On a dark night in November over one hundred million Americans elected George W Bush and his party to govern the country. With a thin margin of two percent of the popular vote and victories in a majority of swing states and the rural heartland, Bush and his neo-con crew have the opportunity to continue the folly of his first four years in office.

Over fifty million Americans and millions abroad opposed his candidacy, many vehemently. As the results poured in, in the wee hours of the November doom, many, including myself, vacillated from shock and anger to depression.

Despite the serious blunders in foreign policy in areas such as the Middle East, I love my country. I strongly believe in the democratic ideals of its founding fathers, admire the bravery of soldiers who fought for freedom in the two world wars of the previous century and appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit that has worked to make the world more prosperous.

On Nov 3, as the cell phones rang continuously in shared pain, I felt completely alienated and ashamed. How could the majority of Americans elect a man who has lied, engaged in an illegitimate war, weakened the country's standing abroad and endangered the security of the world by provoking extremists?

How could Americans opt for fiscal insecurity, more unemployment, greater infringement of political freedoms and greater social cleavages? How?

The immediate reaction of many of my friends was "stupidity". Clearly ignorance shaped the election results. Many Americans do not understand American's actions abroad and policies at home. The country is extraordinarily parochial.

Only twenty percent of the country have passports, and most travel infrequently, especially since Sept 11. The media often misinforms people, using derogatory stereotypes of Muslims and factually incorrect reports on news abroad.

Yet the answer is much more than a lack of knowledge. Many Americans consciously and unconsciously don't want to understand and reject people who attempt to educate them.

The root cause

There is a deep-seated anti-intellectualism in America, and Senator Kerry represented "too much information." His use of facts intimidated many, who preferred Bush's simplified mispronounced policy sound bites.

The sources of anti-intellectualism are complex. Part of it is geography. Unlike Europe, ordinary Americans think they have little need to understand the rest of the world. It is not a coincidence that the center of America - the area of the election result map that were marked in the Republican red, symbolic of the blood that Bush has spilt - is the most isolated, least globalised part of the country.

Part of it is history. American popular culture embraces materialistic icons - businessmen, celebrities, sports heroes - and disdains educators, technocrats and bureaucrats, individuals who often value outcome over incomes.

Part of it is the changes in religiosity. America, like most parts of the world, has been undergoing a religious revival that is more fundamentalist. Over forty percent of Americans identify themselves as some form of "evangelical" Christian and many refuse to see the grey of ordinary policy issues, opting for black or white positions - "with us or against us" - that do not require rational, critical reflection and information.

The most important factor, however, is fear. America society is afraid - afraid of terrorists, afraid of ethnic diversity, afraid of sexual difference, ultimately afraid of too much knowledge that might challenge the assumptions of white superiority and potentially threaten the existence of a largely apolitical, conservative society.

The Bush administration has harnessed this fear effectively, using the issue of security to mobilise voters, tapping into the anxiety of citizens who view the rest of the world (and migrants from the rest of the world) with suspicion. Bush appealed to people who want to do the "right thing", but do not want the responsibilities that the "right thing" involves.

The saviour

The main supporters of the Republican party are white, especially evangelicals. An overwhelming majority of Asians, African-Americans, Muslim Americans and Hispanics voted for the Democratic party - voted for change.

Yet the majority of the country, especially those in the heartland, embraced fear and voted in the man who promised to "save" them.

One cannot help but reflect on the commonalities between 2004 America and 1932 Germany, the same year that National Socialist (Nazi) Party led by Adolph Hitler won a majority in the national parliament.

Societies blinded by fear fail to question abuses of power and often this can lead to catastrophic results. I remain hopeful that a majority of Americans will wake up from their Bush stupor, and vote in a stronger opposition in 2006 and 2008.

American elections have consistently followed a six-year pattern favoring one party that is reversed in the subsequent congressional elections. If America continues on its current path, however, the ideals of democratic governance and greater world prosperity will shatter further. More and more Americans in the opposition, like myself, will be alienated and ashamed of their country.

Republican electioneering

The 2004 election was not just about the disturbing trends in American society; it was also about politics. Strategists, strategies and machinery ultimately win elections. The Republican party managed to win all three handily.

Early on, Karl Rove identified two of John Kerry's weaknesses - a record in public life and an inability to "connect" to ordinary people. The masterful Republican party strategist used both of these to portray the Senator as untrustworthy, inconsistent, and - perhaps most effective - aloof.

It is not a coincidence that primarily state governors have won the White House since 1976. Experience in national government is a liability that strategists use effectively to discredit candidates.

Karl Rove used Senator Kerry's record against him to such an extent that few Americans - even those that voted for the Democratic candidate - had a clear sense of what he represented. With words such as "wooden" and "blue-blood" he went for Kerry's jugular in the final weeks of the campaign and painted Kerry as an unapproachable aristocrat.

