The U.S. has no moral high ground to say a word about this

This front-page New York Times article about pre-election violence in India, could just as easily be written about the US:

With national elections only months away, India is reeling from a rash of spiteful religious and ethnic clashes, prompting many in this country to ask why their vibrant, pluralistic democracy tends to encourage, rather than avert, the cruelty of neighbor against neighbor.

Tensions are growing in several corners of the country. The latest dispute was set off in Mumbai last week, when an upstart nativist party claiming to represent Marathas, the dominant ethnic group in the state, pounced on Indians who had come from elsewhere to apply for jobs at Indian Railways.

The party, which calls itself Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (roughly, the Army for the Reconstruction of Maharashtra) and has in recent months attacked northern migrants to Mumbai, wants those jobs to be set aside for local residents. On Oct. 21, the police arrested the party leader, Raj Thackeray, on a charge of inciting riots, after which his supporters went on a rampage across the city and its suburbs. Much of Mumbai was shut down.

A day later, a local court released Mr. Thackeray on bail, setting off a rampage in the northern state of Bihar, the source of the migrants attacked by Mr. Thackeray’s disciples. Protesters blocked trains, wrecked railroad stations and stranded passengers there and in several other parts of northern India.

Meanwhile, violence between Hindus and Muslims erupted elsewhere in Mr. Thackeray’s Maharashtra State, and spread south to the state of Andhra Pradesh, where a Muslim family of six was burned to death in their home in mid-October.

Clashes between Hindus and Christians continued to sweep through eastern Orissa State. In northeastern Assam State, indigenous Bodos fought with Bengali-speaking Muslims, leaving more than 50 people dead.

All the while, Indian cities remained skittish after a spate of terrorist attacks blamed largely on Islamic militants. Other factors include the longstanding Kashmir insurgency in the north and Maoist guerrillas across central India.

The Hindustan Times recently carried a map of India, splattered with red stains to mark current trouble spots. Many more would have to be added in the two weeks since the map was published. In mid-October, speaking to the wishfully named National Integration Council, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called the rash of violence “an assault on our composite culture.”

He added, “An atmosphere of hatred and violence is being artificially generated.”

How can the world’s largest democracy fail to prevent such a fury of intolerance?

Of course we don't have people from opposing parties rampaging across the country, though it's not because the Palinistas wouldn't do just that given half a chance. Here it takes a quieter, but perhaps even more insidious form -- false claims of attacks by supporters of the opposing candidate, Barack Obama hung in effigy as a Halloween "decoration", skinheads plotting, however ineffectually, to assassinate Obama and take a few bystanders down as well for no reason other than their skin color; car keying -- shouts of "traitor!" and "Communist" and "terrorist!" at Palin rallies when Obama's name is mentioned. Of course the level of violence here is less, but the sentiment is the same -- that differences of opinion aren't a source of pride for a thriving democracy, but instead something to be suppressed by whatever means necessary.