One of Barack Obama's major campaign themes is the promise that he will "unite" America. Obama is an incredibly skillfull campaigner, so I must assume that he wouldn't be pushing this trope unless there were good reason to believe that it works. Of course, Obama is far from the only politician to promise unity. Remember when George W. Bush promised that he would be a "uniter, not a divider"? That was a fairly successful campaign theme too.
This emphasis on unity for its own sake seems misplaced. After all, unity is really valuable only if we are united in doing the right thing. Being united in doing the wrong thing is surely worse than being divided, if only because division reduces the likelihood of the harmful policies being enacted. And even if the policies proposed by the would-be "uniter" really are beneficial, it's not clear why broad unity in support of them is preferable to just having enough votes to get them passed.
Ultimately, the ideal of unity is antithetical to democracy itself, which relies on constant competition and division between parties. When democracy works well, it is precisely because of our divisions, which check the power of incumbents and ensure their replacement by their opponents if the voters decide they have screwed up badly enough. If we really value unity for its own sake, perhaps dictatorship or one party oligarchy would be a better form of government.
Despite its vacuousness, unity rhetoric seems to be popular. Popular enough that both conservative and liberal politicians routinely resort to it. Popular enough that a brilliant candidate like Obama has made it a centerpiece of his campaign. Popular enough that nationalists, socialists, fascists, and communists have all made effective use of it. Remember "One People, One Fuehrer, One Reich"? No, I am not saying that Obama (or Bush) is like the Nazis and Communists. Far from it. However, the Nazi and communist examples do dramatically illustrate how unity doesn't have any intrinsic value. The achievement of national unity made these regimes even worse than they would have been otherwise, not better.
The interesting question is why people find the idea of "unity" so appealing. I tentatively conjecture that the popularity of unity themes is in part related to rational political ignorance and voters' lack of incentive to consider the issues carefully and systematically. Because voters don't have much incentive to consider policy issues in detail, they often fail to get beyond the warm, fuzzy feelings that appeals to unity inspire. If voters were more sophisticated in their thinking, they would not so easily yield to this temptation. They would at least ask: "What is it that he wants to unite us to do?" They would also recognize that tropes about unity are one of the most common excuses for flawed, inefficient, and oppressive policies. As economist Dan Klein explains in his article "The People's Romance," the unity theme has a long and sordid history.
UPDATE: Various commenters and others claim that Obama is merely expressing the fact that Americans share common goals. Even if this is true, it still doesn't prove that the unity trope is a good thing. After all, there is no value to having common goals if those goals are the wrong ones. Unity has value only in so far as it can be used to promote beneficial ends, and is positively harmful otherwise. Moreover, I doubt that Obama (and previous practitioners of unity rhetoric) merely seek to express a preexisting unity. After all, if the unity they appeal to already exists, there is no need to support their campaigns in order to promote it. Rather, Obama, Bush and many others promise to provide a greater level of unity than existed before. That is surely what Bush meant when he promised he would unite rather than divide, and what Obama seems to mean today.
That assumes that people agree on the policy because of their opinions about its merits rather than for the sake of "unity."
unity across a broad population creates economies of scale and prevents external enemies from exploiting division.
That implies that unity might be beneficial when used to unite against external threats. It doesn't prove that unity is a good thing more generally. As for economies of scale, they can and do exist even in the absence of political unity.
Samir has struck upon a rich vein of truth, apparently, without realizing it. In the partisan political context, appeals to "unity" mean that you should agree with "our side" unless your intention is to be divisive and subvert the "common good". Democrats use this construction more than Republicans, but that's merely because Republicans have different words for the same sentiment. Words like "hope", "change", "unity", and "fairness" are substitutes for actual ideas that may have to be defended with intellectual vigor. No politician wants to go there!
Partisanship and principled disagreement serve useful purposes, and don't get nearly enough respect. In the current political climate, using your opponent's record--and even his own words--to challenge him, is considered "smearing" and "slinging mud". Better that we just wave bumper stickers at one another.
Is it just me, or does the process seem to get ore insulting with each passing election?
let's continue be divisive and smear the majority of Americans, just like wing nuts like to do....
But it sounds nice when you don't accompany the word with any substance.
Nazis and Communists also celebrated X.
The obvious conclusion is that X has no intrinsic value, not that X may have some value that can be be outweighed by some great evil.
Samir, I think you're being a bit disingenuous. The "divisiveness," as it were, has certainly not pervaded Bush's entire eight [sic] years. I would entertain an argument that it has been for a majority of it.
Of course, this narrow-sighted, "present and futurism" perspective forgets that America has endured far, far more divisive years. Like, say, the Civil War. To believe that Americans were somehow "united" in the Clinton administration is naive and revisionist history. (Recall that Bush ran on a post-impeachment platform of "ending the politics of personal destruction" and "reaching across the aisle," too.) It's simply that when this mantra of "change" is uttered enough, people who disagree with Bush think there's divisiveness (and wouldn't mind being on the winning side). If it's President Obama or Clinton, I can assure you that the 2012 Republican candidates will be calling for "change" and "unity" (because, as all minority political parties, they're left on the sidelines).
Indeed, it's ironic that the "divisiveness" is deemed at its height when the White House and Congress have divided political control, which demands cooperation (and which, indeed, has been largely achieved, with only a handful of vetoes from the White House).
