As I was saying about last weekend's Ron Suskind article on Bush, faith, and the current administration, the paragraph in which a senior aide touts the imperial triumph over reality is only the second-most important passage therein.

The most important is the bit about the cultural-political divide claimed by Mark McKinnon, a media-consultant member of Team Bush:

And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

This is important for two reasons. The first is that McKinnon is signalling a vital part of the administration's media strategy (he should know): play up Bush's faults as populist points of solidarity with "busy working people," and look for ways to put critics on the defensive. He dares Suskind to call Bush stupid, and then when Suskind says he doesn't think Bush is stupid, mocks him for his dishonesty. It's a ploy designed to heighten the current conservative cariacature of the press as uniformly cynical, high-handed, and prejudiced against ordinary people and their abilities.

(And it can be devastatingly effective. This accusation has helped spike consistent questioning of the President's intellectual fitness for the working of governance. Indeed, in one of the few places where I think the article is weak, Suskind is careful to quote Democratic Senator Carl Levin as saying "He's plenty smart enough to do the job," as if to innoculate against the counter-criticism that these critics 'misunderestimate' the Commander-in-Chief. But Suskind's general accusation -- that the President and his team have replaced fact, inquiry and curiosity with faith in their own untested instincts -- is at its heart about intelligence. Why don't we always run our businesses or manage foreign policy solely by consulting instinct and following the dicta of our hearts? Because that's just not very bright.)

Where was I? Oh, yes, the second thing about McKinnon's little "you're outnumbered" rant? It's a lie so bold they've been getting away with it for years now. Apparently only a sliver of the country -- or, rather, two slivers of the country -- are at all interested in the question of the President's capabilities, or put off by his inarticulate and factually confused attempts at public speaking. Those who red-stately revere him, who admire "his confidence" (as opposed to his abilities or accomplishments!) outnumber the isolated Coasties by a two to one margin. Yes, 2/3 of America, that "big, wide middle" has put their hand in the hand of the man who Accomplished the Mission of Confidence.

But of course that's utter crap. While the polls still show Bush with an electoral lead, a look at the near-50% split reveals that even in Midwestern states where Bush support is for practical purposes strong, his lead is often barely above the margin of error. (I know, McKinnon was speaking in 2002, pre-Iraq, but still -- a 2/3 majority that admired Bush unreservedly?) And while public perceptions have altered since 2000, McKinnon's little diatribe glosses awfully quickly over Bush's popular-vote loss in that election.

I can't speak to campaign odds -- a narrow lead, if stable, is all anybody needs to win a state, of course. But still: would a narrow victory in Missouri mean that everyone in that decidedly Midwestern state dismisses Bush's faults? Is Michigan a hopelessly elitist outer district of New England? Is Ohio bounded by an ocean I hadn't heard about? Michael Moore: he's from Flint, um, California, isn't he? If an intelligent person laughs at a Presidential malapropism in Colorado, does it make a sound? One expects each side to claim that they actually represent the majority. But two-thirds? To paraphrase the President, that sounds like one of their "exaggerations."

This tale of two countries -- one of the Nascar-loving, Camembert-loathing loyalist and one of the haut-yuppie latte lover -- is the best line the GOP has had since "Morning in America." The grain of truth behind it -- that there is a regional correspondence with the party divide in the country -- is inflated into a myth of Heartland Security, in which the geographic, emotional and symbolic center is connected to Bush. In the absence of a real majority of broad support this myth lends the illusion of destiny to the Bush Presidency.

And given that the media have had no success in deflating it, it's still working.