An Election Post Mortem – The Divided America

 by Steven D. Laib  

| View comments |  Print This Post

The post-election period will demonstrate whether the Democratic Party has learned anything from its resounding defeat November 2.

It is time to say that it is all over but the celebration of the inauguration next January.  In his concession speech candidate John Kerry quite possibly showed the first traces of class from his campaign all year by placing emphasis on healing the nation's apparent divide.  Whether he is serious remains to be seen.  We know that the Democratic Party has been a major architect of division for the last 4 or so years, with the reaction to Mr. Bush’s election in 2000 perhaps showing the way most clearly.  We now must watch carefully, and be prepared for more divisiveness, depending on the direction the Democratic Party functionaries take.  The question is whether they have learned anything and decided to give up whining. 

Meanwhile, the subject of the divided nation has taken center stage with some analysts.  The Democratic Party and others of similar mind have long played on the supposed divide between the “haves and have-nots.”  This plays very well to a socialist-minded audience, or those bent on reaping benefits through government programs with nary a care for who pays the bill. In fact, this is Democrat folklore.  Social and economic mobility, combined with the availability of quality education make it so.  Any real divide has to be based on other criteria. 

A few clues to the real divide may be found in the county-by-county voting map published by USA Today.  This map and accompanying data show that geographically speaking Mr. Bush was a huge winner, prevailing in approximately 81 percent of the total land area.  Kerry’s winnings were mostly in the large cities as opposed to Bush’s more rural based strength.  The one major exception, to be expected, was Houston, Texas.  What this clearly illustrates is that one clear division exists between America’s urban and rural populations. 

The simple fact is that America’s heartland is what carried the election for Mr. Bush.  The stronghold of American values, the family, religious faith, the work ethic and support for the military tradition was where he was strongest.  Not surprisingly, in California Kerry’s support came from along the coast; particularly Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area, but the central valley, and the rural parts of California were almost totally Bush country.  This pattern of behavior continues across virtually the entire map. 

What the Democratic Party should understand is that Bush won by sticking more closely to classic American traditions and values.  Kerry, who had significant backing from major media, the Hollywood and entertainment crowd, and the ivory tower intellectuals could easily win those areas where they have a strong following, but he could not win where God, Family and Country reign supreme.  The attempts to blacken the President over his experience with the Air National Guard, and the supposedly missing explosives in Iraq went over like the proverbial lead balloon where people trust their instincts and experiences.  The Swift Boat Veterans probably also played an important role in portraying Kerry’s Vietnam War record as a sham, which it probably was. 

So where does this leave us.  Certainly with the understanding that the majority of American voters are more likely to go right than left when they enter the polling places.  Next, we may also see that the values that made America strong and successful are still evident across most of the nation. Finally, with the absence of the liberal youth vote, which failed to be sufficiently motivated by celebrities spouting such nonsense as “vote or die,” cannot be counted on, at least so far, to make the difference for the Democratic Party. 

In fact, the portion of American youth that votes is probably more likely to vote conservative.  Many young folks may lean left and would vote that way if they took the time to do so.  However, conservative youth are more likely to take voting seriously, as they do many other things in everyday life.  Their grounding in the family and old-fashioned hard work pushes them in that direction, the same as it does toward military service, and patriotic ideals.  The community, including active church membership, also encourages this.  On the other hand, MTV parties and celebrity worship detracts from the ability of youth to take life seriously.  Instead of looking at where they want to be in 30 years, or what impact today’s vote will have on their children, the MTV generation sees little farther than the next bit of gossip, fashion news, or other largely irrelevant item of short term interest.  Because all that they care about is spoonfed to them, they don’t learn how to think, analyze and understand.  They let others think for them, instead. 

The best part of all this is that while we can be saddened by the lack of functioning brains on the left, at least we know that the things that made America great are still alive and well out there, and may well be getting stronger.  It is now over half a century since so many lives were sacrificed to protect the world the militarist authoritarians in WWII.  It is about time for most of those who succeeded the WWII generation and didn’t understand what it was all about to grow old, grow up, or simply get out of the way.  A new generation of Americans who once again can and will do what is right for themselves and their nation may be appearing to take their place.

Elections & Political Parties

Read more articles by Steven D. Laib