To some extent, this is due to the political ignorance Prof. Somin notes; but it's also human psychology (one might say "human nature").
My favorite example is the fundamentalist who insists that others join his sect, b/c it bolsters his own insecurity. Note the tendency to "megachurches" where one can be surrounded by a thousand or more fellow worshippers.
Hence the appeal of "unity."
I find this statement over-broad. Yes, democracy is built on the precipice of dissension and that we build institutions to appreciate that effect. However, antithetical? As long as dissension is free flowing and is given its protections, why does the idea of unity object to democracy.
My impression is that your assumption is that to achieve unity we will have to stifle dissension. Maybe, that is true (see Federalist No. 10), but maybe count me an idealist in thinking that its possible to build a strong unity without disparaging dissent.
Finally, as to unity in political rhetoric. Almost always a tactic, but for some reason every time I hear it sounds darn good. Which while I would consider myself ignorant, I would not count myself an ignorant voter. I also believe the unity that is discussed is a unity in how to approach our policy decisions. For too long we have held sway over policies on what party raised the issue or supported the cause. Truly, an ultimate sign of voter ignorance. Thus, I think much of the unity that is being discussed is to bring a rationality back to the debate.
Further, I also think the unity discussed is to beat back the trend of the "me" generations. The so-called "greatest generation," was disciplined in unity and returned with a sense that the greater good is worth working for because ultimately that impacts me. That rationale is not present in the populace today because the largely prevailing sentiment is "what can you do me?" versus "what can you do for my country?"
One last point, before I am accused of being a socialist, I do not think this is done largely through governance. I personally think this brought about mostly by changing the tune sung at the top. Meaning having a strong leader (which I believe McCain, Obama, or Clinton could achieve) and him/her encouraging the innovation and cohesion of the American ideal. It doesn't come from a mass of federal legislation. Actually, I think that works against rather than for changing the prevailing sentiment.
Thus, the talk of unity is rather refreshing to me (as it was in 2000). I just hope this time it take more substance than form.
But in the campaign of 1860 and winter of 1861 the Democrats were calling for compromise that would preserve the Union by preserving slavery.
He is talking about leading -- leading us to choose to lay down arms and to stop this cycle where 50.1% of the country seizes power for as long as the other 49% can be bound and gagged, until the roles reverse.
Even the attempt to do so, successful or not, is something completely outside of Clinton's capacity. She's been in the trenches, as she constantly reminds us. That's why her negatives are so astronomically high.
And for all of you who CONTINUE to complain that Obama lacks substance, just ask yourself whether you would rather have Hillary's healthcare plan or Obama's (Mandates and fines or voluntary participation and opt-outs). One would think that was a substantive difference, but maybe we will have to wait until Hillary gets the nomination and decides its her turn to be Supreme Dictator to find out how different they are.
No, you are!
Otherwise ignorant voters are also probably going to be nevertheless aware of the actual costs of friction between more politically-invested people in their workplaces, families, and relationships. Unity wouldn't just offer them warm fuzzy feelings - it'd offer them real day-to-day benefits. Those benefits may be tiny compared to the benefits that might be achieved through political disagreement, but rationally ignorant voters have already decided not to be concerned with that second set of benefits.
Unity reminds me of Rousseau's idea of the General Will--and thats not something I would like to replicate in American politics. No matter who is interpreting the general will.
Not when it's voluntary.
When politicians call for it, though, it seems coercive "unity" is what they really want.
Consider, "United we stand, divided we fall." the value of consensus as well as these calls for unity.
Each case is premised on the notion that the individual should be valued less than the collective. Sometimes this is true, but a lot of times it isn't.
In my mind, the problem with fascism is a matter of degree. How much more is consensus valued over opposition? How much is unity valued over partisanship (which in turn is its own form of fascism)? To what spheres of life should this apply? What to do with those who oppose consensus? At what level of consensus does unity become more valuable than individualism?
The political mechanisms created by answering these questions can then become very unstable when information is noisy which can give a false sense of consensus (see ChrisO's assertion which I assume is true for his circle, but probably not for the nation as a whole) or when fascist principles are applied in inappropriate spheres (see "consensus" in the AGW debate - what should matter is what are the verifiably correct predictions)
ChrisIowa replied:
Are you arguing that unity was achieved in 1860 and 1861? Or that preserving slavery was a morally defensible principle? I'm having trouble seeing what your point is.
If leadership and consensus are such terrible things, perhaps there is an opening for a different perspective. Look for my presidential campaign in 2012 on a platform of no leadership at all. "I promise to provide no initiative at all. I'm just going to sit in the White House and see what Congress sends up Pennsylvania Avenuse for my signature."
Geesh!
...er, or more recently, "I'm a Uniter, not a Divider." And we must do "X" (no matter what X is or how much it conflicts with the constitution) because to do otherwise is to let the terrorists win. The Unity thing you are trying to lay on the Democrats is also a Republican principle--i.e., we need Unity so everyone else needs to conform.
Yeah, the "Unity" stuff can be scary. Let's not pretend it is an Obama thing, though.
This is why Obama's use of unity rhetoric (whe he himself lies at the very far left-wing end of the spectrum) is wholly out of place, but still a good political strategy for voters who can't look at the issues.