Many voters, especially undecided voters, opted for the individual they could identify with; they preferred a reformed alcoholic and former cocaine addict who used his father's name to escape national service, over a war hero who actually read books.

The effective character assassination was matched by a clear campaign strategy. The Republican party recognised the need to mobilise supporters and selected two critical issues of mobilise its base - abortion and same-sex marriage.

Constitutional amendments associated with abortion - from notification of teenagers to funding - and same-sex marriage were put on the ballot in key states, including two of the most important swing states - Ohio and Florida.

These issues were used to register voters in Republican friendly churches and take congregations to the polls. They gave the Republicans an electoral advantage. At the same time, measures were taken to dis-empower traditional Democratic constituents and weaken the chances of the opposition.

The Republicans allegedly paid to have Ralph Nader on the ballot in Florida and charges of disenfranchisement mar Bush's victory in states like Ohio and Florida, as hundreds were turned away at the polls.

Rudderless Democrats

In contrast, the Democratic campaign was rudderless - lacking both a strategist and a strategy. The July convention failed to portray Senator Kerry effectively and he mistakenly rested his campaign on his war record that was discredited.

Throughout the campaign, he did not deliver a clear position on Iraq. The domestic issues of the economy, education and health care were not featured adequately in his campaign until the last few weeks, by which time most Americans had made up their minds who to vote for.

The Democratic campaign failed to adequately connect to the base of the Democratic party, which has seriously fragmented since the 1980s. Sadly, a valuable opportunity to revitalise the party was wasted.

The critical issue was voter turnout, however, abetted by party machinery. The 2004 presidential election had the highest voter turnout in American history, with 56.8 percent of national eligible voters going to the polls.

Minnesota recorded the highest turnout, with 77.8 percent of eligible voters, while Arizona had the least, with 45.4 percent. These figures were a significant increase from 2000, as supporters from both parties went to the polls in record numbers.

In Florida, where I voted with my mother, we stood in line for over an hour. In other parts of this key swing state, the wait lasted over three hours. In Ohio some voters waited over nine hours, as polling hours had to be extended to accommodate demand.

It was also the most energised election since 1968; millions of volunteers supported parties, not only with their pocketbook but also with their time. Emotions were high as a majority of Americans valued their right to suffrage.

It was clear however that the Republican party was better organised nationally. Democrats concentrated their efforts in swing states, such as Ohio. Thousands of volunteers descended on this state in the weeks before the polls, working the phones, transported voters to the polls and monitored polling.

The Democratic focus was on swing states, as the party hoped to win the electoral vote rather than the popular vote. They mistakenly assumed that they would win a popular majority at the polls as they did in 2000. This reflected a failure to appreciate changes in voting behaviour and registration on the ground.

Overall, the Republican machinery was a more nation-wide effort, buttressed by their national strategy to bring their base to the polls. They won the south easily, which was in Democratic hands in the 1980s.

Even in key states such as Florida, where I transported elderly voters to the polls on election day in my reliable Honda, the Democratic machinery was not as well oiled as the Republican party's, which used buses to transport voters.

Despite millions of volunteers bringing out more Democrats to the polls than ever before, the Republican machinery was stronger and ultimately decisive. It was recognition of being beaten politically that led to Kerry's resignation on Nov 3.

The path ahead

As the days have passed since the election, the post-election traumatic syndrome has deepened among opponents to the Bush administration. Some are looking to move abroad, others are searching for answers. It remains to be seen whether the energy that mobilised Democrats in 2004 can be harnessed in future elections.

Not only does the party need better leadership, it requires a soul-searching that will be painful. Unfortunately Democrats are unlikely to probe too deeply at this difficult time. The probing needs to go beyond parties to the society itself, which is even less likely.

The Republicans led by Bush are charging ahead, mistakenly taking the thin majority as a decisive mandate. The cabinet will likely change; Colin Powell will unlikely continue in his current role as secretary of state.

The move may strengthen the neo-cons in foreign policy and weaken voices of multi-lateralism. Bush will have to appoint conservatives to appease the religious right, who gave him his victory. This will negatively impact civil liberties and blur an already blurry line between religion and politics.

The ability to nominate a new chief justice for the Supreme Court will potentially move the court in a conservative direction and undermine civil liberties further. Even more disturbing, there is little pressure for fiscal prudence, which will ultimately weaken the global economy. The Bush agenda is frightening on many levels.

I refuse to live in fear, for it is fear that has gotten us the dangerous Bush presidency. The need to speak out and organise is more important than ever, from all quarters. Education and engagement are crucial, especially in the American heartland.

As I closed the week in New York City, which voted against Bush by a margin of 85 percent, I was buoyed by the capacity of a city to move beyond fear - inspired and hopeful. It is this hope that I hold onto for America and for the world.

Dr BRIDGET WELSH is assistant professor in Southeast Asian studies at John Hopkins University-SAIS, Washington DC.