Recently, I got an email from a friend of mine discussing politics with a variety of others on the mail list. He mentioned of a certain candidate that he's a "uniter not a divider". I will not name the candidate nor his party affiliation because my issue with this claim transcends the left-vs.-right debate or party-vs.-party. It speaks more basically to a fundamental element of a free and democratic society vs. an autocratic society. The rules and issues I'm commenting on apply just as much to the Tea Party as the Occupy movement and any other political protest movement in our history. It also speaks to a disturbing trend I've found in our own politics in America for the last 20 years or so.
Free societies where open expression of dissent are not perfectly united, almost by definition. Barring any unusual homogeneity in the population (fat chance of that in a polyglot country like America, composed overwhelmingly of immigrants from all over the world), free societies don't display perfect harmony. At best, they can be expected to have legal and peaceful divisions of thought, concession of power by the minority in an election and respect of basic rights by the majority after the election.
Only dictatorships display such unity that certain segments of our population seem to long for. Only where you can either brainwash the populace, stoke them full of enough fear or crush all expressions of dissent can such unity be established.
It's fair to say that no elected president of any party, even ones with high approval ratings, are ever going to be loved by everyone in the country. Being mentally prepared to lead a free nation must involve knowing that you're always going to be proverbially burned if effigy by some group somewhere in the country. If you try to please everyone, everyone will ironically hate you for it.
Consequently, and check my logic here, I regard any candidate that boast of being a "uniter" (a term ironically coined by a president who openly used politics of division ("wedge issues") to his political advantage), to fall into one of three groups:
1. The best case scenario is the candidate is a typical shifty politician who's just spouting meaningless platitudes because they sound nice, not because they will in any way reflect his platform or policies. That's putting it kindly. The not so kind descriptions are "liar" or "hypocrite".
2. A less preferable scenario is the candidate has the mentality of an iron-fisted dictator who lusts for power and who's idea of "unity" is "shut up and do what I tell you to do". A giveaway is a candidate who whines that a group of protesters are "dividing America". Seriously? We were all harmonious, walking into the sunset singing "hosanna hosanna" until some people stood on a street corner shouting slogans? Do I really need to explain to you that protests aren't the creations of division but the expressions of it? This is about as dumb as a doctor yelling at a patient to stop having that fever, that doing so is making him sick.
3. The worst case scenario is the candidate actually sincerely wants to unite the nation and become a post partisan president. Such a persons desperate need for love from all corners will usually make him an indecisive, spineless appeaser. He will demoralize his own base while emboldening the fringes in the opposition. Far from being awed by such magnanimity, the opposition can be expected to become more shrill and more hateful. Ironically, his efforts to be loved by all will only earn him the hatred of all by his most unconditional of supporters.
The first scenario features a candidate who's talk of unity is hardly a plus. The next two make them of questionable fitness for office.
Put bluntly, America is a deeply divided nation. Any large country with such a diverse population is going to be. Any efforts to seek or proclaim anything else are a pipe dream, and a poorly defined one at that. Don't give me a politician who talks of "unity". Give me one who says, "Look, this is what I see as the best approach to solving our problems. If you don't agree, offer me a rational argument and back it up with solid facts, and you have my attention." I value honesty over pipe dreams.
P.S. and by the way Mr. Romney, now that I'm past the non-partisan points that I wanted to make, next time you scream at a protester that you absurdly accuse of "dividing America", that he should "go to North Korea", maybe you should consider that YOU are the one who should leave this country. Dissent is patriotic. Free speech is covered in the first amendment for a reason. If you can't handle that, and clearly you can't, maybe YOU are the one who doesn't like living in a free country.
You are certainly unfit to govern one.
Free societies where open expression of dissent are not perfectly united, almost by definition. Barring any unusual homogeneity in the population (fat chance of that in a polyglot country like America, composed overwhelmingly of immigrants from all over the world), free societies don't display perfect harmony. At best, they can be expected to have legal and peaceful divisions of thought, concession of power by the minority in an election and respect of basic rights by the majority after the election.
Only dictatorships display such unity that certain segments of our population seem to long for. Only where you can either brainwash the populace, stoke them full of enough fear or crush all expressions of dissent can such unity be established.
It's fair to say that no elected president of any party, even ones with high approval ratings, are ever going to be loved by everyone in the country. Being mentally prepared to lead a free nation must involve knowing that you're always going to be proverbially burned if effigy by some group somewhere in the country. If you try to please everyone, everyone will ironically hate you for it.
Consequently, and check my logic here, I regard any candidate that boast of being a "uniter" (a term ironically coined by a president who openly used politics of division ("wedge issues") to his political advantage), to fall into one of three groups:
1. The best case scenario is the candidate is a typical shifty politician who's just spouting meaningless platitudes because they sound nice, not because they will in any way reflect his platform or policies. That's putting it kindly. The not so kind descriptions are "liar" or "hypocrite".
2. A less preferable scenario is the candidate has the mentality of an iron-fisted dictator who lusts for power and who's idea of "unity" is "shut up and do what I tell you to do". A giveaway is a candidate who whines that a group of protesters are "dividing America". Seriously? We were all harmonious, walking into the sunset singing "hosanna hosanna" until some people stood on a street corner shouting slogans? Do I really need to explain to you that protests aren't the creations of division but the expressions of it? This is about as dumb as a doctor yelling at a patient to stop having that fever, that doing so is making him sick.
3. The worst case scenario is the candidate actually sincerely wants to unite the nation and become a post partisan president. Such a persons desperate need for love from all corners will usually make him an indecisive, spineless appeaser. He will demoralize his own base while emboldening the fringes in the opposition. Far from being awed by such magnanimity, the opposition can be expected to become more shrill and more hateful. Ironically, his efforts to be loved by all will only earn him the hatred of all by his most unconditional of supporters.
The first scenario features a candidate who's talk of unity is hardly a plus. The next two make them of questionable fitness for office.
Put bluntly, America is a deeply divided nation. Any large country with such a diverse population is going to be. Any efforts to seek or proclaim anything else are a pipe dream, and a poorly defined one at that. Don't give me a politician who talks of "unity". Give me one who says, "Look, this is what I see as the best approach to solving our problems. If you don't agree, offer me a rational argument and back it up with solid facts, and you have my attention." I value honesty over pipe dreams.
P.S. and by the way Mr. Romney, now that I'm past the non-partisan points that I wanted to make, next time you scream at a protester that you absurdly accuse of "dividing America", that he should "go to North Korea", maybe you should consider that YOU are the one who should leave this country. Dissent is patriotic. Free speech is covered in the first amendment for a reason. If you can't handle that, and clearly you can't, maybe YOU are the one who doesn't like living in a free country.
You are certainly unfit to govern one.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
