Posted on 11/05/2004 7:16:59 PM PST by quidnunc
Is the United States irreparably divided? To read some of the more excitable commentators on Tuesday's election, you would think Americans were teetering on the brink of a second Civil War.
"To the victor," thundered Time magazine this week, "goes a nation divided. A nation split over its place in the world, over its basic values, over its future direction."
On one side, so the story goes, there is the Red Republican America of the rural heartland.
On the other, there's the Blue Democratic America of the urban coasts.
So bitter has this year's presidential campaign been, we are warned, that these two Americas are further apart than at any time since World War II.
The two Americas supposedly fighting this war are brilliantly caricatured in my favourite film of the year, Team America: World police.
The trigger-happy anti-terrorist squad Team America, which inadvertently destroys the Eiffel Tower, personifies Republicans and the Egyptian pyramids as they attempt to "take down" the foes of freedom.
Democrats fare no better; they're epitomized by the bleeding-heart liberal luvvies of Hollywood's Film Actors Guild, who are duped into attending a bogus peace conference by deranged North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il.
But is this really the state of the union in America today?
-snip-
And it seemed fairly clear, as well, that the outcome would hinge on decisions by a small number of undecided voters in a small number of swing states, not to mention the substantial number of first-time voters, habitually ignored by the pollsters.
Nevertheless, the conventional wisdom that America has been rent asunder by this election strikes me as fundamentally wrong.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at thestar.com ...
So, quid, what did you come away with here? Author seems to think the state of our union is good, and that debate is healthy. Hhhmmmm....I seem to recall our American president saying such things. Oh, the Left is not gonna like that......
Courtesy of brother Bobbo down there behind enemy lines in Ft. Lauderdale, Fl.
"When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country."
--Noah Webster
"The Democrats at this point are a bi-coastal party, claiming elite, populous pockets on the two coasts, but the rest of the country isn't interested in their effete agenda. Try as they might, the
Democrats and the media can't divide the red sea that runs through much of the country." --George Neumayr
"I'm conceding because the nation is just too divided." --John F. Kerry's words to President Bush in his concession phone call Note to Senator Kerry: You conceded because you LOST.
and now the daily hehehe:
"This is the best election night in history." --Democrat National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, 2 November 2004, just before 8pm EST
Just ask yourself, if Kerry had won would we be a "divided nation"? I think not! The left is beside itself with hate and that hate will destroy whatever remains of the DemocRAT party.
I am so fascinated by all the countries that totally hate us, but keep talking about us over and over. I cannot imagine if all the papers in my country covered the election of the leaders of france, germany or england as much as they have covered ours. They hate us so much, but yet can't get enough of us. It's positively comical.
That's tagline material!
In all honesty, I think many of us would be trying desperately to get ahold of his discharge papers and planning to start impeachment proceedings.
I would really like to see the truth about his discharge even tho he lost, he's still a Senator and we need to know the truth.
So you see, all of us wouldn't be quietly sitting back reflecting on what could have been.
"This is the best election night in history." --Democrat National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, 2 November 2004, just before 8pm EST
^^
Wow! I never would have thought I would find myself agreeing with that cretin!
Do they think all Americans are some kinda rock star or something akin to it?
Course, we do live a lifestyle they can only dream of unless they are part of the truly wealthy in their country.
Why else would so many be willing to move away from family and friends to start over in the USA?
A nation divided? Don't believe it
Yes, the race was bitter, but let's not mistake American voter activism for intractable discord, says Niall Ferguson
Is the United States irreparably divided? To read some of the more excitable commentators on Tuesday's election, you would think Americans were teetering on the brink of a second Civil War.
"To the victor," thundered Time magazine this week, "goes a nation divided. A nation split over its place in the world, over its basic values, over its future direction."
On one side, so the story goes, there is the Red Republican America of the rural heartland.
On the other, there's the Blue Democratic America of the urban coasts.
So bitter has this year's presidential campaign been, we are warned, that these two Americas are further apart than at any time since World War II.
The two Americas supposedly fighting this war are brilliantly caricatured in my favourite film of the year, Team America: World police.
The trigger-happy anti-terrorist squad Team America, which inadvertently destroys the Eiffel Tower, personifies Republicans and the Egyptian pyramids as they attempt to "take down" the foes of freedom.
Democrats fare no better; they're epitomized by the bleeding-heart liberal luvvies of Hollywood's Film Actors Guild, who are duped into attending a bogus peace conference by deranged North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il.
But is this really the state of the union in America today?
It's certainly true that from March on, when John Kerry became the Democratic party's candidate, he and President George Bush were neck and neck in the polls.
It was clear for weeks before the election that Bush could count on most of the states running down the country's geographical middle from Montana to Texas and most of the South. Kerry, for his part, didn't need to worry much about the West and much of the Northeast.
And it seemed fairly clear, as well, that the outcome would hinge on decisions by a small number of undecided voters in a small number of swing states, not to mention the substantial number of first-time voters, habitually ignored by the pollsters.
Nevertheless, the conventional wisdom that America has been rent asunder by this election strikes me as fundamentally wrong.
Having spent much of the last few months on the road across the country, I am happy to report that civil war does not appear imminent.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the notorious political polarization in the United States is really nothing to worry about; it may even be something to celebrate.
What we are seeing here is a sign of democratic vitality in a land that remains fundamentally whole.
