<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4><A
href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-divide4nov04.story"><FONT
size=3>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-divide4nov04.story</FONT></A><FONT
size=3> </FONT>
<H4>EDITORIAL</H4>
<H1>... for a Divided America</H1><BR>November 4, 2004<BR><BR>Tuesday's
electoral map looks eerily familiar. Despite the nation's trials and triumphs of
the last four years, and George W. Bush's ambitious first term, the outcome of
presidential balloting differed from 2000 in only a few smallish states — New
Hampshire, New Mexico and probably Iowa. The red-versus-blue designation,
adopted during the 2000 stalemate, seems to be indelibly coloring the
map.<BR><BR>After the old Democratic Party lost its hegemony in the Deep South,
Americans came to assume that, in a more closely linked nation less locked to
the power of individual states, geography needn't determine political
affiliation. But now we are left to wonder: Will a GOP presidential candidate
ever again carry New York or California, and will a Democrat ever carry Texas or
Georgia?<BR><BR>Bush improved on his 2000 performance by winning the popular
vote this time, but his failure to broaden his national market share stands in
marked contrast to most other presidents who have won reelection. Narrow wins by
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were followed by convincing incumbent landslides
four years later. Bush, by contrast, won a second term and a stronger majority
in the Congress by further galvanizing already red states.<BR><BR>None of this
augurs well for a less-polarized nation or a blurring of rural red and urban
blue into a mellowing purple. The administration and Bush's red-state supporters
will probably feel emboldened by Tuesday's results to press ahead with their
agenda, and that will only increase the feeling of alienation in states like
California and New York. <BR><BR>Tuesday's exit polls added to the sense that
the red-blue schism might be more intractable than we would have liked to
believe. That's because it is defined less by issues of the day than by battling
cultures. For a plurality of Bush supporters in all-important Ohio, for
instance, "moral issues" were more important in driving their choice than
national security or the economy. Church attendance has become the most reliable
predictor of political allegiance, and the likes of Karl Rove are cynically
adept at exploiting this cultural divide. Witness the proliferation of needless
anti-gay marriage initiatives nationwide. <BR><BR>New York state has defied the
federal government with its activist regulatory actions. And an alienated
California has unilaterally moved ahead on environmental regulation and, now, on
stem cell research. If red and blue Americans can't relate to each other enough
to put some purple on the map, their division will lead to more serious
balkanization than a go-it-alone stem cell policy. <BR
clear=all></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>