Two Nations Under God

[Nbadan]

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: November 4, 2004

Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my health. ...

I often begin writing columns by interviewing myself. I did that yesterday, asking myself this: Why didn't I feel totally depressed after George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis, or even when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore? Why did I wake up feeling deeply troubled yesterday?

Answer: whatever differences I felt with the elder Bush were over what was the right policy. There was much he ultimately did that I ended up admiring. And when George W. Bush was elected four years ago on a platform of compassionate conservatism, after running from the middle, I assumed the same would be true with him. (Wrong.) But what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at another level, without warning, it actually became about everything. Partly that happened because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake, and partly because Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we were rewriting the Cons ution, not electing a president. I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Cons utional Convention broke out.

The election results reaffirmed that. Despite an utterly incompetent war performance in Iraq and a stagnant economy, Mr. Bush held onto the same basic core of states that he won four years ago - as if nothing had happened. It seemed as if people were not voting on his performance. It seemed as if they were voting for what team they were on.

This was not an election. This was station identification. I'd bet anything that if the election ballots hadn't had the names Bush and Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact same way.

My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith. It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad. I respect that moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for different ends.

"The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and spiritual sources of American politics," noted the Harvard University political theorist Michael J. Sandel. "They will not recover as a party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual yearnings - but turn them to progressive purposes in domestic policy and foreign affairs."

I've always had a simple motto when it comes to politics: Never put yourself in a position where your party wins only if your country fails. This column will absolutely not be rooting for George Bush to fail so Democrats can make a comeback. If the Democrats make a comeback, it must not be by default, because the country has lapsed into a total mess, but because they have nominated a candidate who can win with a positive message that connects with America's heartland.

Meanwhile, there is a lot of talk that Mr. Bush has a mandate for his far right policies. Yes, he does have a mandate, but he also has a date - a date with history. If Mr. Bush can salvage the war in Iraq, forge a solution for dealing with our en lements crisis - which can be done only with a bipartisan approach and a more sane fiscal policy - upgrade America's compe iveness, prevent Iran from going nuclear and produce a solution for our energy crunch, history will say that he used his mandate to lead to great effect. If he pushes for still more tax cuts and fails to solve our real problems, his date with history will be a very unpleasant one - no matter what mandate he has.

NY Times

John Kerry conceded close losses in Florida and Ohio he should have legitimately and legally challenged and he did it for the good of the nation. I wonder if the situation was reversed if W would have done the same given the effort the Bush campaign has used to divide people along religious, ethnic, and income lines?

It's time for average people to realize that the Democratic Party is the party of the people for the people, not the group of elitest that they all too often are portrayed to be by rightwing pundits who could honestly care less about average Joes. One thing is certain, without a clear plan to reduce the current deficit, bring run-amok spending under control, or pay off any of the debt, it is en lements like Social Security that are going to be targeted next by the right-wing chopping block, and it is the Democrats who will be there to help fight to protect Americans investment into the system.

[whottt]

John Kerry conceded close losses in Florida and Ohio he should have legitimately and legally challenged and he did it for the good of the nation. I wonder if the situation was reversed if W would have done the same given the effort the Bush campaign has used to divide people along religious, ethnic, and income lines?

Why wouldn't he have? The Republicans generally have taken the high road in these situations. And the Republicans weren't the dividers in this election. They appealed for popular support...the Democrats drove that wedge in America because they wanted their guy elected.

It's time for average people to realize that the Democratic Party is the party of the people for the people, not the group of elitest that they all too often are portrayed to be by rightwing pundits who could honestly care less about average Joes.

This is complete and total horse . If I had a dollar for every liberal that decried the human loss of the Iraq war...yet when pressed it was ultimately revealed they just wanted to leave the Iraqis to the fate they were born too...I'd be a rich man.

One thing is certain, without a clear plan to reduce the current deficit, bring run-amok spending under control, or pay off any of the debt, it is en lements like Social Security that are going to be targeted next by the right-wing chopping block, and it is the Democrats who will be there to help fight to protect Americans investment into the system.

