A Nation Divided? Don't Believe It

The Toronto Star ^ | November 5, 2004 | Niall Ferguson

[quidnunc]

Yes, the race was bitter, but let's not mistake American voter activism for intractable discord

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-

[Clive]

-

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

It doesn't look too divided to me!

This is correct.

Even California, New York and Illinois are mostly conservative, Republican and Red. The entire nation is not divided. It is nearly unanimous from a land mass standpoint. The densely populated, cockroach infested inner cities and the weight they carry in votes gives the false impression "the nation is divided".

What is divided is the brains of the extremists in the Blue states.

This is why the Electoral College must not be messed with.

[Nov3]

I am making that my tagline

[teletech]

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.

All of which is why President Bush should waste no time in implementing the changes he desires. He has a much stronger Republican majority in both the House and Senate and he has a total popular vote mandate. Action MUST follow ASAP!

[NorthOf45]

I agree lawgirl. Our MSM here in Canada was enthralled because they are left leaning and were hoping for a Kerry win. Things didn't quite go their way and the average viewer paid for it with US Election Oerload. Yes, I was interested in what was going on in the States. However, it shouldn't trump what was happening up here.

[headsonpikes]

There is also some retreat on the fetish of multiculturalism lately in the Establishment media.

We're not dead yet! ;^)

[Chieftain]

"I'm conceding because the nation is just too divided." --John F. Kerry's words to President Bush in his concession phone call

"This is the best election night in history." --Democrat National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, 2 November 2004, just before 8pm EST

Are these really actual quotes? If so, they are even more deluded than I thought. If Kerry said that to Bush, I think it's time for Bush to come out and make a statement that the reason the nation is divided so, started with Kerry/Fonda more than 33 years ago! Bush should say "America has spoken and rejected the politics of division championed by Senator for the past 3 decades. America has shown it's love for conservative values and the rejection of LIBERALISM".

I would contribute money to someone that could take McAwful's statement and make it into a TV commercial and shown across the country!

[Iwo Jima]

I think that we are a divided nation, but it is not 50-50, it's more liked 80-20 or 67-33. However, the minority has its people strategically placed in positions of power and influence. They are far more likely to earn their living in some way that furthers their political goals. The majority just works for a living and raises families and pays occasional attention to politics.

There are two Americas - it's just not split along the lines that Edwards said.

[x]

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.

That's true. A lot of the vote has more to do with group loyalties than with ideological committment. If a particularly explosive issue or situation develops those loyalties may become embittered, fierce, or vicious -- and for some activists they already are -- but it would be alarmist to think that the guy from Oklahoma who votes GOP and the gal from Rhode Island who goes with the Democrats, because it's what people do where they live, are going to start shooting at each other any time soon.

The "every sentence it's own paragraph" style must come from the editor. I doubt it's what Niall learned at Oxford or Harvard -- unless he's "writing down" for a popular audience.

[NorthOf45]

If you take our own media's word for it, all of us hate President Bush. Maybe the people of our allies and foes in Europe aren't really being portrayed fairly either.

Precisely! Canadian citizens, for the most part, do not have a hate-on for the US, even if they have a dislike of Bush. What most Americans see is the left-leaning media from up here that is broadcast wherever it can be. Let's face it, the libs like to be heard.

[MohawkDrums]

We are in agreement; he must move fast. And be on the lookout for meaningless efforts intended to secure Bush's legacy and place in history -- that's usually code for moderation and crowd-pleasing gestures. I will be worried if I see proposals that smack of liberal spending and entitlement,
aimed at getting the approval of the MSM and DemocRATS.

[Bigg Red]

Why does Terry McAuliffe still have a job?

&&
Maybe he knows where the bodies are buried. After all, he has gotten some sweet deals through the Clintons.

[Slings and Arrows]

Good answer. Or Hillary does, anyway, and she wants her lapdog at the chair of the DNC.

OK, maybe my tinfoil hat needs reblocking, but that's a possible explanation: HRC is using the DNC to sabotage any rivals for the 2008 presidential nod. OTOH, that may be attributing to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity...