GETTYSBURG, Pa. — Watching charming, autumn-tinted scenery roll by driving the rural highways of this corner of Adams County, you could think yourself anywhere in rural America.
Further, the campaign signs that read: "PRO TAX RELIEF PRO JOBS" are indicative merely of a rightward tilt pervasive across the nation as a whole.
That 7,863 Americans lost their lives here over three bloody days in July 1863 in civil war — and tens of thousands of others left seriously wounded — gives this ground a unique place in our national unity and disunity, however.
Gettysburg, of course, also is famous for the 272-word speech President Abraham Lincoln gave here four-and-a-half months after the battle was over, delivered to bolster approval for a war that at the time was quickly losing public support.
Less known is that 75 years after the Union, just barely, beat Robert E. Lee's army here, some 1,800 Civil War veterans gathered on the same hill from which Maj. Gen. Robert Rodes launched a Confederate attack. They came to dedicate the Eternal Light Peace Memorial, to "Peace Eternal in a Nation United."
It's certainly not at all clear, though, that here in 2010, we're living up to that dedication.
To be sure, an election — even one as contentious as we face in less than a week's time — is not tantamount to an armed struggle such as that which once cleaved our nation.
But the recent talk of "Second Amendment solutions" to political debate, and the stomping of a peaceful campaign protester in Kentucky, seem to carry the same strains that inflamed passions ahead of the Civil War.
And while slavery is no longer a salient political issue, our persistent Red State/Blue State divide bears much in common with the sectionalism which helped spark the war in 1861.
Even if our political leaders were interested in fostering a greater sense of national unity, our winner-takes-all government doesn't easily lend itself to creating governments of national unity such as have been more common in Israel, or even the United Kingdom.
Yet that was Lincoln's goal for his second term. A Republican, Lincoln purposefully chose Democrat Andrew Johnson as his vice president and ran not under either the Republican or Democrat banner, but rather won election on the Union Party ticket.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Baronius
I'm hoping that the red state / blue state myth dies in the aftermath of this election. The geographic political divides in the US are between urban and non-urban areas. It's more like blue versus red counties. Urban Georgia is liberal; Rural New York is conservative.
But even within that geographic split, you'll rarely find places that one party is guaranteed a win. In most places, at least 1/3 of the voters have loyalty to the minority party. Other than the effect of the Electoral College, there are no good reasons to think of the US in terms of regional politics.
2 - handyguy
The electoral college is a pretty powerful reason. So let's get rid of it!
3 - Baronius
Handy, I think it's a pretty good method of preventing a regional party from emerging. But aside from the Electoral College, would you agree with my comment #1?
4 - handyguy
As long as there is an electoral college, we will continue to speak of blue and red states. Count on it.
We can speak of blue or red congressional districts, sure; and gerrymandering keeps as many as possible of them pure, not purple. That's another form of anti-democratic [small d] evil.
I'm more interested in dialing down the overblown rhetoric that dominates political discourse now, which is closer to Scott's point here.
5 - Baronius
I agree that that's closer to Scott's point. And gerrymandering is a problem. But with the number of Congressional seats that have changed parties in the last four years and the next few months, I don't think it's as effective at the machine politicians would like it to be. All that aside, would you agree with my comment #1?
6 - doug m.
Agree about the city folk vs country folk comparison based on some interesting charts I've seen. While no guarantees, seems hard to deny certain parties dominate in certain areas.
7 - handyguy
With caveats, Baronius. The South is ruled by conservatives. When I lived there 25 years ago, we liberals were consistently the 30% minority, same as now. It's amazing that Clinton and Gore could spring from that background, but unfortunately few others have.
I worry about the racial polarization of the two parties as well. Most Americans are moderates, so the extremists shouldn't have so much influence. I think their influence is mostly on the right -- Republican moderates are anathema to many in their party now, while moderate Dems are fairly numerous.
8 - Baronius
Urban versus non-urban, Handy. You guys are mayors of major cities by like 3-to-1, and of southern cities by more. As for electoral votes, Obama won Fla, NC, and Virginia, which together account for 1/3 of the region's total. So no region is unwinnable for either party.
9 - handyguy
And two of those three wins made headlines, along with Indiana, for being so unusual. I'm not sure why this point is so important to you. In addition, the country is not likely to become significantly more rural, is it? [Or, in fact, whiter.] So is the GOP on an inevitable decline unless it appeals to urbanites and people of color?
So many people live in the suburbs anyway. And those are different politically in different parts of the country.
10 - Ruvy
I don't care what you guys rededicate yourselves to. It is an irrelevancy. America is rapidly becoming irrelevant. As soon as the pressure of your huge overhanging debt forces a recession in the world economy - your dollar will hyper-inflate, and you Americans will experience the leadership of those two gentlemen, Messrs. Smith and Wesson.
Good luck with the hymn singing of re-dedication in the meantime.
11 - zingzing
DOOOOOOOOOOOM