"Ah-ha!" does not a governing philosophy make.

Many liberals are crowing about the Bush administration's woes. "Ah-ha!" they say, "Everyone knows Bush messed up Katrina. Bush has been caught carrying out torture - again. Bush's 'competitiveness initiative' is turning out to be a cover for cuts in science and education. His 'health savings accounts' are shaping up to be a disaster. Bush's Iraq war has caused the world to hate us even more this year than last. Cheney's in trouble over the CIA leak. Even Republicans are questioning Bush's illegal (and ineffective) wiretap program. And to top it all off, Cheney just shot some poor guy. The Bush administration is really going down!"

To all those exultant liberals, I say: Shut up.

Think more than five minutes into the future.

No one goes down until there's someone credible to replace them.

Bush has messed up bad bad bad. But who's going to replace Bush, and (more importantly) what do those people stand for?

Do Democrats believe that free trade is ultimately beneficial for the economy, or do they think protectionism is necessary to preserve domestic industries?

Do Democrats believe that we should start withdrawing troops from Iraq immediately, or that we should stay until some future thing happens?

Do Democrats support the idea of moving away from employer-based health insurance toward personal savings accounts? Do they support a nationalized health care system? Do they support cost control measures?

Do Democrats favor increased federal control over public education, or decreased control?

Do Democrats favor an increased emphasis on math and science education, or do they believe that these subjects are no more important than others?

Do Democrats support merit-based teacher pay, or do they want to stick with the existing seniority-based system?

What policies do Democrats suggest for improving the economic and social situation of African-Americans, especially in blighted urban areas?

Are Democrats in favor of expanded eminent domain powers, or against them?

Do Democrats see increased partnership and cooperation with India as beneficial, or do they regard India as a dangerous nuclear proliferator?

Would Democrats be in favor of increased opportunity for partnerships between corporations and university researchers?

Do Democrats support increased legal immigration or oppose it?

Do Democrats support or oppose tighter controls on illegal immigration? How about amnesty for illegals currently living and working here?

Do Democrats favor continued friendly engagement with China, or a hardening of our stance on China's human rights abuses?

How do Democrats intend to avert the looming meltdown of the Social Security and Medicare systems?

Besides resolving the Iraq situation (by some method), what do Democrats plan to do to address negative opinions of the U.S. in Europe, Latin America, and South Korea?

Are Democrats willing to consider a military force option to stop Iran from going nuclear?

Do Democrats have any kind of plan to make higher education available to more people than it is now?

These are all important issues facing our country, and I haven't heard much from either Democratic politicians or much of the liberal press (Slate, The Nation, Huffington Post, Daily Kos) on these issues - they just can't stop talking about Bush. Only the "moderate liberal" press - The New Republic, Newsweek, Washington Post - has addressed these issues. But if we're going to replace Bush and co., we've got to offer a credible alternative, like Clinton did.

But even more telling than the lack of Democratic policy ideas might be the lack of an intellectual movement that sincerely believes in the ideal of liberalism. In fact, some thinkers, such as pro-American French writer Bernard Henri-Levy, think that the American left is moribund. According to him, the American left is mired in:

...a desert of sorts, a deafening silence, a cosmic ideological void that, for a reader of Whitman or Thoreau, is thoroughly enigmatic. The 60-year-old "young" Democrats who have desperately clung to the old formulas of the Kennedy era...the supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton who, when I questioned them on how exactly they planned to wage the battle of ideas, casually replied they had to win the battle of money first, and who, when I persisted in asking what the money was meant for, what projects it would fuel, responded like fundraising automatons gone mad: "to raise more money"; and then, perhaps more than anything else, when it comes to the lifeblood of the left, the writers and artists, the men and women who fashion public opinion, the intellectuals--I found a curious lifelessness, a peculiar streak of timidity or irritability...

This man speaks with the clarity that sometimes only an outsider can grasp. In the 2.5 years I've been here in Japan, my perspective has shifted somewhat toward that of the outsider, and I see now that Mr. Henri-Levy could not be more on the mark.

So before we whip out the champagne and toast the downfall of Bush, let's pause to remember that politics is not a zero-sum game. Bush is down, but we're not up yet. That won't happen (allow me to wax somewhat lyrical for a moment) until we look inward and rekindle the fires of liberalism, that philosophy which for so long shone like a calm sun of reason and freedom, and bring it forth to cast light again upon a newly awoken world.