We're Divided...So what?
One of the complaints that John Kerry made to George Bush in his concession call was that the nation was heavily divided. Implicit in that complaint was that Bush needed to do something about it, and of course, that the division was something requiring correction.
No, again, the left gets it nearly 100% wrong. Kerry's complaint is directed at a phantom problem which he and other liberals have no credibility to discuss, even if it were a "problem". In fact, it's the sign of good things happening across America, and of changes, perhaps for the better.
The idea that a close election means that our nation is somehow splitting is like arguing that a nation of dog lovers and cat lovers needs to find a compromise between pets. It's a phony concern, and the fact that half the country votes for one guy and half for the other is evidence of nothing. In fact, the "division" cited by Kerry is one of personal opinions, not one of person against person.
Such difference of opinion has been the engine of much creation in our nation's history. Our House and Senate are the result of a compromise between divided delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The existence of our national capital in Washington D.C. was the result of a compromise between northerners and southerners, and just about every bill passed by our Congress is the result of compromise between conflicting visions. Our differences moderate or exclude the extremes of thought, create workable ideas, and sharpen our minds.
However, I would like to ask the left what the alternative is that they suggest to this division? Perhaps steering people's thoughts to a more tidy and uniform point of view? But is that really a goal that we as Americans should be angling towards? Certainly, our opponents in the Cold War demanded it of their people. And certainly our opponents now in the war on terror favor a population with a singe mind and a single set of opinions.
The division we experienced in the 1860s were indeed of a critical variety, but these aren't even remotely close. No, the divisions which Senator Kerry decried are the very things that have made our nation great over the years. People will think and vote differently. That's America.
But if the Democrats are looking to attach blame for any true divisions among the American people, they need look no further than the attendees to their convention this year. Anyone ever heard of John Edwards' "Two Americas"? How about Al Sharpton's signature tactic of dividing the races, and singling out Jews as a special group to be hated? How about John Kerry's claim that Bush and Cheney were the dirtiest bunch of liars he'd ever seen, or both he and Edwards using Dick Cheney's daughter's sexuality as an effort to divide the ticket from their conservative base? How about Elizabeth Edwards saying that Lynne Cheney's defense of her daughter indicated that she was embarrassed by her? How about the star of the left and guest of honor at the convention, Michael Moore who made the fact-free film-screed Fahrenheit 9/11? How about the tired old charge that tax cuts benefit the richest X% of society and took money away from other people (who weren't really paying taxes). How about the opposition of school vouchers for inner city kids because the improvement in millions of children's education is less important than members of the teacher's union? How about efforts in 2000 to prevent absentee military votes from being counted in Florida? If there are divisions, the liberals have nobody to blame but themselves. They are the party of class warfare and pitting group against group. Division is their game, and they should be proud of the divisions they have worked.
But the results of this and the last few elections mean something greater, I think. I think we are in the process of a realignment. Note the reasons people say they came out and voted. They voted for values. Terror was indeed an issue, but people came out to "just say no" to gay marriage. And note that abortion, a formerly taboo topic, became a big issue in the debates which Bush won. And note well that Bush increased his party's holdings in Congress, and won the Senate back in the 2002 midterm elections...something a Republican president had not done since 1902. So, things may be on the move. And change is often a good thing.
These are the whimpers of a party with no soul and no vision, other than gettin' power and holding it at whatever cost. We're not divided, just different. And that's still ok.