Two Tickets: Two Americas

National Review Online ^ | August 11, 2012 | Stanley Kurtz

[Yardstick]

Remember just after the 2000 election when the famous red-and-blue map first appeared? It shocked us at the time, and for more reasons than one. Geographically, red counties overwhelmed the blue. Although they amounted to half the country’s population, Democrats were clearly concentrated in just a few populous urban centers and university towns, especially on the coasts. It wasn’t just the geographic predominance of red that surprised, though. It was the contrast between the map and the election that preceded it. The Bush/Gore contest hadn’t been filled with passionate arguments or open ideological divisions. The map emerged as a kind of revelation, a glimpse into the rough, polarizing currents silently flowing beneath a more placid electoral landscape.

The 2012 election reverses all that. The combination of a slashing, class-warfare-based campaign by President Obama and now Mitt Romney’s selection of the boldly conservative Paul Ryan means that we face an epic presidential contest that will openly turn on fundamental philosophical differences between red and blue America. How did we get here, and what does it mean for our future? Above all, now that our internal battle is well-and-truly out in the electoral open, will 2012 decide whether red America or blue America wins for good?

First we need to understand that our political divisions are real and growing. They are rooted not in top-down political rhetoric but in profound and lasting social and cultural differences. For a while, analysts tended to make light of our polarization, fruitlessly predicting year after year that our culture war (still raging) was just about to end. If anything, the culture wars have expanded now to include the whole of politics. It used to be that only arguments over gay marriage or abortion were stigmatized as moral abominations. Now even differences over health care reform and the deficit are super-charged with moral accusation.

Whichever way this election goes, these divisions will only deepen. Fundamentally, this is because what President Obama and the increasingly left-leaning coalition he leads actually want is impossibly far from what red America is willing to accept. Until very recently, this gulf has been hidden by Obama’s refusal to level with the American people about his goals. What the public still doesn’t understand, despite the president’s somewhat more open left-turn of late, is just how far left his second-term agenda aims to go. I’ve laid out some of it here, and Americans are simply not prepared for what is about to hit us should Obama win. So while an Obama victory would indeed allow the president to entrench some of his most controversial policies, his restless tendency to push things ever further to the left will almost certainly generate dynamic new movements of opposition.

A Romney victory won’t quiet our national conflicts either. Although a Romney victory would be taken by conservatives as proof that we are still a center-right nation, the fact is that the mainstream media and our key cultural institutions are now in the hands of an increasingly ambitious Left. The media barely hides its bias now, and they will come at a President Romney with everything they’ve got. The Obama presidency has given the Left a taste of the transformations it might achieve, and defeat will be dismissed as a merely temporary setback. Now that both sides are out in the open and fully aware of the danger to their preferred ways of life posed by the other camp, we are entering an era of struggle and division that, if anything, exceeds what we’ve lived through for the past twelve years. This isn’t the beginning of the end of our divisions. It’s only the end of the beginning.

[Yardstick]

Good one from Stanley Kurtz at NRO.

[WilliamIII]

“the mainstream media and our key cultural institutions are now in the hands of an increasingly ambitious Left. The media barely hides its bias now,”

And what’s new about that? It’s been true for as long as I can remember, and I’m not a youngster.

[Jim Robinson]

Romney is a leftist. Doesn’t even qualify as a RINO. Would fit right in as a Democrat with his leftist/progressive positions on:

Abortion
Homosexuals
Gun control
Global warming
Compulsory/mandated health insurance
Keynesian economics
Liberal judges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU&feature=player_embedded

[Dysart]

Fundamentally, this is because what President Obama and the increasingly left-leaning coalition he leads actually want is impossibly far from what red America is willing to accept.

It's unacceptable to us, or most of us anyway, because we must pay for what Obama and the left want.

[sten]

1976:

1980:

1984:

1988:

1992:

1996:

2000:

2004:

2008:

notice that the dems, whose ideology is socialist, were associated with the color 'red' until as recently as the 2000 election

obviously, they wanted to create some distance between the socialist red color and their public image

[Jack Black]

"Now that both sides are out in the open and fully aware of the danger to their preferred ways of life posed by the other camp, we are entering an era of struggle and division that, if anything, exceeds what we’ve lived through for the past twelve years. This isn’t the beginning of the end of our divisions. It’s only the end of the beginning."

CWII Ping because this article, while not explicitly citing the term, is all about conditions of utter division between the two sides.

[Jack Black]

"Now that both sides are out in the open and fully aware of the danger to their preferred ways of life posed by the other camp, we are entering an era of struggle and division that, if anything, exceeds what we’ve lived through for the past twelve years. This isn’t the beginning of the end of our divisions. It’s only the end of the beginning."

CWII Ping because this article, while not explicitly citing the term, is all about conditions of utter division between the two sides.

[SamAdams76]

Look at that 1988 shellacking of Mike Dukakis. George Bush (Sr.) inherited the legacy of Ronald Reagan and he blew it, yielding the White House to Clinton four years later. Country has never been the same since.

