Divided We Stumble
For reasons historians will be dealing with for the next century, the nation is severely divided. The war, race, economic inequality -- these are the primary dividing forces, but regardless of the cause, the fact remains: we are two nations, a Red and a Blue. I'm writing today -- and you are reading -- a proposal to mend the rift.
Simply it is this. Both of the major political parties should nominate the same candidates for the highest offices in the land. The parties should meet in joint caucus and they should nominate two candidates; we'll call them Jones and Smith. The election in 2008 would still contain two slates, one having Smith as President, the other, Jones. It would thus be preferable, but not necessary, for one of the candidates to come from each party.
Prior to the caucus the current contenders for the nomination should each make a public statement withdrawing their names from consideration and endorsing the caucus. In my opinion, all of the Democratic Party's major candidates possess divisive images. Mrs. Clinton will never be accepted by the right wing of the Republican Party nor by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. If she were elected president, the nation would not only remain divided, but would perhaps find its differences even further accentuated. Mr. Obama, while an obviously attractive candidate, predictably will not heal the racial animosities that still prevail in the south and in many parts of the mid-west. John Edwards campaigned in 2004 on one issue, economic inequality. It is not likely that he can, with that one issue riding squarely on his shoulders, heal the nation.
Apart from Mayor Giuliani and Senator McCain I am not as familiar with the Republican candidates as I am with the Democratic. But it appears that Mr. Giuliani has, by his stand on certain hot-button issues, angered significant elements within his own party. It is not likely that his would be a healing administration. John McCain has, for what appear to be political reasons, sacrificed his natural persona as a straight-shooting centrist. Perhaps, if he would come to his senses and return to his authentic self, Senator McCain might be a candidate who could bring the nation together.
For absolutely impersonal reasons, I incline toward people resembling the junior Senator from Virginia, Jim Webb, as the ideal candidate for higher office. If we are to bring the nation together again we need leaders who have at least some appeal to partisans on both sides of the divide. Jim Webb was, in my opinion, a better Republican than the man he defeated in his race for the Senate, and a better Democrat than those who court support among their party's idealistic sub-groups. He is, in a word, a Republicrat, the sort of candidate the bi-partisan caucus ought to be seeking. But I will say no more about that.
Finally, it's not only this nation that needs reunification. The world itself is divided, and dangerously so. Humankind seems to be choosing up sides for the next "war to end all wars," a slogan that, unfortunately, may in this case be appropriate, since none of us may survive to fight the next war. The United States, despite its most recent history, remains the only world power that could conceivably calm the troubled waters stirred by terrorists and fanatical religionists of every stripe. A reunited America, committed to a new purpose, might very well emerge as a healing balm.
Of course, my recommendation is impractical, requiring too many leopards to change their spots. But as a wise man once wrote, "All great things are as difficult as they are noble." We shall see.
Simply it is this. Both of the major political parties should nominate the same candidates for the highest offices in the land. The parties should meet in joint caucus and they should nominate two candidates; we'll call them Jones and Smith. The election in 2008 would still contain two slates, one having Smith as President, the other, Jones. It would thus be preferable, but not necessary, for one of the candidates to come from each party.
Prior to the caucus the current contenders for the nomination should each make a public statement withdrawing their names from consideration and endorsing the caucus. In my opinion, all of the Democratic Party's major candidates possess divisive images. Mrs. Clinton will never be accepted by the right wing of the Republican Party nor by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. If she were elected president, the nation would not only remain divided, but would perhaps find its differences even further accentuated. Mr. Obama, while an obviously attractive candidate, predictably will not heal the racial animosities that still prevail in the south and in many parts of the mid-west. John Edwards campaigned in 2004 on one issue, economic inequality. It is not likely that he can, with that one issue riding squarely on his shoulders, heal the nation.
Apart from Mayor Giuliani and Senator McCain I am not as familiar with the Republican candidates as I am with the Democratic. But it appears that Mr. Giuliani has, by his stand on certain hot-button issues, angered significant elements within his own party. It is not likely that his would be a healing administration. John McCain has, for what appear to be political reasons, sacrificed his natural persona as a straight-shooting centrist. Perhaps, if he would come to his senses and return to his authentic self, Senator McCain might be a candidate who could bring the nation together.
For absolutely impersonal reasons, I incline toward people resembling the junior Senator from Virginia, Jim Webb, as the ideal candidate for higher office. If we are to bring the nation together again we need leaders who have at least some appeal to partisans on both sides of the divide. Jim Webb was, in my opinion, a better Republican than the man he defeated in his race for the Senate, and a better Democrat than those who court support among their party's idealistic sub-groups. He is, in a word, a Republicrat, the sort of candidate the bi-partisan caucus ought to be seeking. But I will say no more about that.