Answer: Because leftist PC ideas are postmodern, and postmodernism is irrational. People believe all-cultures-are-equal because they believe it, not because it can be supported by evidence. Postmodernism can not defeat contrary ideas, it has to shout them down.
A demand for conformity is a necessary and logical feature of irrational belief systems.
As for Bush trying that same meme eight years ago: I don't think Bush has/had anywhere near the inspirational ability that Obama does, and the people he hired and surrounded himself with (loyalist neo-cons) didn't help the situation.
Ok, now... from a completely normal person's ( at least for America ) point of view, people get tired of constantly fighting everything in their lives: traffic, crowds, their kids, other people's kids, religion, politics, et cetera, et cetera ( as the King of Siam would say )
Why do you think most American's don't vote? Unity becomes at least a nice idea, even when they know very well that it isn't really ever completely possible. They want enough unity to get by.
Id posit to you this:
If GWB would have approached the American people openly and honestly when we started the Iraq War by saying - 'were going to be in there an awful long time' , 'its a long and difficult path to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish', 'Iraq may not be the most direct way for us to fight global terrorism, but its our easiest target' and so on and so on, his approval ratings and that of the who republican party woudln't be in the toilet like they are today.
So in Obama, I see not someone who may actually represent the policies that matter to me the most, but at least one who MIGHT not try and stomp them down the throats of the American public by any means necessary.
And as a side note, you can't even tell if the policies that you THINK are backed by your candidate will hold past his inauguration. Some of us who voted Bush way back in 2000 thought that he was going to follow some of that fiscal conservatism Reagan language that he had began to use. In 2008, that sentiment seems a little, well.... misguided? naive?
Well hindsight certainly is 20/20 and all but give me a president who doesn't treat the public like they are children and/or a nuisance. Thats all that I ask.
Ilya's Kindergarten teacher should be immediately fired.
Unity for the sake of merely getting things done may be overrated. But unity in the sense that we are one country, despite all our differences, is appealing not only on an emotional one but a rational one as well.
I am as conservative as they come, and have voted for Republicans all my life (after my foolish liberal adolescence). And I can see myself voting for Obama, even over McCain who I also like. Why? Because he would symoblize something. He would be the antithesis of the ugly poison from the Clinton and Bush years (for which the Republican party in my view has the majority of the responsibility). He speaks inclusively, not exclusively, and I don't think it's an act, or merely rhetoric. I can see Obama reaching out to political opposition for effective compromise. Even though he's very liberal, I sincerely think he would be a center-leftist rather than an ideolgoue.
Coming back to unity, I think one could make a spiritual analogy to the Christian faith. One of the most important teachings of Christ is that there should be "unity of the Spirit." He prayed in the Gospel of John that "they would all be one, even as We are one," meaning that His disciples would express the oneness inherent in the Trinity. And yet the Christian church has all sorts of manifestations, churches, denominations, sects, etc. The church does not appear to be very "one."
But I think most Christians would say that "unity" or "oneness" is something deeper, focusing on what unites Christians (central doctrines of the faith, perhaps subjective experiences as well) rather than what divides them (less significant doctrines, traditions and practices).
So it could be argued that the Christian church has no visible unity. It could also be argued that there is a unity which is transcendant.
Don't misunderstand me, because I'm not implying that Barack is some kind of Messiah. I'm just making an analogy. When he speaks of "unity" I believe he means something profound, something transcendant. I also think that's why there's such a strong response from people who listen to him.
America is a diverse and divided country. But what unites us is strong than what divides us. The last few years have been brutally divisive, and I would argue "un-American." For example, accusing people of being treasonous or unpatriotic for having differing views on the war in Iraq, terrorism, surveilliance, etc. (Again, I say this as a Republican.) I think Obama would deal with issues in an inclusive way, rather than a divisive and exclusive way. Even if he governs from the left, I don't think he would purposely divide the country or slander his critics. His approach would be that of a unifier, laying hold of what is best about this country.
Just my two cents...
In other words, no more disgusting comments like the one Romney made yesterday.
Ah. So the Southern Baptists in my state are actually ... postmodernist?
Interesting. I'll have to chat them up about Derrida sometime. All that "fundamentalism" is obviously ironic.
McCain and Clinton have track records. Obama is largely unknown and has avoided taking specific positions on most issues. It's no wonder that Clinton is now challenging him to debates -- Her negatives are known, so she won't lose supporters. If he debates, some of his supporters will find that they disagree with what he really means and drop away. However, he may, for now, be able to avoid debating on substantive issues, and count on the fact that between the Dem. Convention and the election is only 8 weeks, which is very little time for people to educate themselves on specifics, especially since McCain has a track record with lots of specifics to attack. Obama is smart and that's not a bad strategy. Clinton also realizes that if she has to rely on SuperDelegates to secure the nomination, a lot of Obama's supporters will feel cheated and won't support her election bid. So, Clinton's best strategy is to call Obama out for debates -- especially before there are more primaries or caucuses. Meanwhile, McCain needs to develop some Conservative Cred -- get his negatives out there (so they are "old news" in Sept to Oct) and work on the theme "You may not agree with me, but at least you know what I stand for" (in case Obama gets the nomination).
