Why there's no hope for democracy

We all would like to believe in a pure, sun-speckled democracy, with responsible leaders chosen by informed voters making wise decisions to guide our nation to peace, shared prosperity and as much happiness as reality allows.
By "we all," of course, I mean "Democrats." Republicans have trouble with some aspects of that dream, notably the parts about voters being informed, prosperity being shared and happiness being desireable for the lower orders.
But let that slide. The basis of democracy is faith in the common man's ability first to gather information, then to evaluate it and cast votes for those best able to lead the nation in the way it should go.
Ronald Reagan put a serious crimp in that faith for me, and George W. Bush's re-election nearly destroyed it. Nobody in modern times, though (by which I mean, "since Trent Lott fell out of power and Larry Craig was busted for nudging with intent to waggle"), has slammed my belief in the essential wisdom and goodness of man like Mitch McConnell.
McConnell is a senator from Kentucky, in appearance and utterance a classic ignorant southern politician. He probably isn't ignorant, except of life in the bottom 95 percent, but he cultivates the country-boy image, leaning on his thick Kaintuck accent the way New England native George Bush leans on Texas.
And in his syrupy drawl, McConnell says things that, in a reasoned world, would have his constituents marching on Washington with torches and signs demanding recall (in fact there's a Web site devoted to that, www.ditchmitchky.com, which is a hopeful sign and the main reason I haven't given up on democracy completely).
prospects for his party are not looking bright.
There's good reason for that; they've dicked things up to the point that the next president, whoever it turns out to be, is almost inevitably doomed (that's a double tragedy, by the way: If Clinton or Obama wins, and is ground up by the Bush legacy, it will be cited for a generation as evidence women, Blacks and Democrats aren't able to govern).
Mitch is up to the challenge, though: Nearly the first words out of his mouth after Democrats in Congress refused to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies this week--companies that contributed massively to GOP campaigns--was that the Dems were more interested in seeing trial lawyers get rich than in seeing terrorism defeated.
Note, now--this hasn't been emphasized in the media--that the Dems did nothing to reduce enforcement of existing laws. Everything the government could do last week to apprehend terrorists, it can still do today (the president has said otherwise; he's either lying or uninformed). What they refused to do was hold telecom companies harmless for breaking the law in violating Americans' right to privacy.
If there is a God, why does he allow Mitch McConnell to exist.