Illustration by Cody Angell

Oh crap. Get out your lederhosen, don your mincy little green caps with the feathers in them, cook up some brats and rancid cabbage, er · sauerkraut, and crank up the Wagner: We've got a lousy couple years ahead of us. (Note: Pardon the blatant bitterness and stereotyping of Germans. It was either this, Eurotrash techno-yutzes or the German guy from the great cinematic achievement "Supertroopers," so consider yourselves lucky.)

Now, don't get me wrong ÷ I'm not comparing the Republicans' total dominance to the Nazis' in a strict sense, but let's explore the recent history of one-party systems with no significant checks: Nazi Germany (Hitler won with 37 percent of the vote in January 1933), Communist China, the Soviet Union and P.R.I. Mexico.

This is just a few, but I figured you'd recognize at least a few of the names, and maybe attach a bit of the stigma that you've been cultured to display at the term "Nazi" or "Communist."

And what's the one significant link between all of these? Totalitarian control and the inability of the people to effectively react to state decree.

We've already seen the effects of the idiocy inherent in the two party system (one party in action, but the power struggle between elites is key) with the Tonkinish passage of the war resolution with Iraq because of the pressure of the election (chalk one up for George II, way to use timing and pressure to impose rule on people) and the wickedly authoritarian Patriot Act.

Ironically, the only Senator brash enough to go against 99 percent of the group is dead now, which signals the death of true discourse and conscience in our government since Daschle and his lackeys are more interested in political pandering than in what's right.

Now, if you've ever had a discussion about multi-party systems or actual democracy that went longer than: "Hey, multi-party systems are cool," "Yeah, let's go get blitzed on Liquid Plumber and light the couch on fire," then you've probably heard the old argument, "representative Îdemocracy' protects the minority of people in society!" Well, did it?

We now have a one-party political power structure that's going to mess up our immediate world pretty stiffly and our long-term world irreparably. At least with Democrats controlling the Senate, they could stuff the Republicans and keep some sort of balance; but now that there is a vacuum of power, the un-opposition party is going to have to concede and fawn at Republicans to get anything passed (so toss the idea of filibuster "power" now).

Tylor Brand

Prior to this election, the Democrats only waffled on international issues to present a front of "solidarity" ÷ though many of us are everything but united behind this administration ÷ and to avoid being called unpatriotic. Now, they have to buckle to international and domestic domination, so we're screwed.

So what part of the population is protected by this new totalitarianism?

I suppose those who contributed to the candidates when now-dictator Bush spent the last three months hitting the play button on his "By-my-gesticulation-inflection-and-casual-leaning-on-the-podium-of-course-you-can-see-war-on-Iraq-is-just-don't-look-deeper-than-that-and-oh-yeah-vote-for-whoever's-behind-me" speech and raising $170 million on taxpayer time for the Grand Olde Patriarchy.

At this point, it's futile to suggest a "fix" to the system since it's fatally flawed and dangerously skewed for at least the next few years; so instead, let's do a bit of educated speculation on just what's coming out of this mess.

1. Judicial nominees held up in the Senate for resemblance of Judge Dread of Jamaican lore will be passed in a jiffy.

2. Homeland "security," meaning securing control over the Motherland, legislation that will allow spooky surveillance of the population (think KGB, Stasi, etc.) and suspension of certain rights for however long the war lasts (i.e. forever).

3. War on whomever we damn well please. Well, at least some things never change.

And most frightening, while different parties rarely investigate truly criminal presidential activities, (Think Bush's executive privilege. Wait, who used that first again? Hint: Think "Dick" and "crook," and no it wasn't Clinton.), if you think they'll investigate their own party, you're probably subverting the War on Drugs right now.