1962 saw the publication of Michael Harrington's insightful study, The Other America, which vividly described the harried lives of America's poor. This week two polls were released that portrayed another vision of desperation in America, one that progressives are still struggling to understand. Both surveys focused on the voting group termed "faith voters," roughly one-third of the electorate. Faith voters believe that "moral values" is a big issue, in many instances the one issue that decides their vote.

When Democrats gathered in Washington to hear Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, Howard Dean, give a status report on his first two months in office, they were shown the results of a new poll conducted by Cornell Belcher. This, and a similar Mellman Group survey funded by the powerful EMILY's List political action committee, indicated that the class distinctions that historically distinguished Republicans from Democrats are being replaced by cultural differences. Once it was accurate to characterize the GOP as the party of the upper class and the bourgeoisie, and Democrats as the party of the lower class and the struggling middle class. The two polls indicate that now it is more precise to describe Republican voters as those who care a lot about moral values and go to church often; in contrast, Democratic voters aren't as concerned about moral values and attend church infrequently, if ever.

Taken in conjunction with the results of the 2004 presidential election, these polls clarify the nature of the Democrats' numbers problem. Historically, no matter how good the economy might be, there were always more American poor than rich, and therefore, Democrats always had a numerical superiority over Republicans; in any given election, if Democrats could manage to get out the vote, they would win. Now that familiar formula has changed. Many poor voters are faith voters and the issue of moral values trumps their economic concerns.

According to the Belcher survey, faith voters are worried about issues such as the economy and the deteriorating situation in Iraq, but their number one anxiety is moral values. In the last election, they believed George W. Bush shared their concern, and this proved to be a decisive factor in determining their vote.

Most progressives regard this behavior as perplexing, if not self-destructive. In his recent best-seller, What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, Thomas Frank depicted faith voters as rubes who foolishly vote against their own self interest because they are, in effect, blinded by the light of their Christian practice.

DNC chair Howard Dean appeared to have a deeper understanding of this cultural divide. He pointed out that while the American economy is struggling, many Democratic partisans are not unduly anxious about economic issues. In contrast, faith voters -- Dean characterized them as "backlash Republicans" or "Reagan Democrats" -- are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Typically both the husband and wife work to make ends meet; often they have more than one job. The family is under extreme economic pressure. They see themselves on the edge of homelessness, a couple of missed paychecks or one serious illness away from losing everything they have. But what the parents are most worried about are their kids.

Dean continued that faith voters typically spend so much time at work that they don't have the opportunity, or the money, to provide their children with adequate supervision. As a result, the parents are obsessed with the notion that television, other kids, or lefty teachers will corrupt their sons and daughters. Driving to and from work faith voters constantly hear conservative commentators rail against the liberal "media elite," whom they accuse of advocating various forms of immorality: drug use, free love, abortion on demand, and so forth. Because they live in this environment of fear, faith voters accept wild accusations as the gospel; for example, that the National Educational Association has an agenda to teach homosexuality as a lifestyle "choice."

Howard Dean observed that many Democrats are too quick to dismiss the behavior of faith voters. He noted that this group truly believes that a liberal Democratic elite is corrupting America. Dean's analysis was that in the last election, faith voters trusted George W. Bush to do the right thing to stem the tide of immorality; they accepted Bush's campaign rhetoric, "The Democrats don't respect you. They don't understand your problems because they are the elite. But I do respect you. ... I'm just a regular guy."

The DNC chair commented that the typical Democratic response to the fears of faith voters has been to offer them programs: health care, child care, and the like. For various reasons this hasn't worked. Dean remarked that the Belcher poll showed that 54 percent of the voter sample believed that "a decline in our moral values" was a bigger obstacle to raising strong families than were jobs, health care, and quality education.

Howard Dean concluded by arguing that if Democrats are to regain preeminence in American politics, they must understand the desperation that is an everyday burden of that other America.

Before launching the war in Iraq the Bush Administration was, to say the least, circumspect about the projected cost. After the bombs began to fall they announced that our initial tab would be $75 billion. But these expenditures are just the first installment; they do not include reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure or that illusory concept, nation-building. Thus the billion-dollar question remains how much will George and Donald's big adventure cost us?

In December, Yale economist William Nordhaus, writing in The New York Review of Books, described an analytical framework for calculating the cost of this war. Nordhaus considered two general categories of costs: direct military spending such as the salaries of troops and the costs of their weapons, and follow-on costs. In the latter category he included "occupation and peacekeeping", "reconstruction and nation-building", "humanitarian assistance", "impact on the oil markets", and a catch all category "macroeconomic impact" -- that is, what impact a scenario would have on the U.S. economy in general (for example, a protracted war could possibly trigger a recession).

