If you had any doubt about how dramatic the differences are you just had to listen to President George W. Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night and contrast it with what the Democratic candidates have been saying in Iowa and New Hampshire. At an unusually early point in the election year, the issues have been joined.

The Democrats are saying Bush must be replaced because his foreign policy uses force as a first option not last, because his indiscriminate support of the Patriot Act will cost us our civil liberties, because his tax cuts will bankrupt the nation and because his social policies and court appointments will take the country back to the 19th century.

On Tuesday, Bush accused Democrats of wanting to treat terrorism as a legal, not a national security, issue; defended his unilateralism by proclaiming "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country;" called for an extension of the Patriot Act, advocated more and permanent tax cuts and said he would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage if "permissive" judges don't let up in their decisions.

The differences couldn't be more pronounced. And they go well beyond the candidates. We're talking about the American people. The country is more divided over fundamental issues than it has been in decades, if not a century. There is every reason to believe that the next presidential election will be as close as the election of 2000, which was decided in the Supreme Court. And if that is a speculative statement, this is not: In poll after poll the American people are demonstrating that they are actually more divided over issues now than four years ago. Even after the shocking events of Sept. 11, 2001, brought the nation together, the differences and divisions have reasserted themselves.

Divided and Polarized

The best analysis might be the Nov. 5, 2003, poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: It describes the 2004 political landscape as "Evenly Divided and Increasingly Polarized." And even the normally understated dean of American political journalists, David Broder of The Washington Post, said Thursday, "This is an election like no other I have seen."

In part, you can blame the division on Bush. Rather than trying to bring the nation together, as he vowed after the contested election of 2000, he has governed as an activist conservative with only a feint here and there toward his promised compassion and moderation. For an inexperienced executive with no mandate from the voters, he has proven to be one of the most aggressive presidents in modern history. It is that very aggressiveness on behalf of conservative causes that has so provoked Democrats.

Dean Started It

In part, you can also blame the division on Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who shot to the front of the Democratic race because he launched a frontal assault on Bush not just over his war against Iraq, but on all his policies. Even if Dean fades now, he has moved his party to the left, especially on the issue of using force pre-emptively.

But Bush and Dean and the other candidates are just reflecting the strong feelings of their supporters. From the moment he was declared the victor in 2000, Bush has worked to solidify his base. In the same manner, whoever wins the Democratic nomination will have had to satisfy the Democratic base. And in 2004 those bases are unusually far apart. Not only that, but the number of undecided voters, truly undecided, seems to be unusually small. So turning out the base vote will be as important as swaying swing voters. Maybe more so; another reason for such a polarized election.

In the Pew poll, Democrats held a 10-point lead in their blue states (states that voted for Al Gore in 2000) and Republicans a 5-point lead in the red states (the ones Bush carried). And in the swing states, they were dead even 33-33. That suggests the election will be as closely contested this year as four years ago.

On national security, the split over the war against Saddam Hussein is most dramatic. Republicans, by an 85-to-10 percent margin, say they believe the war against Iraq was the right decision. Democrats say it was wrong by 54-to-39 percent. In Iowa, 75 percent of Democratic caucus-goers opposed the war.

Is there any doubt, then, why even Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who now holds a lead in New Hampshire, is emphasizing the need for multilateralism in foreign policy although he supported the resolution to go to war against Iraq? Or why Bush says he won't wait for a permission slip to defend the country? The two are appealing to their base of support. There is a fundamental difference in the county over how and when U.S. force should be used and how important it is to work with allies.

The poll also found a disparity between how Republicans and Democrats view their personal financial situations. Republicans are at least as satisfied with their lot as four years ago. Democrats are not. That feeds attitudes about the importance of a government social safety net. Independents were also less satisfied: obviously an area of concern for Bush.

Hot-Button Social Issues

But one of the most interesting trends the poll showed is that over the last 16 years the Republicans have seen a significant increase in voters who identify themselves as having a strong religious commitment. That reflects the growing number of white evangelical Protestants who affiliate with the Republican Party. And that affects party attitudes on hot- button social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and church-state separation.

Conventional wisdom in the past was that the parties should first shore up their bases and then try to appeal to the middle, where most American elections are won or lost. But 2004 may be an exception to the rule.

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.