Immediately after George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, I was immediately struck to hear the same phrase being echoed over and over by Brokaw, Couric, Matthews, and the like–they all began talking right away about how “divided our country” was, how DEEPLY divided, in fact. Bush had just won a “divided” election in a “divided” country, and now these “divisions” were more apparent than ever.

You could hardly hear any story about the election which didn’t include a grave analysis of how terribly, terribly, divided we were.

The print media followed suit. The Washington Post and The Christian Science Monitor, to name just two of many examples, picked up this story about how divided America was.

I found this curious in the extreme–not being able to remember any election which didn’t involve the voters being divided. But for some reason, the media was suddenly obsessed with the notion. I suspected, of course, that the most salient “division” here was between the media and their desires. Something that the reaction to the election of Barack Obama has only reinforced.

After all, 46% of voters, just under half, voted not for Barack Obama but John McCain. Certainly this means that we are divided, deeply divided, very close to as divided as possible? But no! The storyline when a Republican loses is not one of division, but of unity, joy, and healing.

On the part of the media, at least, who appear to be the only Americans who really count.