Sixpipes
11-03-2004, 11:38 AM
Interesting article taken from the New York Times before the election. If you looked that the geographical map on how the states voted yesterday, there is a stunning division in this country. I am particularly happy to be living in a "red" state. :cool:
Op-Ed Columnist: The More Things Change...
October 23, 2004
By DAVID BROOKS
Why is this country still tied?
Over the past four years, we've experienced a major
terrorist attack, a recession, a dot-com shakeout, wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, corporate scandals and an active and
tumultuous presidency. We've had an influx of new citizens.
Millions have died of old age, and tens of millions have
moved to new towns and new states.
Yet the political landscape looks almost exactly the same.
We're still divided right down the middle. We're still
looking at razor-thin margins in states like Florida. If
you compare the demographic breakdowns of the Bush-Kerry
race to those of the Bush-Gore race in 2000, you find they
are quite similar. Why does everything in America change
except politics?
That is the central mystery of this election.
The only
possible conclusion is that there is some deep, tectonic
fissure that shapes the electorate, a fissure so
fundamental that it is unaffected by the enormous shocks
we've felt over the past four years. Remember, it is very
unusual to have two close presidential elections in a row.
This hasn't occurred for about 120 years.
But what explains this stable divide?
Let me first tell
you what it is not. Foreign, domestic and social policy
debates do not explain the current tie. The election of
2000 was fought on a different set of issues. Then, we were
arguing about things like lockboxes, compassionate
conservatism and how to use the surplus. Now, we're arguing
about war, terrorism and the deficit. The issues have
changed, but the political landscape has not.
Moreover, as the Stanford political scientist Morris
Fiorina has shown, Americans are not that polarized on
issues. When you ask people about policies - even abortion
- you see a big group of moderates. If issue differences
were shaping this campaign, you'd see these centrists
sloshing back and forth and breaking the tie.
But two forces do account for the stable political divide.
First,partisanship. We've just seen how passionately some
people care about the Yankees and the Red Sox. Many people
care that passionately about being a Democrat or a
Republican.
Human beings are tribal. When they find themselves in a
closely fought contest with a rival group, they become ever
more tightly bound to their tribe. They see reality in ways
that flatter the group. They nurture the resentments that
bind the group.
In this campaign the two candidates do not just describe
different policies. They describe different realities. In
short, the partisan rivalry fuels itself. Once an
electorate becomes tied, there is a built-in emotional
pressure that keeps things that way. Even people who claim
to be independents find themselves sucked into the vortex.
Second, and probably more important, we're in the middle
of a leadership war. Underneath all the disputes about
Iraq, we're having a big argument about what qualities
America should have in a leader. Republicans trust one kind
of leader, Democrats another. This is the constant that
runs through recent elections.
Republicans, from Reagan to Bush, particularly admire
leaders who are straight-talking men of faith. The
Republican leader doesn't have to be book smart, and
probably shouldn't be narcissistically introspective. But
he should have a clear, broad vision of America's
exceptional role in the world. Democrats, on the other
hand, are more apt to emphasize such leadership skills as
being knowledgeable and thoughtful. They value leaders who
can see complexities, who possess the virtues of the
well-educated.
Republicans and Democrats have different conceptions of the
presidency. Republicans admire a president who is elevated
above his executive branch colleagues. It is impossible to
imagine George W. Bush or Reagan as a cabinet secretary.
Instead, they are set apart by virtue of exceptional moral
qualities. Relying on their core values, they set broad
goals and remain resolute in times of crisis.
Democrats see the presidency as a much more ministerial
job. They admire presidents who engage in constant
deliberative conversations. Democrats from Carter through
Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry have all been
well versed in the inner workings of government. It is easy
to imagine each of them serving as a cabinet secretary.
It just so happens that America is evenly divided about
what sort of leader we need: the Republican who leads with
his soul or the Democrat who leads with his judgment. Even
the events of the past four years have not altered that
disagreement.
That's why we are still tied.
Op-Ed Columnist: The More Things Change...
October 23, 2004
By DAVID BROOKS
Why is this country still tied?
Over the past four years, we've experienced a major
terrorist attack, a recession, a dot-com shakeout, wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, corporate scandals and an active and
tumultuous presidency. We've had an influx of new citizens.
Millions have died of old age, and tens of millions have
moved to new towns and new states.
Yet the political landscape looks almost exactly the same.
We're still divided right down the middle. We're still
looking at razor-thin margins in states like Florida. If
you compare the demographic breakdowns of the Bush-Kerry
race to those of the Bush-Gore race in 2000, you find they
are quite similar. Why does everything in America change
except politics?
That is the central mystery of this election.
The only
possible conclusion is that there is some deep, tectonic
fissure that shapes the electorate, a fissure so
fundamental that it is unaffected by the enormous shocks
we've felt over the past four years. Remember, it is very
unusual to have two close presidential elections in a row.
This hasn't occurred for about 120 years.
But what explains this stable divide?
Let me first tell
you what it is not. Foreign, domestic and social policy
debates do not explain the current tie. The election of
2000 was fought on a different set of issues. Then, we were
arguing about things like lockboxes, compassionate
conservatism and how to use the surplus. Now, we're arguing
about war, terrorism and the deficit. The issues have
changed, but the political landscape has not.
Moreover, as the Stanford political scientist Morris
Fiorina has shown, Americans are not that polarized on
issues. When you ask people about policies - even abortion
- you see a big group of moderates. If issue differences
were shaping this campaign, you'd see these centrists
sloshing back and forth and breaking the tie.
But two forces do account for the stable political divide.
First,partisanship. We've just seen how passionately some
people care about the Yankees and the Red Sox. Many people
care that passionately about being a Democrat or a
Republican.
Human beings are tribal. When they find themselves in a
closely fought contest with a rival group, they become ever
more tightly bound to their tribe. They see reality in ways
that flatter the group. They nurture the resentments that
bind the group.
In this campaign the two candidates do not just describe
different policies. They describe different realities. In
short, the partisan rivalry fuels itself. Once an
electorate becomes tied, there is a built-in emotional
pressure that keeps things that way. Even people who claim
to be independents find themselves sucked into the vortex.
Second, and probably more important, we're in the middle
of a leadership war. Underneath all the disputes about
Iraq, we're having a big argument about what qualities
America should have in a leader. Republicans trust one kind
of leader, Democrats another. This is the constant that
runs through recent elections.
Republicans, from Reagan to Bush, particularly admire
leaders who are straight-talking men of faith. The
Republican leader doesn't have to be book smart, and
probably shouldn't be narcissistically introspective. But
he should have a clear, broad vision of America's
exceptional role in the world. Democrats, on the other
hand, are more apt to emphasize such leadership skills as
being knowledgeable and thoughtful. They value leaders who
can see complexities, who possess the virtues of the
well-educated.
Republicans and Democrats have different conceptions of the
presidency. Republicans admire a president who is elevated
above his executive branch colleagues. It is impossible to
imagine George W. Bush or Reagan as a cabinet secretary.
Instead, they are set apart by virtue of exceptional moral
qualities. Relying on their core values, they set broad
goals and remain resolute in times of crisis.
Democrats see the presidency as a much more ministerial
job. They admire presidents who engage in constant
deliberative conversations. Democrats from Carter through
Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry have all been
well versed in the inner workings of government. It is easy
to imagine each of them serving as a cabinet secretary.
It just so happens that America is evenly divided about
what sort of leader we need: the Republican who leads with
his soul or the Democrat who leads with his judgment. Even
the events of the past four years have not altered that
disagreement.
That's why we are still tied.