You will never read a better article than this, I promise.

[mstrsplinter326]

Friday, November 05, 2004
(From Miami Herald columnist, Pultizer Prize winner and nationally synicated columnist Leonard Pitts)

These could be final days of a nation united.

Maybe this is where America ends.

A reader raised that notion in an e-mail to me even before this week's election. Dismayed at the fractures and fissures exposed by an acrimonious presidential campaign and despairing of ever putting this Humpty Dumpty together again, he advanced a radical thesis.

We are, he pointed out, a nation founded not on common ancestry but rather, shared ideals: liberty and justice for all. Maybe, he said, that sort of bond ultimately cannot hold. It would be no surprise to him, he wrote, to see the U.S. split into two or more separate countries in his lifetime. He is 32.

I intend no endorsement of his prediction when I say that it struck me hard -- mainly because I could not airily dismiss it. Could not say with certainty that it will not happen.

If and when it does, some observers will be primed to blame so-called hyphenated Americanism. But it seems apparent after this week that the fissure that divides us most dramatically is less about race or ethnicity than something larger: culture, an unresolved clash of worldviews, mores and norms. It's the morality, stupid.

Indeed, CNN reports that more exit poll respondents called that the most important issue of the election than cited Iraq, the economy or terrorism. Morality is, of course, a code word for antipathy toward gay rights and abortion. Those who shared that antipathy voted overwhelmingly for President Bush.

To say I am merely depressed that he was reelected is to say the Titanic sustained a little paint damage. I speak not from any particular affinity for John Kerry but, rather, from a conviction that Bush's peculiar combination of faith-based zealotry and utter incompetence constitute a clear and present danger to national security and international stability.

After his reelection, someone sent me a note. Maybe now you'll understand, he crowed, that you don't represent America. This, based on a victory margin of 3 percent.

The president has issued honeyed words about reaching across ideological lines in the name of national unity. But given that he followed his last election -- an even narrower victory -- by turning to the right on two wheels, it seems a safe bet that he'll take from this victory the same moral as my correspondent. He'll think he's found himself a mandate.

Small wonder that everywhere I go, people are talking about moving to Canada. That's the kind of joke you make when you no longer recognize your country.

That disconnect is not about liberalism vs. conservatism. Agree with them or disagree -- I've done both -- there is a certain pragmatism to traditional conservatives. You know where they're coming from: small government; personal responsibility; fiscal restraint. And their arguments are usually grounded in something recognizable as logic.

But social conservatism is another thing entirely, a mutant strain unhindered by critical thought. These are the nominal Christians whose Bibles are so long on judgment yet so short on compassion, the soldiers of the new American theocracy who want to force creation ''science'' on the schools and deportation on the Muslims. They are the super patriots who regard criticism as treason, the pious moralizers who believe single mothers should be barred from teaching in public schools. They are blind guides who see tens of thousands dying in Iraq and think the defining issue of the election is what gay men do in bed. They give God a bad name.

And their chosen leader is about to embark on his second term as president of the United States.

One nation splitting in two? I hope my reader is wrong.

But if he is not, Tuesday will loom large in history to those seeking to understand why. They'll call it the day the end began.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/10103571.htm

[catzies]

1. Respectfully I beg to differ with Mr. Pitts. "Where they're coming from"

is not what they do. They're flat-out hypocrites. They say one thing and do another with no accountability. It's not pragmatism if they don't do what they say, it's a bait-and-switch.

We lose until people get sick and tired of being lied to.

[DireStrike]

10. Nah, he was talking about old conservatives

not our new fangled conservatives like GW and co.

[grannylib]

2. I am usually not so pessimistic, but I am pretty close to agreeing with

the reader. I cannot imagine how this is all going to work out without doing something to replace the oatmeal that about half the population seems to have for brains. Holy shit.
Greed, fear and stupidity (or ignorance, in some cases): those are the characteristics played upon by the RePugnicans.
Excellent article, thanks.

[BillZBubb]

3. Great column.

I always enjoy reading Pitts.

[Moderator]

4. Hi mstrsplinter326

Thanks for sharing the great column! Per our copyright rules, could you please edit your post down to four paragraphs? Thanks so much!

DU moderator

[mstrsplinter326]

6. Sorry, I am past the editing period, otherwise I would. n/t

[library_max]

5. Well, not exactly.

We're not exactly splitting into two Americas - at least, not two equal Americas. There is the America that will rule, and the America that will be ruled.

Lookit, folks, the Republicans stole the election. Look at the exit polls, look at the computer "errors" already documented, look at the voter roll purges and other forms of intimidation or obstruction of voting in Democratic precincts in battleground states, look at the provisional and absentee ballots that were never counted. They stole it, and they completely got away with stealing it. The last free and fair Presidential election in the United States, it turns out, was in 1996. And I don't mean the most recent one. I mean the last one.