Changing directions completely:
pluribus wrote:
The notion that the Civil War was fought over slavery is revisionism. It was fought over federal supremacy vs. doctrine of disunionism. Initially both sides anticipated a short, relatively bloodless conflict -- since prior to that time the experience of the US in major wars had been the War of 1812 and Mexican War. The Emancipation Proclamation was effective Jan 1, 1863 (prior to that captured or run-away slaves were "contraband" and still considered to be property) and only effective in the CSA states. Slavery was not abolished until the ratification of the 13th Amendment after the Civil War was over. I'm not complaining that slavery was abolished as a consequence of the Civil War and efforts during Reconstruction to ensure that the people who led the CSA never again had the economic strength to challenge the federal government. However, it was not fought to free the slaves. And, in light of Reconstruction Era politics, I don't think that by any stretch of the imagination that one can conclude that "unity" was achieved anywhere -- although the Union was preserved.
And, Chris -- in 1864 the Democrats were also calling for a negotiated peace which allowed the CSA states to preserve slavery. As late as August 1864 George McClellan was well ahead of Abe Lincoln in popularity. McClellan was promising to bring the troups and negotiate an honorable peace (although it wasn't clear what he intended if the CSA would not re-join the Union). The fall of Atlanta to Sherman had a decisive political effect since it clearly signaled that the CSA was doomed if the Union persevered. By that time most people were more interested in vengenance than in securing freedom for slaves, especially since nearly every family had members who were casualties. Lincoln's plans for bringing the CSA states back into the Union (which Johnson tried to implement and for which efforts he was impeached) were much more lenient than those that the Radical Republicans enacted to govern Reconstruction. The program of the Radical Republcans reflected popular opinion, since they were the ones elected to Congress by popular vote (for the House) and by the state legislatures (for the Senate). The abolition of slavery was a consequence of the Union's military victory, and the Radical Republicans' political victories, rather than any "unity" (either national or even in the North).
There is one important lesson not to overlook in this -- Then we killed each other. Today we only call each other names. On the "Good to Bad Scale" that looks like a Good.
That's the kind of unity Senator Obama is talking about. Viewing the other 50% of the country not as an enemy to be conquered, but as a partner with whom to engage.
It will be very difficult for him to get any "unity" for his policies if he doesn't campaign on what those policies are.
Yes. Preaching unity has just about the same degree of meaning as promising "change."
It reminds me of a story I heard when Rove (I think it was Rove) met with a moderate Republican senator about some bill. The colloquy went something like this:
Rove: This bill is now certain to pass.
Moderate: Sure, but if we made some very minor changes, it will get 80 votes.
Rove: Who cares? We have enough votes already.
Rove's mindset is exactly what needs to be expelled from Washington.
So Alexander Stephens was a “revisionist,” eh? What did he know? He was only the vice-president of the Confederacy.
Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861
www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1861stephens.html
I think Reagan gave a similar impression about "unity," although I don't recall him using the term in that way. He simply talked about what was great about the country, and many Americans of diverse beliefs responded. I don't think it was empty rhetoric. He (Reagan) meant it, and people knew what he meant and responded.
What's so great about "unity"? What's so great about "experience"? What's so great about "strength"? What's so great about "leadership"?
Nothing. They're just nouns. They can mean whatever the hell we want them to mean, depending on the context. What on earth is the point of arguing over whether "the concept of unity" in the abstract, should be considered a good or a bad thing?
While some degree of disunity is beneficial, when policy disagreements cause people to fling around words like treason, impeachment, and secession, we need a bit more unity.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but this strikes me as a profound misunderstanding of Federalist 10. Madison was NOT celebrating division. What he was doing was asserting that in a large country, the only measures likely to pass were those on which the country was truly unified. These were the "permanent and aggregate interests" of the nation.
Hmmm. Here's the SC Declaration of Secession (in part):
"The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."
Here's Mississippi's:
"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
And the opening to Georgia's:
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war."
There's lots more. Slavery caused the Civil War. The only "revisionism" is the denial of that fact.
That's very big of you, wfjag. When did you come to this very liberal conclusion?
A presidential candidate who touts his "leadership" qualifications is missing something very important. Leadership is only good if the leader's chosen direction is a good one. We should not forget that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Nancy Pelosi are also "leaders," but that does not make them intrinsically good. If someone says "I'm a leader," voters should ask "where does s/he want to lead us?"
"Unity" rhetoric is just like any other rhetoric. Obama has found a few words that trigger positive feelings in people (the others being change and hope), and his campaign strategy is to repeat them as often as possible. It's much easier than talking substance, and voters don't respond to substance anyway.
Pluribus has this right. Since the Clinton years, we've had 'round-the-clock coverage of the deeply-held belief by those in Congress and the White House that cooperating with the opposition is opening the door to future failure. Congressmen lose their seats for implying the opposition has good ideas.
Obama is trying to get away from lock-step party politics, and therein lies the contradiction: unity already exists in Washington. It just happens to be a unified group of Republicans and a unified group of Democrats. Most Americans, if they're honest with themselves, see reasonable solutions coming from members of both parties, and it would be nice to have a President who reflects that--without then getting slaughtered by his or her unified party.
How is Obama trying to get away from that. Do know any of his policies? What actually makes Obama a unifier?
It's just picking a very ugly feature from a myriad issues of contention and holding that up as some sort of post hoc moral justification.
Lincoln, Congress and the Supreme Court had all given their blessings to slavery in some form when the machinery of war began to sputter into action.
