By Anna Merlan
By Keegan Hamilton
By Albert Samaha
By Darwin BondGraham
By Keegan Hamilton
By Anna Merlan
By Anna Merlan
By Tessa Stuart
Stare for 30 seconds at the blue-state/red-state map of the continental United States and you might get a cold shiver, for the stark grouping of the colors looks as if we're having a second Civil War. It's not that badbut it's bad.
President Bush, he of the victorious red states, saysjust as he did four years ago upon his first victorythat he will be a uniting force. But then, how to explain why the acts of this unifier's first four years have brought us to such disunion?
Bush was asked that very question at his post-election news conference. He chose to skate away. Speaking to those Americans who had not voted for himmore than 55 million of the 115 million who cast ballotshe promised to extend an olive branch. But there was a catch. "I'll reach out," he said, "to everyone who shares our goals."
His reach extends, therefore, only to yea-sayers, not to anyone who might express reasonable dissent from a Bush policy decision.
Apparently, dissenters are blue people. They do not understand red. They do not have faith. They must be ignored, defeated, or converted.
Later in the press questioning, Bush said he now has "the will of the people at my back" and added:
"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." That didn't sound like a man who was going to offer much hospitality to the losers.
Clearly, this election offers no evidence that there'll be much reaching out nowby either side. And maybe that's the way it has to be. Maybe we'll have to endure a long, pitched political battle before we can decide what kind of nation we want to be. Comparatively speaking, we're still a young statevery powerful but lately very childlike, wanting everything but not willing to sacrifice very much to get it. We're a nation that has very little in common with the nation that emerged from World War II and has very little memory of it. Sometimes it takes a brutish and even prolonged fight for a people to find their core, their glue of union. And of course there's always the chance that they'll find the opposite.
The Republicans have no incentive to reach out now. Their majorities in both houses of Congress grew larger in this election. At the moment, they own Washingtonand want to make the condition permanent. The stunned Democrats will have to do their outreach in places other than the capital city.
They must go into all those heartland rural and suburban areas of the country to find out why so many of the working-class, churchgoing people who once were glued to the Democrats' issues have now turned awayalienated, some say, over a sense that the party that gave them Social Security and the G.I. Bill and affordable mortgages doesn't relate to them anymore on social and cultural issues like sex, marriage, and small-town virtues. There's also a contention in the Midwest and Western states that Democratic liberalism from the Northeast and the West Coast has taken on elitist tones that seem to place more importance on spotted owls than on blue-collar jobs. The relentless Republican mantra about "family values"whether sincere or nothas capitalized on this disenchantment.
Some of the Republican preachments have an ideological, radioactive glow. The Grand Old Party maneuvered successfully to put propositions banning gay marriage on many state ballots. Voters in 11 statesincluding pivotal Ohio, whose electoral votes got Bush over the topapproved the referenda. In those states, churches with socially conservative congregations were central in getting out the vote. Evangelical Christiansof whom Bush is onewere the core of this voter drive. It would appear that, contrary to long-standing political dogma, this time a larger voter turnout benefited Republicans more than Democrats.
Does anyone else find it eerie that the terrorists who want to bury America shout "God is great!" as they blow up American soldiers in Iraq, and the American president shouts "God is great!" right back at them? Obviously it depends on whose God you're talking about. In holy wars, one notices, each side says its God is the true divinity and the other side's is a false one.
Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan have been carrying on a kind of holy war for more than half a century. I have witnessed Pakistani troops praising Allah as they mowed down more secular Bengalis in East Pakistan. And I have covered Hindu extremists' attacks on Muslim citizens in India. Bestial is too nice an adjective for these slaughters.
Perhaps I digress. But I raised the holy-war analogy because there's a feel of holy-war fever in America. And I don't believe that religion should ever be kidnapped so it can be used as a rationale for war. There is no rationale for war except self-defense.
Our founding documents and their authors all spoke of God and religion, but they said these were private things, to be protected by the Constitution. No man's religion was to be forced onto those with other beliefs. America was built as a refuge from religious persecution. That's the reason for our principle of separation of church and state.