People use the term dysfunctional a lot. They usually mean that something is so screwed up it doesn’t work any more. But it can also mean that something is so screwed up it actually functions quite well. A mixture of distraction, avoidance and downright denial usually does the trick. And that’s roughly how any sane person would regard America’s democracy right now.

The country is at war, and in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the war is clearly going badly. There is a danger that parts of Afghanistan might be lost again to the Taliban; the Iraqi military and police appear to have become infiltrated by sectarian militias and may now be as much a part of the security problem as a solution to it. The number of civilian deaths in Iraq is at an all-time high; American casualties are also up sharply again.

At home, the government’s long-term financing is in the red by more than $40 trillion; the Gulf Coast remains a twilight zone; federal spending is up another 9% in 2006; the border with Mexico is riddled with illegal immigration . . . I could go on. And yet last week all anyone in Washington could talk about or think about or write about was a Republican online sex scandal.

The scandal isn’t pretty. A closeted gay Republican, Mark Foley, sent obscene and creepy instant messages to several teens who work as messengers on Capitol Hill, while passing a law making online sexual harassment of minors a crime.

The hypocrisy is so perfect it’s almost painful. But so far no actual sex was involved and everyone was of the legal age of consent in Washington DC. As a morality tale, of course, it has its piquancy.

The base of the Grand Old Party has been fed homophobia for years now. It was partly how Karl Rove, the president’s chief aide, won Ohio and the presidency in 2004.

Now, the very homophobia he stoked is suddenly turning back on him with fury. The Christian right, led to believe that the Republicans were keeping gays out of power, now discover that their own leaders may even have turned a blind eye to gay sleaze in their own ranks.

So it’s payback time. Internal Republican polls are now showing that this scandal could cost them up to 50 seats in next month’s election, as their base is so disgusted.

If this is what decides the November 7 congressional election, it’s so funny it’s tragic. I don’t begrudge anyone a juicy sex scandal, and I’ve been blogging about it round the clock. But this election comes at a terribly critical time in the war; and Americans need to debate it front and centre. There has been enough denial in this war not to add one more layer now.

President George W Bush has two more years to govern; and he has declared that he will not pull out of Iraq. So what if the Democrats win one or both houses? What will that mean for the war and the world?

It will probably force a real choice about what to do next. It would surely be better to have that debate before the election rather than after it.

The good news is that the military on the ground in Iraq has slowly overhauled its initial ineptitude with respect to the insurgency. The New York Times reported last week that the Pentagon is about to formalise a radically new approach to Iraq, one that stands a much better chance of success than the under-manned, under-planned Rumsfeld grind of the past three years.

The plan argues for less direct force, more emphasis on public order, more public works and a gradual “clear and hold” strategy for winning over Iraq region by region, town by town. The plan acknowledges that the best intelligence doesn’t come from rounding up people and torturing them, but from winning over the local population and getting tips from them.

It’s not that complicated. But it does require many more troops to be effective. And so at some point in the next few months Americans are going to have to face a choice. They are going to have to send more troops, spend more money, and risk more lives for success; or they are going to have to cut their losses, and retreat or regroup. This is a momentous decision.

It’s also a paradoxical opportunity for Bush and John McCain, the senator for Arizona. If the president fires his dreadful defence secretary after the election and finds someone else (hawkish Democrat Joe Lieberman?), and if he presents a recalibrated plan for victory, he can then force the Democrats into a tough place. Will they be the party of “cut and run” or of “persevere and adjust”?

The anti-war Democratic base is relying upon public souring on Iraq to work to its advantage. The polls give it hope. A new one last week found that about 60% of Americans have no confidence in the Iraqi government succeeding; 54% now believe they were deliberately misled about the war in the first place.

My sense, however, is that the American people, when confronted with imminent defeat and withdrawal, may balk. If they have vented against the war in the election, they might be open to arguments about winning it afterwards.

If McCain emerges as Bush’s successor he could mount an election campaign on a plan for more troops and victory. If Hillary Clinton, the senator for New York state, is the Democratic nominee and tries to out-hawk McCain, her party will turn on her. If Al Gore, the defeated candidate in the 2000 presidential election, is the nominee and urges withdrawal from Iraq, then he might win the nomination but be vulnerable in the final campaign.

Either way you can see how a big Republican defeat next month will play a critical role in the course of the war. It could certainly empower McCain. It could split the Democrats. Or it could empower the anti-war Democrats in a congressional takeover, jolt them to cut off funding for the war, as happened in Vietnam, and force a retreat sooner than expected.

The war, in other words, is in the balance in this election. And yet the outcome may well be decided on the basis of someone’s online sex life. Excuse me, but there’s something awry here. And we may have to wait till after the election to find out how awry it really is.