One Day at a Time

Op-Ed Columnist: Two Nations Under God

November 4, 2004
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

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 Constitution, not electing a president.
I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the
Constitutional 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 entitlements crisis - which can be done
only with a bipartisan approach and a more sane fiscal
policy - upgrade America's competitiveness, 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04friedman.html?ex=1100586869&ei=1&en=cc20b607e84dec9f