1) Does unity mean you are aware that there is another view point(s) about policy solutions?
2) Do you expect those holdling other view points to adopt your prescription?
3) are you willing to compromise your positions?
Basically, talking about unity appears to be a crock until you start answering some specific questions. Having said that, I do like Obama at a gut level, but politicians always tell you what they think you want to hear, and will never tell you how, precisely, they are going to govern.
It seems to me that this is the kind of unity Obama is talking about.
While some degree of disunity is beneficial, when policy disagreements cause people to fling around words like treason, impeachment, and secession, we need a bit more unity.
And, then, just five comments later, "alias" include Nancy Pelosi in a list with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
I disagree with Nancy Pelosi as much as anyone, but, Yes, JB, we need a bit more unity.
1. Why did the South (want to) secede? Answer: To preserve and maintain slavery.
2. Why did the North refuse to allow the South to secede? Answer: To preserve and maintain the Union.
This is why the CSA Constitution affirms slavery and Northern politicians were willing to accept slavery's continuation if the Union could be preserved. There is no "either-or" conflict here.
As to the question of Obama and unity, I think the simple explanation of why he stresses it is that testing has shown it plays well, both among Democrats and generally. And he maintains unity by speaking in generalities. Generalities regarding unity often sound, if taken seriously, fascistic, because the implication is that one should sacrifice one's personal goals for a "national" goal: unity. Unity is also a favorite of political leaders because the underlying assumption is "Don't question authority". Unity also makes it easier to call for "sacrifice", another favored meme of politicians. ("Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your volk, ahem...country")
A tiny fraction of Americans (perhaps 5%, but it is the 5% that runs the media) wants to ban all guns, or at least license them so restrictively that only a few Americans would have guns. There's a solid 1/3 of Americans who consider restrictive gun control a reason to start shooting. There's another 1/3 to 1/2 who support passage of "reasonable gun controls"--including passing laws that have been on the books for decades now.
A clear majority of Americans believe that elective abortion should be either completely unlawful, or discouraged strongly enough that only a fraction of the current abortions would take place. A solid 1/4 of Americans believe that there should be few if any restrictions on abortion.
I am not persuaded that there is this unity that you imagine.
Lots of people want to tell all sides in that fight to shut up. It's unpleasant to watch, for one thing. For another, there's a serious risk of either legislative paralysis or crazy, whacked-out policies. People who only talk to their own side end up in an echo chamber of sorts, and their positions tend to become more extreme over time. Taking input from a broader range of sources tends to keep this from happening.
That said, I still think Obama is too far to the left. I would probably vote for him if at least one house in Congress had a solid Republican majority, because then he would be forced to compromise towards the center. As it is, however, I guess it will be McCain. And for the same reason.
Ironically, your excerpts from the seccession declarations actually prove wfjag's points rather than refute them. Per those three quotes, the states were not seeking to leave the Union because someone had a philosophical disagreement (about slavery), they left because they disagreed with laws passed on a federal/national level and sought to be free of them.
Similarly, the Union did not go to war because they felt bad about losing a philosophical debate; they fought to enforce the idea that (1) the national government held power over the land, therefore (2) a state could not opt-out of the Union simply because they wound up on the minority on an issue. Or did you never read Lincoln's Declaration of War?
Certainly slavery was the issue at hand which sparked the existential crisis of a party seeking to deny the power of the federal government; in a previous case it was whiskey (in opposition to federal taxation). But the war was undeniably fought to preserve federal supremacy, in the particular area of its power to compel individual states to comply with federal law.
(For obvious reasons this also started the decline of federalism in the US as a check on the federal government's power; but that's a lengthy discussion for another time.)
Legitimate arguments could well have been advanced against the Iraq War--and certainly against some of the incompetent decisions made by the Bush Administration in how it was fought. But except for the Michael Moore/Move On wing of the Democratic Party, Democrats went along with the Bush Administration. We were unified. Parts of this were a mistake, no question--but at least in 2003, only the traitor wing of the Democratic Party was claiming that Bush was lying.
The willingness of Democrats who knew better in 2002 to play cynical politics about the Iraq War in 2004 absolutely infuriates me. It is why I will never be able to take the Democratic Party seriously. It is not an honest group, but a bunch of demagogues willing to tell any lie to get control, and willing to cozy up Michael Moore (remember him at the 2004 Democratic convention?) and the 9/11 Truthers to get back in charge.
Say this again, maybe it will be less wrong the 100th time. The whole problem with McCain and Clinton, on both sides, is that they are unpredictable. Obama takes clear positions on just as many issues as anyone else, all you have to do is look them up.
I get so freaking tired of hearing people repeat this stuff.
No word or series of words can properly articulate how wrong you are.
Interesting that you quote CSA VP Stephens, and ignore CSA President Jefferson Davis’ First Inaugural Address, February 18, 1861, Alabama Capitol, Montgomery, Al. Not once did Davis mention slavery.
He did say:
And,
And,
Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Washington, D.C., however, repeatedly referred to slavery. Among the things he said:
While Lincoln called for the preservation of the Union, at no point did he then call for the abolition of slavery.
You and Mark Field conflate two different issues. The CSA states seceded to preserve their way of life and their “property.” As a 21st century person you don’t comprehend that a 19th century man (women having many fewer rights) would regard another human as “his property.”
