Replies

William Schneider's Sunday opinion article this morning contends the divisions that were revealed on Nov. 7, 2000 seem likely to endure. Red and Blue America are divided not by policy or by politics, but by values. Both Americas are affluent, sophisticated, and engaged. Where the twain will never meet is on their outlook on matters of right and wrong. The conviction of of one side that America is blessed by God and His grace is equally opposed by the other side that thinks America is pluralistic and a big tent accomodating every belief and lifestyle choice under the sun. For Schneider its more a state of mind than a reflection of geography and is likely to be with us for a long time. So much so that not even the war will reverse it. Indeed he goes on to stress a war on Iraq may even heighten the divisions. Did Sept. 11th really bring the country together? No doubt emotionally for awhile it did; there is no evidence that it brought people together on their values. Thus Red and Blue America are destined to keep talking past each other.

I'm not optimistic that this will change. In fact I see the polarization gulf widening between those with vs those without a moral foundation. It seems that all politics eventually boils down to that.

The very sad part is that the damage already done, would take several generations to undo by conventional means even if we got a health start today.

I don't think this country has the ability to wait for the pendulum swing the other way.

Have long felt that the next civil war would be neighbor to neighbor in a patchwork of values clusters--unless the string pullers behind the scenes contain it with enough fear fostered "safety" measures.

I still also contend that folk carefully, respectfully, wisely lobbying 2-4 people close to them who would otherwise vote insanely is one of the best strategies. Prayerfully identify those in your network who persistently vote insanely BUT WHO ARE RATIONAL ENOUGH AND CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIDDLE TO BE PERSUADED--AND GO TO WORK ON THEM!!! NOVEMBER IS NOT THAT FAR AWAY!

Checking out the main article I found that Schneider has not changed his habit of making sweeping pronouncements based on little or no evidence. The most specific statement about Blue State strength he makes is that California is getting Bluer, which implies that California is getting more Democrat. He offers two items in support of this.

One is that the recent redistricting will increase Democrat strength, which is true IF CALIFORNIA VOTES THE SAME WAY IT DID IN 2000!! If it does not, if it votes the way it did in 1994, then Democrat LOSSES will be maximized. That is because to maximize party strength in redistricting you try to assemble the largest possible number of districts which are moderately strong for your party. Districts which are too strongly for your party only run up the margin in those districts, and do not win more districts. The problem is that if there is a large switch in the popular vote, as in 1994, those moderately strong Democrat districts become GOP by a slim majority.

In any case this argument only refers to people elected to office, NOT support for the parties by the people.

The other item that he uses to demonstrate that California is getting Bluer is the victory by Bill Simon in the gubernatorial primary election!!! He says, that the President supported Riordan, which is likely true, and that Simon's win shows Bush is weak in California, with the implication that support for Bush in intraparty fights is the way you measure Red zone strength in a state.

The problem with this is that Simon supporters are much more certain Bush supporters than Riordan supporters are (especially in Riordan's family -- LOL)! In this way I would argue that Bush's defeat in the primary is a demonstration of his strength in the general election.

In conclusion, it is obvious that, whether or not his assertion is true, Schneider has not offerred any evidence which will hold up.

Before anyone believes anything Bill Schneider writes is objective, one must recall that he was a Democratic Party operative before he began his career at CNN. His article is essentially full of holes.

He says that the war hasn't changed anything, that the country is still deeply divided 50-50. Well then, how come polls matching up a Gore-Bush election *today* come out to be more like 60-40 or better for Bush?

He then says that Americans are deeply divided about extending the war on terrorism to Iraq. Does anyone think that President Bush will simply send tens of thousands of ground troops into Iraq without laying out a predicate for the American people? When the President makes it clear *why* a regime change in Iraq is essential for our country's safety, the polls will no longer be 50-50.

Schneider, the democratic party operative in CNN's "objective" clothing, writes nothing more than a testament to how one can "lie with statistics."

By 2000, it was even more true that religiosity defined politics.

What rot. There are just as many grass roots Democrats that are religeous and attend church as there are Republicans.

This board is full of conservatives, like myself, who care little for organized religion. I haven't been inside a church for anything but weddings and funerals since 1960, yet I've never pulled the lever for a Dem and can not think of any circumstance in which I would.

>>>>Red and Blue America are divided not by policy or by politics, but by values.<<<<

Political correctness as a value is the key to a red shift. If leftist psuedo values are viewed as a source of problems rather than as a solution to problems, many women will produce the red shift.

There is a body of women who have abandoned eons of human experience for the leftist line and greener pastures. The election of 2000 indicates that if only a few of these women revert to the truths of human experience, ie conservative values, the red shift will take place.

Part of the stalemate is due I believe to redistricting. By gerrymandering the house districts to provide as many safe districts for each party, the result over time is a majority of safe districts for each party.

Having said this please understand I am personally very conservative, however, the Dems who win most Democrat districts are extremely liberal.

I wonder what it would be like if more House districts were in play each election. There are very few competitive elections in the House each cycle. Just a thought.