With the recent Democratic rhetoric about "two Americas," it occurs to me that this is exactly right, though not in the way either the Republicans or the Democrats think.

As I see it, the biggest political division in America right now is the division between those who believe we are at war, and those who don't. By "at war," I mean actively involved in a shooting war against an enemy both capable of and intent upon hurting us badly. "At War" means World War II, not War On Poverty.

This division cuts across party lines, though Republicans are more likely to be "At War" and Democrats "Not At War." For both sides, their belief is absolutely self-evident. Many people (on both sides) don't even acknowledge the rationality of the opposite position, much less that a big chunk of the electorate disagrees with them. (As an aside, I expect to get nasty comments and E-mails from both sides disagreeing with my analysis for exactly this reason.)

In the "We Are At War" camp, the events surrounding and following 9/11 are central. The lack of another attack on American soil is the result of either good luck or good leadership. In either case, al Qaeda and groups like it remain an imminent threat, and another attack in the U.S. is not only a possibility, but likely. The bear may be wounded, but that just makes it angrier. The war in Iraq is either necessary (Republicans), or a dangerous distraction from the real threat (Democrats).

In the "We Are Not At War" camp, 9/11 was important, but other issues have since become more important. The fact that there hasn't been a follow-on attack to 9/11 proves that al Quada is no longer an imminent threat, probably because our attack in Afghanistan and subsequent events have effectively eliminated much of the organization. Other issues, like the economy, the ballooning federal deficit, social issues, and threats from places like North Korea, are of more immediate importance than what is now a mop-up operation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For President Bush, promoting the "We Are At War" camp is clearly advantageous politically, and he is in that group himself. With his rhetoric about being a war president, Bush shows that he is the person to take the fight to the enemy. In wartime, Americans rally behind their leaders, and Bush benefits from this.

The downside, however, is that to the extent Bush has made the war the focus of his administration, he has also made himself vulnerable on a lot of non-war issues. The Republican party, for example, can no longer claim to stand for fiscal responsibility (at least, not with a straight face). There is an uncanny parallel to the actions of the Carter administration, which focused on inflation and the energy crisis to such an extent that it lost touch with many Americans. While Bush is unlikely to follow the "rose garden" strategy (Carters infamously disastrous strategy of not campaigning because he was supposedly working so hard to beat inflation and the energy crisis), the dull thud of the State of the Union speech seems to indicate a similar lack of focus on non-war issues.

Counterintuitively, it is to Bush's benefit in the campaign season to make people feel insecure. Feelings of insecurity will pull the national focus back to the threat of terrorism, and return people to the "We Are At War" camp. The best thing which could happen to Bush's reelection campaign is another 9/11 (though obviously he wouldn't want this to happen).

Similarly, capturing Osama bin Laden might give Bush a short-term boost, but over the longer term, it will encourage people to drift into the "Not At War" view. Capturing or killing bin Laden removes the biggest individual threat we perceive today, and even though it would be a great victory, it would also make people feel safer, and allow them to focus on other problems.

Boosting the Terror Threat Level shortly before the election would give Bush a boost, as long as voters took it seriously. Also, Bush's ads should emphasize the imminent threat from terrorism, and the dire measures needed to keep us safe. No "Morning in America" here, Bush needs to let us hear the wolf howling at the door.

The flip side of the coin is that the longer we go without another domestic terrorist attack, the more people will drift into the "We Are Not At War" mindset. People won't remain obsessed with an imminent danger which simply never materializes. It is human nature to adjust and get on with our lives.

This will work to the Democrats' advantage, as long as there aren't any events which make us feel vulnerable again. The more distance we put between 9/11 and ourselves, the more we will turn our collective attention on the budget deficit, the economy, Social Security, No Child Left Behind, gay marriage, the missing WMD in Iraq, and other issues. Many of these issues are highly divisive at best, and many of them are weak points for the Bush administration.

Some of the people in the "We Are Not At War" crowd never really believed we were at war--these are the people who saw the "War" as a rhetorical war, like the "War on Drugs," which can't ever really be "won." Others are people who believe we were at war, but now that we've dispatched with Afghanistan and Iraq, and there hasn't been another attack, we are no longer at war.

The Democrats need to take advantage of this dynamic by promoting the message that "The War Is Over," encouraging wavering members of the "At War" camp to make the switch to the "Not At War" camp. The general message needs to be one of "Thank you for your leadership, Mr. President, you did a great job, and now that we're no longer at war, it is time to deal with all the other issues we face."

Interestingly, neither party seems to appreciate the split between the two worldviews, and the need to convince those of the opposite view to switch sides. This despite the fact that you can read--almost daily, in almost any major newspaper--opposing opinions which talk completely past each other. On the one side, you'll read the "We have to rally behind strong leadership" or the "Kerry wouldn't be able to stand up to al Qaeda" editorial. On the other side, you'll see "The Bush deficit is completely irresponsible," and "Iraq is an expensive quagmire."

What both sides miss is that to those who believe we are not at war, al Qaeda is not an imminent threat and we don't need a war president. To those who believe we are at war, the deficit is irrelevant, and Iraq is worth any price. As a result, everyone is simply preaching to the choir, and it is no wonder that we're polarized as a nation.