Neither side anticipated a war as long and as bloody as occurred. But, after 600,000 dead and millions wounded, a better justification than federal supremacy vs. the doctrine of disunion was needed. The Northern justification became ending the moral scourge of slavery. The Southern justification became “the Glorious Lost Cause.”
I’d also suggest that you read the dissents of the first Justice Harlan “The Great Dissenter.” Although he had been a slave owner, he could not find the words “separate but” in his copy of the Constitution. To him “equal” meant “equal.”
Pluribus, the end of your 11:52 am comment actually proves my conclusion. Then we killed each other. Today we only call each other names. I do see that as progress. And, I also see as progress the inability of a 21st century American to understand how a 19th century American could regard another human as chattel. Still, it is revisionism to intrepret the events leading to the Civil War from a 21st century perspective.
This is correct. But slavery and preservation of the Union were closely related. The Southern states believed that they could not preserve and maintain slavery in the Union, so they seceded. Secession led them to bombard Sumter, and the war began. By opposing secession, the North was refusing to let the South establish a separate slaveholding republic. Secession was the immediate "cause" of the war, and preservation of the Union was the immedate response, but slavery was its motivating "cause," the issue at the root of it all. Without slavery, without the fear that it was endangered, the South would not have seceded. And the war ended with the 13th amendment abolishing slavery.
We we might say:
I agree with this. They seceded to preserve slavery; that was the "way of life" they meant.
The laws they disagreed with were laws affecting slavery. They didn't leave because they disliked the rule against perpetuities. When you compare the Confederate Constitution to the real one, it's easy to see that the principal changes involved slavery (e.g., in the territories).
I should add that the volume of evidence that slavery motivated the South to leave is gigantic. I can't possibly quote it all on this blog (and it's off-topic anyway). But to deny that slavery was the basis for secession is truly revisionist. Historians even have a name for it: the myth of the "Lost Cause".
Thoughtful's post at 1:01 is a pretty fair summary.
Obfuscation. Alexander Stephens was not a 21st century American, for heavens sake! Yes, Southern slaveholders thought they had an "inalienable" right to own human beings (and their wives and their children and their grandchildren and great grandchildren, on into the indefinite future), breed them, sell them, beat them, use them however they wanted. And some of them also thought the "inalienable" right was so precious they were willing to take up arms against their own own government to preserve it. It doesn't take a 21st century perspective to understand this. Nor is it by any stretch of the imagination "revisionism."
It is not about unity versus disunity as a binary. (i.e. Bush - "you are either with us or against us"). It is about unity and disunity on a continuum.
Our government is not intended to be based on disunity. Any student of history will recall that the Founders abhorred political parties and factions, precisely because they cause an excessive amount of fractious disunity. Just as excessive unity on all issues would not be a good sign, excessive disunity has its own dangers.
Somin is obviously correct in thinking something like absolute unity would be a bad thing. But, Somin is very foolish to interpret Obama as suggesting that he seeks such a thing. If you think of unity as being a continuous variable, one might visualize it fluctuating on a graph, nowhere near either absolute unity or absolute disunity. Obama is suggesting that it is good to move from where we are now, a point of relatively high disunity.
Were the Founders wrong in being suspicious of factions and the excessive disunity they reinforce? I do not think so. Excessive disunity prevent necessary collective actions. (Something that I do not expect a silly libertarian to understand.) In extreme scenarios, it may also degenerate into violence and civil war.
I know that Somin rejects the Founders on countless issues, on everything from the meaning of the First Amendment to the takings clause. But I think the Founders were right to be suspicious of excessive disunity caused by factions.
Is a tendency to think in simplistic binaries, somehow fundamental to libertarianism?
(1)
"All taxation is theft."
(2)
Unity means absolute unity.
(3)
Government doing anything not on an arbitrary list of "essential" functions is bad.
I find it amusing that Somin has chosen to interpret Obama in a patently ridiculous way. But, I think it may be a reflection of his own tendencies to think in binaries.
Yes, and myths are always created by the losers. They keep creating them to "explain" their losses, and they revel in losing over and over again.
Poorly executed joke.
So Obama isn't really campaigning for unity, he is campaigning (just like Bush did in 2000) against the opposite of unity. With the bonus that if he gets elected, and runs into resistance on a issue, no matter how principled the resistence, he can say "The American People spoke clearly in the last election that it was time for the end of partisan stonewalling, and my opponents are thwarting the will of the American people."
Did the words of the constitution have a fixed meaning when they were written, can we know what that meaning was now, and should we care? -Are 3 questions that seem unsettled right here on the blog
the legitimacy of a multi-party system
Bush wins = Diebold stole the election. Hillary wins = same thing, sometimes.
the illegitimacy of political violence as a response to electoral defeat(read the comments)
nonpartisan judges get 20 commenters on this blog to define that term
more or less gender-, race-, and religion-neutral legislation More? Or less?
a broadly capitalist economic system 'Sicko' made $25 million and was unabashedly pro-socialist (which is an interesting sentence itself).
Unity is not only over-rated, it's lost it's way.
"Various commenters and others claim that Obama is merely expressing the fact that Americans share common goals. Even if this is true, it still doesn't prove that the unity trope is a good thing."