And our candidate didn't even call them on it. I don't profess to have any insight into why Senator Kerry did what he did, but it's done now. Nothing we or Randi Rhodes or Bev Harris or Greg Palast or anyone else does is going to matter one iota. The media, the courts, and Congress are not going to give any hearing to any challenge to this election that comes from the peanut gallery, no matter how damning the "smoking gun" evidence we may eventually find. Remember, the Florida 2000 ballots were eventually counted and Gore won. The media buried it, and the response from those who nevertheless found out was basically: Whaddya know. Gore won Florida after all. Oh well.

The Republicans control the electoral process and they control all the means for policing or reforming it. Count them with me: the Congress, the courts, the media, and the statehouses in all the key states. They are in power for as long as they want to be. They are now the institutional party in a one-party state, like the PRI used to be in Mexico. And there's not one single thing we can do about it. There is no form or scale of protest we could mount that would force the Congress, courts, or media to give us a hearing. All we would do is look like a bunch of nuts, cranks, and conspiracy theorists.

And of course, what the Republicans did this time they can do next time, and the time after that, etc. ad infinitum.

So forgive me if I am less broken up over the prospect of an ideologically divided America than the equally real prospect of a one-party America (at the federal level, and in many states such as Texas where I live) for the next several decades. Does anybody remember how long it took for the PRI to fumble an election?

[bullimiami]

7. a response on morality.

i have seen this printed often in the last few days.

Indeed, CNN reports that more exit poll respondents called that the most important issue of the election than cited Iraq, the economy or terrorism. Morality is, of course, a code word for antipathy toward gay rights and abortion. Those who shared that antipathy voted overwhelmingly for President Bush.



BUT THE CNN POLL DID NOT ANALYZE THAT MORALITY. A LOT OF US SEE IT AS A MORAL ISSUE. THE LACK OF MORALITY OF W AND HIS CRONIES. A MAN THAT CAN QUOTE GOD, MASSACRE, STEAL, LIE, CONDONE TORTURE AND GET TO BED BY 8:30.

IT IS A MORAL ISSUE. JUST NOT ALL THE FALSE MORALITY OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES THAT HAVE GONE OVER TO THE DARK SIDE.

[shraby]

8. I'm thinking that this nation isn't

as split as all the pundits want everyone to believe. If the election hadn't been rigged, Kerry would have been given the vast majority of votes. I don't think Bush has as much support as it looks like. In the bible belt, he has a lot but not in the rest of the nation.

[robbedvoter]

9. Wrong, Mr Pitts. You bought the talking points. A different view

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/opinion/meyer/main653931.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moral Values Malarkey
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5, 2004
This Against the Grain commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s try to snuff this election’s new Big Theory before it becomes Conventional Wisdom, although it’s probably too late.

The subject matter is "moral values." The theory is this: Kerry lost because he was very unpopular with people who believe moral values are the most important issues. This group of values voters is growing and Democrats are doomed until they can win them over.

The evidence comes from one exit poll question: Which issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president? Here are the results:
KERRY BUSH
Moral Values (22%) 18% 80%
Economy/Jobs (20%) 80% 18%
Terrorism (19%) 14% 86%
Iraq (15%) 73% 26%
Health Care (8%) 77% 23%
Taxes (5%) 43% 57%
Education (4%) 73% 26%

Analysts and commentators have been stunned that moral issues would trump the other biggies. From this single result, where moral values trounced economy/jobs by a whole two percentage points, both gloaters and mourners have extrapolated a fatal flaw in the Democratic Party and all it encompasses. An industry of values voter literature has mushroomed in just the few days since the election. It’s misguided.

While the nexus of issues boiled into the words "moral values" certainly were a big factor in this election, it’s being exaggerated partly because of the oddities of the poll itself and partly because the Big Theory conforms with what Republican strategists want you to believe.

First, the poll: If the poll had been worded or constructed only slightly differently, moral values would not have been the top issue. We’re building a worldview out of a small, odd vista....more...

[Kestral]

11. Something to seriously think about

These new moralist do not represent my idea of morality.

[moosedog]

13. Ye Gads....not my idea either..

Their morality makes me feel sick. They think that they have everyone in the world fooled, or they just don't care as long as they get enough unthinkers to force the thinkers to submit to them.

[RevCheesehead]

12. But could it really be done geographically?

This internal division is no surprise to me - I've seen this division coming in the United Methodist Church for at least 20 years. At our last General Conference, some of the conservatives (who, by the way, won their anti-gay agenda) were heard proposing an "amicable separation."

But how do we address the divisions within states? Wisconsin is but one example. We barely turned blue, but is blue representative of the entire state?

All I can say for sure is that "Mr. Uniter-not-Divider" has brought to the surface all of the ugly pus and goo to divide us, perhaps irrevocably. Maybe this is his legacy.

*********

By the way, I'm watching "Pleasantville" on TBS. Good insight on interpretation of traditional values, and exposing the false notion that it was better back then.