Whatever, it is a failing plan anyway...I thought Democrats were supposed to be progressive? They aren't on this issue.

Other than that it sounds like sour grapes and a guy feeling sorry for himself because his vision of America isn't the majority view. Deal with it. It's the American way and his stating that he was going to be rooting for this administration to fail pretty much destroys any claim he has to being a legitimate journalist or a true American.

If Kerry had won I'd be rooting for him to suceed in his plans to win the war and rebuld the alliances...because what is the point of rooting against him?

I'd have given him a fair shot...if you want proof of this...I hated Bush in 2000.

And I think the Democrats are totally missing the point on the religious and moral issues...regardless of what the polls say...the bottom line is that people trusted Bush and the Republicans to lead this country in a war time environment...they don't trust the Democrats...and their selection of an anti-war hero as their candidate, and their totally embracing a head like Michael Moore, pretty much justified that lack of trust.

[Nbadan]

Why wouldn't he have? The Republicans generally have taken the high road in these situations. And the Republicans weren't the dividers in this election. They appealed for popular support...the Democrats drove that wedge in America because they wanted their guy elected.

If you examine the final data more thoroughly, It is abundantly clear the it is the Democrats who appealed to a greater majority of Americans as a whole. The very poor, the middle-class, those with limited education, those with doctorate degrees, hispanics, African-Americans, Asians and Jews all went over-whelmingly democratic.

W won because the Republican party was able to mobilize its predominantly white, christian base - hardly a margin made up of 'wide public support'.

[whottt]

So basically what you are saying...the Democratic Party is going to continue to alienate moderates and become the party of the fringe. Sounds like it's going to be another long 4 years for you guys. I predict within 12 years the Libertarian Party will surpass the Democratic party in popularity if the Democrats don't start to get it.

[Nbadan]

And I think the Democrats are totally missing the point on the religious and moral issues...regardless of what the polls say...the bottom line is that people trusted Bush and the Republicans to lead this country in a war time environment...they don't trust the Democrats...and their selection of an anti-war hero as their candidate, and their totally embracing a head like Michael Moore, pretty much justified that lack of trust.

But yet embracing phychos like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are OK? There is a special place in waiting for these two muther- ers, but I will let their god deal with them. They're time will come soon enough. One thing is certain, good always eventually triumphs over evil, and despite their cheating in 2000 and now in 2004, the Republican party and the Neocons will get what they have coming. For now, being a Democrat is not to bad cause we get to sit back, watch the show and laugh (or cry) or heads off at what is sure to become a great show in the next four years.

[whottt]

But yet embracing phychos like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are OK? There is a special place in waiting for these two muther- ers, but I will let their god deal with them.

You know what? You are exactly right about Hannity and Limbaugh...but what you fail to see is that the Democratic Party in general is now further to the left than those guys are to the right. Don't tell me it's in my ing head either...We've had a big huge dose of Michael Moore...he has done more damage to the Democrats than any Republican ever could have.

And you know I am not the only one who saw this coming...

Jean Luc Goddard could read Moore like a book and knew that film was going to do more harm to the left than good. He was speaking from the voice of experience, not jealousy.



I speak as someone who switched. If this were not a war environment...with a legitimate threat...the environment would normally be my #1 concern. And yet I am voting for Bush, probably the least environmentally concerned president in American history...because of how extreme the Democratic Party has become.

The left didn't just sink to the level of Hannity and Limbaugh...they sunk lower. If you want a look at total incompetence I suggest you look at the manueverings of the Democratic Party the past few years. If the crats supported any legitimate war time candidate, and focused on being in touch with the American people instead of just bashing the living out of Bush...Bush would have probably lost this election.

Instead you attacked what did not need to be attacked...you guys became the mean and vicious bully.

Hopefully you'll figure it out...because in the future I'd like to have better choices than we have had in the past 2 Presidential elections.

