Much handwringing is made of the fact that America is a nation divided. I answer this concern by saying “Yeah? So what?”
Bill Clinton claimed that he did not want to be a “bare-fanged partisan” when he came into office. George W. Bush wanted to be a “uniter, not a divider.” Folks, America has been divided every which way since 1776, and that is what makes us United to begin with.
Trying to be all things to all people, such as John Kerry, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, leads people to end up being confused and turned off. One cannot win everyone, but they can lose everyone.
Instead, one can look at George W. Bush and see how someone should govern. He made a lot of liberals angry by governing as a conservative, talking about spending his political capital, and letting everybody know he was the decider. Guess what. He was…and is…right. Liberals wanted him in power as much as conservatives wanted Clinton. Conservatives believed that Clinton would be a disaster on many fronts, from gun control to foreign policy, and they were right. Guess what? There was nothing we could do. He won the elections, and the victor gets every ounce of spoils.
One cannot enact the agenda of Jews and Arabs, rich and poor, short people and tall people, etc…Decision making involves taking sides. It involves winners and losers, and the losers will get ticked off. This has been going on since John Adams defeated Thomas Jefferson for the right to succeed George Washington. Jefferson’s supporters won election four years later, and they then got to enact their agenda. The Federalists had their turn, and then the democrats had theirs.
Arguments over elections have gone back to the founding fathers as well. Bush vs Gore was not new. Andrew Jackson’s supporters claimed that John Quincy Adams cheated them. Four years later, The Jacksonians got their turn at power. Heck, Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton. Short of Moveon.org supporters, does anybody really think that violence is the answer to political disputes? Of course not.
Divisions are healthy. Even criticisms and lamentations over the incivility of public discourse today is overblown at times. In the 19th century, one senator beat another one with his cane. Now they call each other “my esteemed colleague.” Heck, some Asian nations still have fistfights in their legislative sessions that rival the better bench clearing brawls in baseball today.
There are lines that have been crossed. Liberals like to key conservatives’ cars, damage their bumper stickers, steal their lawn signs, and throw pies and other dangerous objects at conservative speakers, all in the name of freedom and tolerance of course. However, moonbats notwithstansding, sharp disagreements are good for America. In fact, the biggest dangers occur when there are a lack of disagreements. The best management teams have a “devil’s advocate.”This person is often disliked, but valuable.
One criticism of the Bush administration by liberals is the notion of “groupthink” in the Bush White House. This argument can be refuted by saying that what the liberals are really angry about is that Bush did not hire liberals to run our government. Imagine that…a president, any president, hiring people who agree with him philosophically.
The democratic party today is the current home of groupthink. The republican party has moderates, aka liberal republicans. The democratic party oozes affection for Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and their moderate ilk for having the courage to challenge “rigid” party orthodoxy. Yet Joe Lieberman gets drummed out of the party. This is not new fro democrats. At the 1992 democratic convention, Jerry Brown supporters wore ducktape over their mouths because Jerry Brown, the second place finisher, was relelgated to an insignifanct speaking role (If only those people had stayed ducktaped permanently).
John Kerry was partially a victim of the democrats wanting to be as united as possible against President Bush in 2004. Yes, there are times when intraparty squabbles can weaken a nominee. Al Gore used Willie Horton against Michael Dukakis, and the republicans amplified that line of attack. So what? Dukakis chose not to defend himself.
John Kerry won the nomination way too quickly, and it cost him. In 2008, the situation will be worse. The nominees will be chosen quickly, and democrats and republicans might be forced to think “this is our candidate for the next 9 months? What have we done?”
The solution to all of this can be found in sports. Rather than call a foul or a penalty after every “ticky-tack” infraction, we should for the most part, except for egregious violations just “let the players play.”
This argument extends to religion. Judaism has benefitted from fierce internal disagreements. True, 10 Jews in a room leads to 12 opinions. However, constant arguing back and forth produces stronger results. Islam right now is at a crossroads, because there are those that are scared to air such disagreements for fear of being accused of airing dirty laundry in public.
Try working on a team project for an MBA. Egos will clash, ideas will be rejected and then reconsidered, and the finished product will be stronger. The devil’s advocate can lead to angeli results.
So the handwringing must stop. Yes, America is polarized, and always has been. Coming together is a phony way of saying to your opponent “shut up and just agree with me.” This is actually the cornerstone of a liberal’s versio of bipartisanship.
Some will say I am not being fair. I am only presenting one side. I am being biased. Of course I am. I am supposed to be biased. I am a human being, flesh and blood, flaws and all, and I have built in biases. My neighbor can be my friend, but if he has different biases, we will disagree. As long as neither one of us are bombing abortion clinics or fur factories, and allowing words to be our dueling weapons of choice, than the differences are healthy, and will make us both intellectually stronger provided they are based on logical reasoning and intellectual analysis (Again, this is where today’s liberals miss the jollyboat).
So to my political opponents, I say this. You are not my enemy, but you are my opponent and I will work to defeat you because my conservative ideas and solutions are better than your liberal ones.
Let the games begin. To quote one of my favorite politicians…dear liberals…bring it on!
eric
You’re not being fair! You’re only presenting one side! You’re biased!
Uh, don’t hate me, but you’ve been tagged Tyg
http://demediacraticnation.blogspot.com/2007/06/ive-been-tagged-too.html
This makes lots of sense:
“So to my political opponents, I say this. You are not my enemy, but you are my opponent and I will work to defeat you because my conservative ideas and solutions are better than your liberal ones.”
This, not so much:
“Instead, one can look at George W. Bush and see how someone should govern. ”
I didn’t read all that stuff in the middle. Too long.
Okay, I just read the rest of it, and I have no changes to make in my comments. Carry on, Tyger.
It is the corrupt, archaic two-party system–and the multi-biased media which supports it–that has divided Americans. If we had no political parties, as George Washington highly recommended, we would find that Americans are surprisingly united on a wide range of issues.