The 'Armageddon Election' of 2004

Pollster John Zogby has dubbed the 2004 presidential election as the "Armageddon Election." He argues that this year's election will have many similarities to the Adams-Jefferson contests.

Zogby intertwines his logic with the common practice of dubbing states red or blue.

Those states that went Bush in 2000 have been labeled red states and those states that went Gore in 2000 have been labeled blue states. From these labels, pollsters have been known to play the numbers game regarding statistical facts and figures that provide insight to the election.

Zogby himself is someone who has looked intensely at the differences between red and blue states. When doing so, he found that red states are 20 percent more likely to attend religious services weekly and 25 percent more likely to believe in God. Red state residents are 20 percent more likely to own a gun, while blue state residents are 7 percent more likely to never marry in their life. Red states are more inclined to think in absolutes, while blue states more likely to think in relatives.

From these numbers, the pollster points to a deepening partisan divide that splits the nation evenly. Furthermore, America is divided regionally along partisan lines much like the days of Adams and Jefferson, where the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties created sectional divides. Zogby labels the Adams administration as one that fueled the partisan divide. On the contrary, he views the Jefferson administration as one that calmed the partisan rift and reunited the country by saying "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."

Zogby is right in the sense that Jefferson was able to reunite the nation through an eloquent inaugural address. Certainly, whoever is elected this year must do the same and attempt to bind the country's wounds and destroy the partisan divide.

If such is the case, where does Zogby find the basis for his terming this year as an Armageddon year - a very hostile term. Zogby seems to mean political parties view the election of the opposing party as a sign of doom for the country.

Whether or not a candidate will bring doom to the country seems to be a matter of perspective. Perhaps for this reason, Zogby has taken the idea of an Armageddon Election too far. Nevertheless, because of the recent trends and patterns in the American political system, the election of 2004 has the potential to fundamentally alter the nation.

The era of landslide elections are over for the short-term and the country has already forgotten the unifying spirit of Sept. 11. Some people may argue that the two parties want a divided America to use differences to win elections. Instead of remaining unified, the country has been divided and torn apart all in the name of politics.

Whether or not politicians play on a divided America is debatable, but the media has consistently used the red versus blue state map to illustrate trends. For this reason, some politicians in this campaign have focused on the theme of ending the two Americas. However, the conception of red and blue states is an oversimplification of the Armageddon divide. It is arguable that the major divide is not one between states, but between peoples.

Sure, red and blue states will have different opinions, which is why they voted for the presidential candidate that they did. If America is viewed as only being divided along these state lines, the media and the politicians have made a fundamental miscalculation. The real divide cuts much deeper and much closer to the hearts of individuals.

The two Americas are being formed along social and economic lines. America is being continually separated into the "haves" and the "have nots." The fundamental divides are between rich and poor, urban America and rural America, agriculture and industry and corporate interests and working class interests. These types of divides are much more serious than the ones referenced by Zogby. If anything, these divides signal the potential conflict that will arise from the result of this election.

It is becoming increasingly clear that whoever is elected on Nov. 2 will have a very difficult task ahead of them. Most likely, there will be no clear mandate from the people and the elected president will have to struggle with hostile factions in Congress. Now is not the time for a president to govern from the far right or the far left.

America has had a long tradition of highly divided and competitive elections - including the first party system, the Civil War era and the Reconstruction and Gilded Age. Most evident in the post-Civil War elections was extreme class and social divisions that produced a president through a political deal and saw several presidents win by either losing the popular vote or narrowly winning it. America survived all of these conflicts and became stronger.

For this reason, the term "Armageddon" is a clear exaggeration. At the least this election will signal the movement of the political parties into a new political system, as of yet unseen by the American public. Both Bush and Kerry need to take a lesson from Thomas Jefferson when he said in his inaugural address:

"Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things... But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle."

With that in mind, America can realize she is a land of optimists and idealists. She can put aside her differences and turn even the deepest chasm into a temporary divide. America can become a nation where government strives to maximize the benefit of society - a task that can only be done when the "haves" recognize the face of America in the "have nots." Then, two Americas can be one.

Sources:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=822

http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/050971.php