Imagine if Reagan had picked a conservative VP to inherit his legacy and not settled for the milquetoast Bush in order to pacify the party moderates.

[Jack Black]

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think in the past different news organizations used different colors, and some alternated between election cycles.

What happened was USA today in the year 2000, probably using technology that wasn't available earlier, made the famous map of RED COUNTIES vs. BLUE COUNTIES (not states) and printed it as the centerfold of their paper. It was just made for pulling out and sticking on the wall with a few push pins, and I'm sure it went up in newsrooms and editoral desks all over the country.

Since then the Red / Blue thing has been locked in.

I love blue, but I hate the idea of abandoning red, the color, to the commies. Consider the reconquest of Red as the first of many battles that the right is going to win in the coming decades!

Here it is from their web site.

[what's up]

A Romney victory won’t quiet our national conflicts either. Although a Romney victory would be taken by conservatives as proof that we are still a center-right nation, the fact is that the mainstream media and our key cultural institutions are now in the hands of an increasingly ambitious Left

Not so sure about this.

If Romney wins with a GOP Congress and passes enough stimulative legislation in the first 100 days (and by "stimulative" I mean REAL stimulation like a reversal of Obacacare and enactment of Ryancare, reversal of Dodd-Frank, and tax reform) those who truly are clueless about what's going on (including some Democrat voters) are going to see very dramatic changes in the economy.

The "increasingly ambitious left" Kurtz mentions above are going to see their influence wane even more among these citizens who will become convinced that the conservatives were right about the economy. Thus, even though these moonbats might be increasingly ambitious, they will lose even more of their power. Conservatives will take more of a stake in institutions. The far left's current screams are those who are terrified of LOSING power, not GAINING it.

[DuncanWaring]

Two tickets, two Americas, two pings.

Cool!

[Arm_Bears]

So if the Muzzies detonate suitcase nukes in a few large urban areas (Boston, NYC, Chicago, and LA come to mind immediately), the grip of the DemocRAT Party on America will be broken?

Sounds like a small price to pay.

[Chode]

i do believe the Republicans were always blue/true blue because the Republican Union Army was BLUE so the RATS were stuck with with red or white and they HATED Red on a self loathing RED Communist basis... so with the help of the L$M fifth column they glommed onto blue at their first chance

[Noumenon]

Throw in San Francisco and you’ve got a deal.

[5th MEB]

Make sure you add San Francisco and Sacramento to that list.

[sten]

wow, that’s a lot of weak sauce you’re slopping around

the color red has been the symbolic color for socialism since before WW2.

the progressives went into hiding due to their close ideological relationship with the commies, socialists, and nazis. when they came back in the early 60s, they had a PR problem... they wanted to insure they wouldn’t be associated with the nazis, as the image, although accurate, doesn’t play well for them.

soooo.... they started to immediately try to associated nazis with republicans and conservatives. people that are pro small govt are being associated with totalitarian fascists bent on big govt practices.

that gave them 2 benefits... the first being to distance themselves from the bad imagery and the second being able to vilify their political and ideological enemies.

red ... color of socialism, fascists, commies, and progressives.

it’s also the color of all the blood their hell bent ideology sheds ‘for the common good’

[Lurker]

Jim my friend whether you like it or not, one of these men will be President come January 2013. That’s a fact barring some miracle.

Now you’re free to do whatever you wish with your vote. That’s your right. Just realize that every single vote withheld from the Romney/Ryan ticket is one less vote that Obama has to overcome. If you’re ok with that then by all means don’t vote the top of the ticket. It’s not like it matters in California anyway.

But Freepers in swing states where it’s close need to think about whether or not they want to take personal responsibility for handing Florida, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina’s electoral college votes over to David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett. Maybe you can live with that. I know I can’t.

As for me, well I don’t care if Romney is a Mormon. At this point I wouldn’t care if he was a Taoist, Buddhist, Zorastoran, or if he worshipped Cthulu. As Steyn put it, this is the last exit for America and I’m not willing to help Obama, Harry Reid, and Pelosi jam their collective foot on the accelerator.

I know you disagree. I also know that this if your house. If this causes me to be unwelcome here all you have to do is say so. There will be no need to Zot me.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, my vote here in liberal California will not make any difference in the presidential race and I definitely don’t want a pro-abortion, pro-homo, pro-statist vote on my conscience. I’ll vote for a pro-life, pro-family, pro-small government conservative. Thank you very much.

[Little Ray]

Doesn't work that way. “Red” was for the challenger. “Blue” was for the incumbent. That only changed during the Clinton's second election when “Red state” became synonymous with “Republican.”

[Jay Redhawk]

I agree with the premise of the article because we do have two Americas. Leftists are not my fellow countrymen, they are not my friends, and I do not care to live beside them. Something needs to give and it ain’t gonna be me.