I’m in as deep an existential funk as the next Democrat, but I worry about the tendency some of us have to look at the results of an election like this and cry, “The people have spoken, and now the people must be punished!”

“What’s wrong with these people that they could vote for George W. Bush?” runs this psychology – as if Bush voters are either idiots or the victims of some kind of temporary insanity.

Downhearted as our side is, it is neither intellectually helpful nor politically wise to take such a condescending posture toward 58 million people – who have, after all, elected a president by an actual majority vote for the first time since 1988, when Bush’s father last did it.

If we don’t learn from this election, we’ll never make progress – though no one should expect this particular learning process to be pretty.

It’s hard to digest all that this election means as I write Wednesday morning, especially after the emotional roller coaster of Tuesday, when those of us who sought a Kerry victory were elated by exit polls midday only to be stunned in the evening as the public’s verdict became clear. But here, from a sad soul who’s had only a few hours sleep, are some early thoughts:

First, while the election is an undisputed triumph for the Republican Party, it remains true that a shift of 1 percent to 2 percent of the votes would have put Kerry on top. The GOP has strengthened its hold for now on the government, but this does not suggest there is some governing conservative consensus in the country. The media’s talk of Bush’s “resounding” and “definitive” victory makes it easy to miss this central fact.

So do the contradictions in Bush’s brand of “conservatism.” My favorite example: Bush fought to enact a prescription drug benefit in Medicare that, whatever its flaws, invests nearly twice as much federal money (more than $500 billion) to help low-income seniors buy their drugs over the next decade than Al Gore proposed in 2000.

The fact that Bush felt constrained to make Medicare expansion a priority shows that pragmatic solutions to real problems are ultimately where the center of American governance lies.

In elections this close, a lot of things matter – and we’ll be hearing various factors parsed endlessly in the weeks ahead. But one factor has to be near the top: Karl Rove and the Republicans are simply better at political strategy than the current crop of Democratic “gurus.”

That Bush could be elected by more than 3 million votes despite so many liabilities – his mismanagement of Iraq, the weakness of the economy, the troubles with health costs and coverage, the soaring budget deficits … and the list goes on – speaks to the achievement of their campaign.

Among other things, the GOP executed a devastating and focused attack on Kerry from March through the summer to establish him in the public mind as a “flip-flopper” whose military credentials were open to question. They shrewdly (and divisively) used gay marriage amendments at the state level to energize their voters.

Democrats simply aren’t playing the game at the same level. It wasn’t money this time – the money people came through. It was strategy.

Democrats also have not begun to frame their agenda in terms of values that resonate with “Red America.” When the “values” discussion is played out on the turf of gay marriage and not on, say, the abuses of crony capitalism (which offends the values of Americans across the spectrum), then Democrats aren’t properly defining the debate. When Democrats fail to use the language of religion to support progressive goals in areas like health care and education, they continue to miss opportunities to broaden their appeal.

Some of this comes down to the candidate. The Economist wasn’t far off when it called the race a depressing showdown between the incompetent (Bush) and the incoherent (Kerry). I admire much about John Kerry, but I personally don’t know a single person who was “excited” about Kerry the way we all were about Bill Clinton in 1992. Personal charisma aside, Clinton laid out a set of ideas that reshaped the Democratic creed: He challenged liberal dogma (and core constituencies) on welfare, crime, trade and more.

There are other lessons. Democrats may simply need to have a governor atop the ticket; a senator may never be salable as an executive leader. Democrats sure need a good Southerner. But above all, Democrats need ideas.

Think about it. By 2008, we will have had 40 years of GOP presidents broken only by Southern governor Jimmy Carter (a post-Watergate fluke) and Southern governor Bill Clinton (a rare force of nature). During this time, American politics have drifted dramatically to the right, to the point where Richard Nixon’s combined plans for universal health coverage and a minimum family income is now far too “liberal” for John Kerry, “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” to have supported in 2004.

Showing how progressive goals are consistent with American values, bolstering the party’s security agenda in an age of terror, reframing the language and means with which Democrats propose to solve the problems of ordinary Americans – all this, as with Clinton in 1992, will mean challenging some ancient doctrines and interest groups in order to reach out to more Americans with real answers.

It’s a tall order. And it’s hard to see how the current Democratic establishment – which, after all, has presided over these losses and the rightward drift of the country – is up to the task.

Matt Miller is a syndicated columnist and author. Reach him on the Web at: www.mattmilleronline.com.