Sometime in 2004, immediately after Kerry lost, the Democratic Party decided something was fundamentally wrong.  Yes, something was indeed wrong!  But instead of looking within, we found an excellent, plausible explanation: the nation was divided!

"Yes," we thought, "That surely explains it.  There are Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  We are so bitterly fighting for that middle ground."  Hook, line, sinker.  I went with it, just like every other Democrat I knew.

The pundits were even talking about it; Bush had such a pressing job in front of him!  He had to contend with a divided nation, that  - or so the narrative describes - repaid him for his conservative agenda by delivering a Democratic Landslide in 2006.

I have seen many an example of this from both the Obama and Clinton camps, and I've had enough.  This "divided nation" (or as I call it, red-blue state theory) is totally bogus in the face of logic, and if we keep talking about it as if it's real, it'll only hurt our chances of winning in November.

The nation has been divided - and much more bitterly than this - since 1796 when the Democratic-Republicans hit the mean streets in 1796 born from the Jefferson-Hamilton rivalry.  The Federalists had a few rounds with them until they dissolved and another party faithfully took their spot.  Hell, we even had a Civil War - something far more extreme than whatever the current divide is.

Now, the fundamental conclusion that the red-blue state divide theory draws is that there exists a cultural division within the nation: blue areas are generally progressive, red areas conservative.  These two areas are coming into increasing conflict and that is becoming particularly clear in Washington.  After all, Supreme Court nominees are more hotly debated, passions are running high, etc.

All right, let's deconstruct that idea.  

First, for red-blue state theory to be true, these two cultures must have been developing for quite sometime to be entirely distinct.  However, nothing could be further from the truth.  Several "blue states" went for Reagan in overwhelming numbers in 1984; eight years later several "red states" and those Reagan "blue states" swung to Clinton in 1992.  In fact, the current trend has only been clear for two presidential elections - both of which have had the same Republican candidate.  It could simply be that this candidate appeals to the right coalitions within the right number of states to uphold his place in office.

Second, red-blue state theory necessarily postulates that citizens are 100% black and white on issues with no shades of gray.  A pro-lifer is a pro-lifer is a pro-lifer; they will always vote Republican.  This is simply not true: while this may be a huge consideration, this assumes that a pro-life businessman and pro-life farmer will vote the same way.  However, what if the issue of farm subsidies comes up.  This may change how the farmer votes verses the businessman - i.e. red-blue theory is too simplistic to compensate for individual opinions and concerns.

Third, red-blue state theory postulates that Republicans and Democrats are two separate camps that can agree on very little and vote against the other's interest.  Two examples of the opposite: Jim Leach (R-IA) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT).  Jim Leach was the former Congressman of Iowa's Second District, voted one of the most centrist Congressmen in Congress previous to losing his reelection bid to Dave Loebsack in 2006.  Likewise, I think Joe Lieberman is infamous enough around this site that I need not elaborate.  The point is this: red-blue state theory fails to comprehend these individuals and presupposes that bipartisan action cannot exist, unless some mysterious messiah comes to unify the parties (which would be theoretically impossible under this particular postulate).

Fourth, red-blue state theory ignores the fact that a large chunk of the nation does not vote.  No presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984 has solely received 30% of the electorate's vote.  That being the case, this theory could only directly apply to the voting population, but then falls apart based on my last three arguments.

I could continue, but I think I've made my point.  Ultimately, I argue, the problem is really just fatigue with the current president's reliance on his own vision without much consideration for the people (see Bush approval ratings).  Obviously, the current red-blue divide is already fading, particularly with the idea of McCain being the Republican Presidential nominee - redrawing the political map after eight years of general consistency.

This talk of unity is just as hollow as the theory that required it to be brought to the forefront.  No Democrat or Republican is going to risk their political career - or frankly bother with the narrow road they would have to travel - to make some effort to appease both parties.  That's a sure fire way to end this country real fast - so let's just go back to the real issues at hand and stop touting some inherently divisive theory that only makes our position weaker among the general electorate.  We aren't divided, don't need unifying; we just need a president who can effectively make decisions and isn't too stubborn to change course when a mistake has been made.