And the mere fact of similar goal does not entail the fact that those goals would be satisfied by unity. For example, in a zero sum game, players may have similar desires that are constrained, rather than enhanced by unity.
the only thing i can think of as a benifit to unity it that it decreases the already unlikely event of so called constitutional crises and political strife that shakes the foundation of our system (i.e congressional oversight supeanas answered by executive state secrets privilege claims, singing statements, and elections being decided by supreme court decisions..etc..)
of course, unity can also be bad in a democratic system as Iyla notes..and the benefit of argumentation and democratic give and take probably by far outweighs this benefit.
Saying that would be a pretty obvious over-simplification, wouldn't it?
However, there are certain features of society which approach zero sum games.
For example, most, if not all Americans like money. However, "uniting" our income (e.g. redistributing it) would not be beneficial for all Americans. Even setting aside wasteful inefficiencies, people with above average income would lose money. They would be hurt, in their conception, by unity.
Furthermore, if people redistribute to a certain group, the larger that group is, the less people in that group gain from redistribution. They would benefit from a smaller 'union' of redistribution recipients.
I think this is a pretty obvious and limited point, and dwarfed by Ilya's point that our natural goals (e.g. getting the government to give us more of other's peoples' money) even if widespread, are not necessarily just.
Now 'unity' is really just too much of a vague feel good word for me to really say much definite about it but at least partially the appeal to notions like unity and bipartisanship lies in the frustration people experience when things everyone agrees should happen get held up in bickering over how they should happen. I mean to take a particular example consider the fact that we have a broad political consensus that the government should give many citizens a cash award as an economic stimulus but it is being held up in debates about whether money should also be given to various other groups.
Except of course everyone imagines people uniting to do things their way. This sort of unity (except in times of crisis) is totally impossible because it's in everyone's interest to be just a little bit less into unity than the next guy. I mean if you are willing to make large compromises to the legislation so long as it gets past but I'm only willing to make small compromises guess who comes out ahead? The voters want unity in the abstract but protest against the specifics. Compromise is a great thing until your issue is given away.
Of course there is also a deep evolutionary appeal to calls for unity. As noted above unity is incredibly important when facing outside threats and those primitive peoples who didn't respond positively to calls for unity were more likely to get killed.
In either case it's a stupid reason to vote for someone. I mean everyone is for unity in the most general terms (people agreeing with me) so the only way it could communicate useful information is if they meant they were going to pursue unity in a particular fashion, i.e., compromise more on issues their party cared about, play less political hardball etc.. So if a politician doesn't lay out what he means by unity (and none of them really do) it suggests he is fooling at least some of the people about how he will pursue it...maybe you.
"Change" is another good one. Change from what to what? What is the specific situation today, what is the desired specific situation, and what is specific different? Ever hear that from people calling for change?
Have we heard "come together" yet? I'm sure it is coming right after we "get the country moving in the right direction."
So, is it your position that Obama's specific positions on numerous issues are without substance?
The idea of increasing "unity" is not ridiculous, when one sees divisions preventing people from seeing and seeking productive agreement.
The idea of "change" is not ridiculous either. The idea focuses people first on the idea that the status quo is unsatisfactory (something that is often much easier to agree on than any particular program), as the first step to making some sort of progress.
This is not to say that specifics are unimportant. But, it is to say that one has to motivate change and seek some level of unity before on can move away from the status quo.
Not everybody thinks the status quo is a problem, at least not broadly. Sure, everybody has three issues on which they want change, but most people want everything else to stay fixed and predictable. Corporations changing everything willy-nilly are exasperating. Politicians doing the same are far worse.
The fundamental conservative temperament isn't about right-wing radicalism. It's a call for sticking to the status quo unless there is a REALLY compelling reason to do otherwise. And that reason is a case that has to be made issue-by-issue... change for the sake of change is NOT a good thing. It screws people up psychologically and makes it impossible for them to plan for the future.
If "unity" helps society settle down to debate (rather than holler about) those areas in which a lot of people really want change, well and good. If it's just "stir 'em up and make 'em march," to heck with it.
So what happens when he finally emerges from his protective liberal bubble? I think he's going to get a shock. Obama's support is deep in certain enclaves, but it is not yet broad enough to win the electoral college. Unless he learns to argue his positions, a lot of people that he would need to persuade to win are going to properly interpret his call for unity as a demand for unilateral disarmament by someone not prepared to properly debate the issues.
I'm with ya all the way.
Folks, I think we may be witnessing the start of a new political movement. "Americans united against Will Ferrell"
Yes. I hear very little from him that is specific. What are the positions you refer to?
"The idea of increasing "unity" is not ridiculous, when one sees divisions preventing people from seeing and seeking productive agreement."
The idea of unity is rediculous if the person calling for the unity doesn't define exactly what he means. Divisions of opinion are very important when there are multiple valid approaches to the same problem. It makes one wonder if he knows. If he does, why keep it a secet?
"The idea of "change" is not ridiculous either. The idea focuses people first on the idea that the status quo is unsatisfactory (something that is often much easier to agree on than any particular program), as the first step to making some sort of progress."
It is redidulous focus on the deficiencies of the status quo without telling us 1) what specific aspects of the status quo are deficient, and 2) telling us what will replace them and how. It's also rediculous to agree the status quo is deficient if one doesn't know what is meant by the status quo. It's more rediculous to think someone who can't articulate that is a leader.