[travis2]

The current Democratic Party is exactly what George Orwell wrote about in "1984". Good is bad, black is white. Disagreeing with a Democrat is the current "Thoughtcrime".

[Useruser666]

This column will absolutely not be rooting for George Bush to fail so Democrats can make a comeback. If the Democrats make a comeback, it must not be by default, because the country has lapsed into a total mess, but because they have nominated a candidate who can win with a positive message that connects with America's heartland.

I don't think all Democrats think like you. Atleast I hope not. You would rather the US crumble and fall just so your candidate can look like a savior and win an election? That is the most unpatriotic thing I have ever heard. Dan, I hope you don't truly believe this. If Bush fails how would that be good for the country? If you believe that then you need to check your reasoning. Don't let your contempt for one person alter what once may have been a noble cause. Don't be a traitor.

[spurster]

uu666, you misread that.

One thing in this column, I absolutely agree with is:

If Mr. Bush can salvage the war in Iraq, forge a solution for dealing with our en lements crisis - which can be done only with a bipartisan approach and a more sane fiscal policy - upgrade America's compe iveness, prevent Iran from going nuclear and produce a solution for our energy crunch, history will say that he used his mandate to lead to great effect. If he pushes for still more tax cuts and fails to solve our real problems, his date with history will be a very unpleasant one - no matter what mandate he has.

[Useruser666]

uu666, you misread that.

One thing in this column, I absolutely agree with is:

Sorry, I need to stop speed reading. I assumed that was the point of that paragraph from my own experiences of late. Some of the discussions here have focused on what some feel as failures of the president. I have seen it in the media to a great extent. I feel like it has gotten to the point where people would gladly see this country fail just so they may see the target of their dislike to fail. I feel that is absolutely wrong.

[Hook Dem]

But yet embracing phychos like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are OK? There is a special place in waiting for these two muther- ers, but I will let their god deal with them. They're time will come soon enough. One thing is certain, good always eventually triumphs over evil, and despite their cheating in 2000 and now in 2004, the Republican party and the Neocons will get what they have coming. For now, being a Democrat is not to bad cause we get to sit back, watch the show and laugh (or cry) or heads off at what is sure to become a great show in the next four years.

You are setting the stage for another 4 years of "hatred". This is sure to crumble your party even farther. It's too bad you can't see that. Decade by decade I have watched the Democratic party sink further to the left and leave "moral" America in the rear view mirror. Why don't you help your party reach out to all Americans...not just the radical ones like yourself? If you don't start to see this soon, you won't have a party at all. You can come back at me and scream.."bull " all you want but sooner or later you will come to realize I'm right or perish.

[samikeyp]

I agree with Hook....Friedman would rather drag this out and further divide the country. Kerry lost, plain and simple. He fought a good fight but he came up short. He was a man about it and owned up to it, why can't Friedman?

[Spurminator]

What do you think Hannity and Rush have been talking about for the last 2 years?

If the Lunatic Fringe hadn't given Right Wing pundits so much material, they would have had to spend 3 hours a day sugar-coating everything about the Bush Administration. At some point, even their most avid dittoheads would have questioned their "everything is perfect" at ude towards the President.

Instead, all the Conservative Radio Jocks had to do was bash the Left Nuts for two hours. "Bad Guys" are great for Talk Radio. They stir up emotions, and sadly, they distract from real issues.

[Hook Dem]

What do you think Hannity and Rush have been talking about for the last 2 years?

If the Lunatic Fringe hadn't given Right Wing pundits so much material, they would have had to spend 3 hours a day sugar-coating everything about the Bush Administration. At some point, even their most avid dittoheads would have questioned their "everything is perfect" at ude towards the President.

Instead, all the Conservative Radio Jocks had to do was bash the Left Nuts for two hours. "Bad Guys" are great for Talk Radio. They stir up emotions, and sadly, they distract from real issues.

Right on Spurm. Would you please try to convey that to Dan? He's gonna sit back and continue to bash Bush for 4 more years instead of trying to fix whats wrong with his party.

[Hook Dem]

bump