To me the most striking thing about this vast country remains not its political division, but its astonishing homogeneity.
Where else in the world could you fly 4,000 kilometres (say from Miami to Seattle) and find so little difference at the other end? Same Starbucks, same Wal-Mart, same SUVs, same people.
Yes, Americans were worked up about the election and, yes, there were some real differences between the candidates. But the things Americans have in common still greatly outweigh these differences.
For a start, there's a shared belief in democracy, hence those "Joe Schmo for School Board" signs you see everywhere — not to mention those 16 California propositions.
Americans also share a real ambivalence about American power overseas; despite appearances, this was not a contest between imperialists and anti-imperialists, because only a tiny minority of Republicans want anything other than a short-term American military presence in Iraq.
Americans are not all Christian fundamentalists, but most of them are Christians (which can no longer be said of secularized Europe). Americans were not all in favour of the war in Iraq, but they remain a remarkably patriotic people, passionately convinced that their system of government is the best in the world.
Even those red and blue electoral maps are deceptive.
You can meet Republicans in Manhattan and Democrats in Texas. And there would not be swing states if there were not near-equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats in up to 15 out of 50 states. Remember, too, that only 11 states have been won consistently by one of the two parties in the last eight presidential elections. (Yes, Jimmy Carter won Texas in 1976 and Ronald Reagan won Massachusetts in 1980). Another key point is the extent to which American political divisions are not straightforward ethnic or religious divisions — the sorts that so often lead to bitter conflicts in other countries.
Sure, evangelical Christians are more likely to support Bush. But Catholics are very evenly divided. Likewise, everyone knows that black Americans are solidly Democrat (although perhaps slightly less so than they've been in recent elections).
Four out of five were expected to vote for Kerry. But Latinos go both ways politically.
Perhaps the most important point about today's supposed polarization, however, is that no one ever seems to come to blows.
Compared with the 1980s in Britain, this isn't polarization at all — to say nothing of the many countries that went straight from elections to real civil war in the 1990s.
Rather, what happened Tuesday was simply that Americans finally attained a normal level of political engagement after decades of low turnout. Turnout was above 70 per cent in every British election between 1922 and 1997, whereas the last time it exceeded 60 per cent in America was in 1968.
On Tuesday, all over the U.S., there were reports of longer queues at polling stations than anyone could remember. There was an extraordinary upsurge of party political mobilization (a neighbour of mine flew to Arizona just to help get out the vote).
Call it polarization, if you like. But can it really be a bad thing that activism has replaced apathy?
To my mind, the most telling measure of the country's new political vigour is the extraordinary health of American political satire these days. And not just Team America.
The other night on Jon Stewart's hugely popular Daily Show, there was a Fiasco Preview, in which the deadpan Stewart told viewers: "Florida has been warned by God four times during this hurricane season not to let it happen again."
Rest assured: A nation that finds this kind of thing funny is not about to descend into internecine warfare.
I hate to give the Dims ideas, but I have to ask: Why does Terry McAuliffe still have a job?
Excellent article. Even better knowing it came from our neighbors to the north.
I would really like to see the truth about his discharge even tho he lost, he's still a Senator and we need to know the truth.
So you see, all of us wouldn't be quietly sitting back reflecting on what could have been.
Look, we suffered TWO losses, one in 1992 and the other in 1996 and I don't remember the wailing we are hearing from the DUmmies. We used the time to figure out what went wrong and we worked to fix the problem. We were constructive and NOT destructive. These folks, on the other hand, want to hurt somebody. They channel their despair much differently than we do here.
Well, I know plenty of people who thought Clinton'92 was the end of the world, but it wasn't. But a lot of this noise is positioning to block Bush's agenda. They know if they drag things out for the first couple of years,
momentum will be lost, people will start looking for the next job or the next campaign, etc. Plus there are the midterms to worry about. Watch for some of the incumbents to get squishy in a year, especially any in state that are not guaranteed. Get the tough votes out of the way in the first eight months is the best plan. Remember Clinton wasted that type on Hillary's health plan and the gays in the military thing. He never really recovered, except to steal Republican plans to reform welfare and cut the deficit.
HUH?!?!?!
If I'm not mistaken, this president received the largest popular vote in history; he was the first candidate in 16 years to garner a majority vote; and he was the first candidate since 1964 to gain seats in congress while winning the presidency.
Simply put, the country is UNITED behind this president--and the values and direction he proposed--more than any other president in recent history!
Even better than that. The Toronto Star is effectively a house organ of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Ontario. Want to know what line the liberals want projected? Read the Star for a few days and watch "The National" news cast on Mother Corp.
So this article is all the more remarkable for it coming out of Harvard and appearing in the Star.
But I caution you to also read the Sun Media papers else you can ruin your whole outlook on life.
I may be reading too much into things lately, but it looks like the former prime minister 'ti Jean has pushed his attitude too far and Martin has to work hard to restore our previous good (abeit ambivalent) relations with the US.
This could mean reprimanding the sherpas with attitudes that were given free reign to vent their attitudes under 'ti Jean and possibly means encouraging the editorial staffs of the Star and Mother Corp to start dialing back on the rhetoric.
The jury is still out on whether Martin is genuine and if so whether he can control the sherpas and leftist core that he has enherited from 'ti Jean.
Still our best bet is to work hard to elect a lot more Conservatives east of the Lakehead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.