The Yale economist used his framework to prepare a low-end war-cost estimate of $121 billion and a high-end estimate of $1.595 trillion. Each extreme was the result of a specific scenario: the low estimate assumed a short war with no complications, whereas $1.6 trillion would be the result of a protracted war with many complications.

Mercifully, it appears that major combat in Iraq has ended after roughly six weeks. Thus, the Nordhaus' more favorable estimates are the ones that should be considered first -- those that put the cost of the war in the $121 billion range. Nordhaus comes up with an estimate of $50 billion for the direct military expenditures associated with a short war, which should be accurate if there are no unanticipated military "problems" -- such as an invasion of Syria or an extended Intifada-type campaign which ties of tens of thousands of troops.

Nordhaus estimates the total cost of the occupation as $75 to $500 billion over ten years. Since it appears only United States and British forces will be involved in peacekeeping, the true cost to the United States is likely to be in the mid-range -- $30 billion per year. He estimates that reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure will cost from $25 to $100 billion and the Council on Foreign Relations predicts that this will cost $20 billion per year.

As the Iraqi petroleum industry comes to life, some of the funds generated from petroleum exports could go towards reconstruction; the yearly value of these exports will be in the $15-20 billion range but it will be several years before they reach that level. Thus, in the first five years, the U.S. yearly cost for reconstruction will likely be at least $20 billion per year. (This, of course, assumes that the U.S. will actually pay for this; so far the Bush administration indicates that American taxpayers will foot his bill, as they regard Iraqi reconstruction as an opportunity to funnel money to some of their largest contributors, such as the Bechtel Corporation.)

The United Nations and international relief agencies will probably provide humanitarian assistance, so our costs here may be as low as $1 billion. Because most of Iraq's oil infrastructure is intact, Nordhaus predicts a reduction in world oil prices and, thereby, a positive benefit to the U.S. economy of $3 billion per year. With regard to "macroeconomic" effects, since this has been a short war there is unlikely to be any disruption of the economy.

The combination of all these factors results in a projected cost of $286 billion over five years (with roughly $100 billion expended in the first twelve months). These figures are consistent with other estimates. In April, UC Berkeley economics professor, and former chair of the president's council of Economic Advisors, Janet Yellen estimated that the direct costs of the war were likely to be in the "$100-150 billion range" and the total cost approximately "$500 billion over the next decade."

The Bush Administration would have us believe that $100 billion in the first year, and $286 billion over five years, is a small price to pay for the liberation of Iraq, and an indeterminate modicum of safety from terrorism. But, even for those of us jaded by annual budget deficits in the $300 billion range, these are big numbers.

For example, $100 billion is the funding required to bail out the states this year, to cover their combined revenue shortfall. $100 billion would provide health care for all the uninsured children in the United States for at least five years. President Bush has been touting his tax cut plan as a jobs program, claiming that it will create 1.4 million jobs; at $50,000 per job, $100 billion would create 2 million jobs in the first year.

The total cost of the war amounts to, in effect, an extra year of budget deficits - the 2003 deficit is expected to be $304 billion, and the shortfalls for 2004 and 2005 are projected as $307 and $208 billion respectively. $286 billion will raise the five-year cumulative deficit to approximately $1.5 trillion -- a 26% increase. This is a huge debt, one that will inevitably worsen the living conditions for the average U.S. citizen.

This deterioration will have two faces. The first is an increase in interest rates. The United States is a debtor nation -- dependent upon outsiders to support our economy. The ugly reality is that we consume more than we produce and this means that we are highly dependent upon the largesse of overseas investors.

As our national debt increases, our creditors will not be as willing to finance our debt by investing in our securities and, instead, will begin to eye competitive investments such as Euro bonds. This change will inevitably cause the Federal Reserve Board to raise interest rates -- in an effort to make our bonds more attractive. This action will further stifle the economy by making it more expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow money.

The second ugly face of our growing national debt will be to provide the Bush administration -- compassionate conservatism and all -- with a justification for a decrease in the amount of Federal expenditures on social programs such as education and health. Reduction of entitlement programs was one of the planks in Bush's platform for campaign 2000.

As the Federal debt increases, progressively larger amounts of the Federal budget will have to be devoted to interest payments, which will rise to more than $40 billion annually by 2008. Republicans will seize on this as an excuse to reduce Federal spending. But, of course, they won't cut the military -- which already amounts to half the discretionary spending -- they will cut the programs that serve the neediest among us.

What's the cost of the war in Iraq? In dollars it will be at least $286 billion. In terms of our economy and the welfare of our citizens it will feed the recession and will have prolonged negative impacts that all of us will feel. The Bush administration made a choice between "guns and butter;" the military got the guns and, as a result, the average citizen will have to give up "butter" for years to come.

Bob Burnett is a journalist in Berkeley. He is the former publisher of In These Times magazine.