Has there ever been an election in which more money was spent to persuade so few undecided voters? If you were truly one of those who couldn’t choose between President Bush and John Kerry, feel special: The political parties just spent $1.2 billion on you and the several other people who hadn’t made up their minds early on.

(Fear not, you won’t need to declare this on your taxes.)

Lawyers will scrutinize ballots today; clerks will defend their tallies; candidates will thank the people who demand thanking; political experts will pore over their countless opinions in every direction, choose the one that matches this morning’s reality then congratulate themselves for being right. The public will move on – no matter the outcome, the next big thing is just around the corner.

Before trading Election Day for the post-election future, however, take a couple of minutes to observe what you did not hear this election season: “voter apathy,” “no difference between the candidates,” “doesn’t matter who is president,” “I’m not voting” – people cared this time, they saw stark differences and allied themselves accordingly. The winner may not have a mandate, but he clearly has a following.

This election, like the one in 2000, sent voters to the left or right, with only a few lonely moderates remaining in the middle, making the next achievement for the president and his party coaxing both sides back toward the center so that responsible governing is more likely.

The ubiquitous maps of red and blue states distort the true color of America, which is largely purple. Individuals are very often red or blue and a few states fall neatly within the lines of those colors, but most states, Maine included, are shades of purple – violet, mauve, perhaps a magenta or two. They chose a candidate by three or four percentage points at most. As distinctly determined as their red and blue voters are individually, collectively they are purple. Purple as a bruise.

President Bush said in 2000 he wanted to do something about the widening split between Americans, but didn’t, except to show that one person could not unite a country if his party had no interest in the project. Things are worse in 2004, but the answer is clearer – to end the angry political divisions, lucratively encouraged by shout shows that make the spice of ridicule their main and only meal, requires real work of many. The political parties, which live by appealing to our fears, greed and loathing; which die if they do not show a difference between themselves and the other, require a strong leader to check their worst instincts.

The president, of course, can’t just talk about getting along or simply offer niceties at an inauguration. He must say something substantial and then act on it. There is no need to wait – we’ll see it this week, not with the candidates themselves, but how their subordinates are allowed to behave. We’ll quickly know if the nation has a leader who can change the course of the last few years or whether the bruise will grow larger.