, what are those? And perhaps more importantly, who decides?