"This is not to say that specifics are unimportant. But, it is to say that one has to motivate change and seek some level of unity before on can move away from the status quo."
And that is what I mean by no substance. Say we need change but don't say what has to change. Say the staus quo is deficient, and don't say exactly what is deficient. Say we have to unite, but don't tell us what is meant by unity. No substance.
When you sit in an office all day grading papers, preparing lectures, and writing articles, you probably get an appreciation for Emerson-esque solitude, with a dash of Ayn Rand self reliance thrown in. You create your own CV, you develop your contribution to the world--and so you see this world as a bit, well, lonely. No one helped you come to your ideas about eminent domain, and so that's how the whole world should work.
In the private sector, as well as in the public sector (collectively, hereinafter "the real world") "unity" in Obama's sense is an absolute requirement for sound decision-making and task resolution. Unity is not single-mindedness. It is collaborative effort. It is the ability to capture the issues presented in an abstract and fluid situation, and come to a reasoned understanding about how to address those issues. In my own experience, and (if I got paid a bit more and COL in the Washington area was a bit less, I'd bet a million on this) the experience of the vast majority of successful businesspeople, attorneys, doctors, clergy, and, yes, politicians, YOU CANNOT DO THIS ALONE. Period. I swear, if I had a nickel for every time a settlement negotiation I've been on has benefited largely from an open discussion and compromise... Yes, sometimes, unity on a bad idea leads you down a path you wish you hadn't traveled. What do you do then? You start the process over. If you have good people around you, and your relationship with those people is good, then you invariably find your way off of that path and onto another one that might be a little brighter.
To address two comments made earlier in the thread, OF COURSE principled partisan disagreement is a good thing. It's absolutely essential to the idea of unity. If you read The Kennedy Tapes, you'll see the essential failure of the Bay of Pigs fiasco is that, as Kennedy put it, his generals sat around the table, eating fruit salad, parroting the company line that everything about the invasion would work out. Later, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy utilized a much more savvy, collaborative, honest, and UNITY-based approach, and the result was much more effective.
This was reflected quite well, I thought, in the comment about Obama's work in the state senate. You don't railroad your ideas through an organization, eschewing unity for ideology. You'll almost always miss something. Much better to have a hundred sets of eyes addressing a problem, even if some of those eyes are connected to the brains of right wing nuts and pinko lefties.
The best leaders, whether in business or academia or politics, are able to identify shared positive goals and then inspire people to work together to achieve those goals. That's what Obama's talking about. When that happens, it's usually a good thing.
Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone one must agree with all the goals being set. However, if most people do agree, achieving a goal becomes a shared effort rather than only the personal effort of the person with the most power. This effort then serves democracy rather than subverting it.
When he uses the word "unity," he doesn't actually mean that we should all agree on a particular policy, but rather that when trying to come to a policy we should not strive for a solution that is acceptable to 51% of the population. We should work towards more moderate policies that can win the support of 60%-70% of the population. While he may only need 51% to get elected, sticking to policies that garner larger majorities of support helps to dilute the partisan rancor which many people find . . . distasteful. I think that this approach shows a respect for the other side and a respect for the citizens that are not in the 51% majority. It is far more accommodating of the minority viewpoint.
A lot of people have been turned off by the current method slamming through controversial legislation that 49% of the public finds completely unacceptable. I think that Senator Obama's message of "unity" is really a message for more civil discourse and a greater respect for compromise and the viewpoint of the opposing party. This is true even when that party is not in power and they didn't do the same thing when they were.
Regarding the attacks in this vein on Obama lacking substance, I've recently noted comments that there's an almost total absence of any "paper trail" of Obama's ideas and opinions -- especially this comment on the National Review's "The Corner" blog (via Instapundit).
A simple question: Does anyone know whether Obama, while serving on the Harvard Law Review from 1989-91, published anything? The law students on the Review all have the right to publish at least one piece (typically they publish at least their third-year papers, which they have to write anyway), and many publish at least two pieces. It would seem surprising if Obama published nothing at all in the very Review over which, he has so often boasted, he presided as President.
If Obama published NOTHING, that would tend to reinforce the contemporaneous impressions of his fellow editors (at least those a year behind him) that while "likeable enough" (to borrow a phrase), he was basically lazy in carrying out his duties. See my earlier comments here and here. It would be interesting if he was so lazy he didn't publish anything during the two years he served on the Review -- not even a short case comment or book review.
(Apparently, judged by the objective results of his work (later scholarly citations to the volume which he oversaw), Obama was the worst president of the Harvard Law Review in the past 20 years -- there was a huge drop in the citations to the volume he produced compared to the years just before, and just after, he served as president. See here.
In his recent interview on "60 Minutes" (see here, about 2:50 into the video), Obama conceded that other than his Review presidency he has no executive experience -- that the Review is the only thing he's ever run, setting aside his own senate office and his campaign. Analyzing his job performance on the Review thus seems like a legitimate, indeed important, task.)
If, on the other hand, Obama published something, that would help in the development and investigation of his "paper trail" -- and it might be that he published something interesting, even controversial, other at least revealing of his approach to at least legal issues.
In all likelihood, some readers of this blog either served with Obama on the Review or know people who served with him. It would be good if they could get this information out in the open, however it stacks up.