The undivided country

~ The Wall Street Journal

Of all the clichés routinely trotted out by foreigners about the United States, surely this election has put one of them to rest: namely, that there is "no difference" between our two political parties.

Sure, the Communist Party never had much of a claim on our electorate, the way it once did in Italy and still does in France. And nativist parties have never gotten far in America, either, at least not in the way of Austria's Freedom Party or Belgium's Vlaams Bloc. Still, in today's contest Americans are being offered a clear political choice, well-articulated by candidates who are able representatives of their parties, and voters are likely to turn out in record numbers to make that choice. Given all the high-minded laments in recent years about voter apathy, we'd call that a good thing, no matter who wins.

Now, however, we have a new lament, which is that the next President inherits a "nation divided" -- split, as the recent cover of Time magazine has it, "over its place in the world, over its basic values, over its future direction. No matter who wins, the Uncivil War is likely to continue." Excuse us for asking, but has it ever not been thus? Adams and Jefferson; Jackson and Quincy Adams (and Clay); Hayes and Tilden; Johnson and Goldwater; Nixon and McGovern; Bush and Dukakis -- these were not notably nice contests. Even a forgotten election -- 1884's Grover Cleveland ("Ma, Ma, Where's My Pa?") versus James G. Blaine ("The Continental Liar from the State of Maine") -- wasn't notably nice. Elections shouldn't be nice since they are fundamentally about apportioning power. In North Korea, elections are very nice.

We'll grant that this election is different from most recent ones, and the excitement it has generated is proportionate to the sense of what's at stake. The country is at war. The homeland -- as Osama bin Laden reminded us over the weekend -- is vulnerable to fresh attacks. And Americans divide over how best, or even whether, to fight such a war.

Political divisions

But, again, remember it was no different in 1776 (when a third of the country wanted no part of Independence) or 1812 (over which the Northeastern states considered secession), or 1848 (which the Whig Party, including Abraham Lincoln, considered illegal), or 1864 (when the Union Democrats fielded their first peace-in-our-time candidate), or even 1968 (riots in the streets) -- except that the political divisions then dwarfed whatever separates most Americans today.

Notwithstanding Time's description of a "venomous campaign," this one strikes us as comparatively tame. Some rhetorically challenged columnists for big-city newspapers may resort to calling everybody who disagrees with them "liars," but the two campaigns have mostly stuck to the issues. During the debates, Mr. Bush was instructed not to smirk, while Mr. Kerry took extra care to appear respectful of the President. If this were South Korea, they'd have gone mano-a-mano in the well of the National Assembly.

It is true that the differences between the candidates reflect deeper differences among Americans at large. We live in a country where, thanks to an economy that allows us to live in whichever cultural patch suits our taste, we may never have to meet people for whom, say, the name Tim LaHaye means something. But while there's something to the "Two Americas" analysis, it's easily overstated. The Michael Moores of America may all be Kerry supporters, but most Kerry supporters are not Michael Moores. Similarly, readers of Mr. LaHaye's best-selling Apocalyptic novels may be Bush supporters to the last, but most Bush supporters are not readers of Mr. LaHaye. (In fairness, at least Mr. LaHaye admits to writing fiction.) For all the talk of a 50-50 country, our differences tend to be narrow rather than deep. It was instructive, for instance, to see how Mr. Kerry couched his differences with the President over Iraq in tactical rather than ideological terms: It wasn't opposition to war per se that the Democratic challenger was expressing, only to this particular choice of a front. More recently, Mr. Kerry's attacks on the President have been about competence, with the implied promise that the Senator will fight it better. We may have our doubts about his sincerity. But in politics, one's insincerity is sometimes just as revealing.

Commonsense restraint

By the same token, it has been interesting to watch President Bush handle the topic of gay marriage, firm in his opposition but careful not to seem crass or intolerant. This restraint is a compliment to the common sense of the American people, who can settle even such divisive issues democratically if judges will give them the chance.

None of this is to say that the differences dividing the parties are trivial. They are significant and fiercely held.

But it is America's fortune that its parties are forced, if not by conviction then by necessity, to tilt the country their way first by reaching centerward, where the bulk of the electorate sits. As a result, whatever our private feelings about tonight's result, we'll be able to live with whoever is elected. Criticism resumes today.