Finally, it's not only this nation that needs reunification. The world itself is divided, and dangerously so. Humankind seems to be choosing up sides for the next "war to end all wars," a slogan that, unfortunately, may in this case be appropriate, since none of us may survive to fight the next war. The United States, despite its most recent history, remains the only world power that could conceivably calm the troubled waters stirred by terrorists and fanatical religionists of every stripe. A reunited America, committed to a new purpose, might very well emerge as a healing balm.
Of course, my recommendation is impractical, requiring too many leopards to change their spots. But as a wise man once wrote, "All great things are as difficult as they are noble." We shall see.
posted by Benedict S. at 11:14 AM
10 Comments:
Oh Mouse, it must be frustrating to be so right in the diagnosis of the illness and so wrong in the cure.
Of course, we are a nation divided. Unity only comes about in two ways: all for something or all against something. How can we all be for something when the nation is so diverse in its perception of the country stands for, what is good for it that there is hardly any agreement on two vital issues?
Being against something is equally difficult. What I might be opposed to as bad for the country is precisely what you think is good for it. Need I mention the topic of immigration, both legal and illegal, and the subject of more taxes or less taxes to get my point across? We don’t even have a readily identifiable enemy to jointly rise up against. The moment radical movements all wear the same uniform and espouse the same thing, then we can put a black hat on them and be one in our opposition. Until that time, what we have is an abundance of grey. Troops don’t rally around a grey colored flag.
If a half a dozen black UFOs were to land at midfield during the third quarter between a touchdown and the point-after attempt in a Super Bowl game (If they landed at half time, everyone would think it was part of the show) and little dark skinned men dressed in black were to leap out, there is no doubt in my mind what the result would be among the tens of thousands gathered: instant and complete unity. Never mind that it was fear that united them; there is unity. Now if the space ships were glimmering silver, little guys had pale skin, their platinum suits shimmered in the light, and they slowly emerged from a sleek hatch, I’m sure there would be no unity, for or against in the fans’ reaction. The point being that unless there is a perceived flag that transcends all the individual interest based banners, any form of massive unity ain’t going to happen, so forget any silly idea of the two principal political parties coming together on a single candidate. What’s more, even if they were to do that, that would be worse than the squabbling and political disarray going on now, for it would mean that democracy had died. You wouldn’t want that would you?
It’s hard to come to the realization that nations don’t last forever, especially your own. Why would there be any reason to believe that the United States of America will go on forever? We may be witnessing the inevitable: the decline of the U.S. Such a thought in no way pleases me. I would much prefer to think that the U.S. is merely going through growing pains and will reach adulthood powerful, wise and kind, but to have celebrated more than 200 birthdays to get it right and still fallen short does leave a certain doubt. It could be modern civilizations take long to reach maturity, but that is not really convincing either when everything seems to move at an accelerated pace. But before we give up on democracy, let’s give it another chance. I would hate to see politicos have the full say-so as who should lead us. Although it isn’t much, I do have some input on the matter.
Difficulty equals nobility? Hmm…I don’t think you’ll find unity on that one.
Interesting. Black UFO guys. Hmmm.
I do not believe we would ever find a concensus among the people at large. Hence a caucus of a much smaller number. It is even doubtful that the smaller number would come to an agreement, but the chances of their doing so are far better than if their number were much larger.
In any case, I have no illusions that the idea I have proposed would ever be implemented. You may wish to consider that I wrote it as a way of highlighting its impossibility, with the reason for its impossibililty lying in the very facts you point out.
Thanks for your comment.
Bringing ETs and UFOs into the conversation was only to emphasize my point that it will take something quite extraordinary and EXTERNAL for all the sheep in the flock to be willing to line up in the nice neat rows behind the shepard. Roosvelt found his unity with Pearl Harbor and Bush, while temporary, found his with the attack on the Twin Towers. It was the fear that did that.
As far as lining up for something positive, not even God, motherhood and country suffice. With all the varying opinions regarding God and country, that's an impossibility. That leaves us with motherhood, something I believe most are in favor of. On second thought, that might not be valid either what with vitro conception,surrogate mothers and couples not wanting children on the rise. Looks like nothing is left to bring us together. Bring on the ETs!
The present political situation is a no-win situation.Pandora’s box has been opened. Despite brave pronouncements by our
political leaders that the Red and a Blue(your words) is just a passing storm in a
teacup, the storm has grown large enough to ensure that the winds of
change blowing through will change the very fabric of our society. We
are now a nation divided. We can only wait and see what happens.
For Robin: "I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act." G. K. Chesterton.
For Oaf: "Every revolutionary idea evokes three stages of reaction: 1) It's completely impossible; 2) It's possible but it's not worth doing; 3) I said it was a good idea all along." Arthur C. Clarke
I agree about your central point: it is vital that America select a candidate who can truly unite the country. That's one reason I support Obama -- I think he is trying to be a unifier.
In making your point, you questioned Obama's credentials as a unifier by contending that part of the country isn't ready for a black man. Personally, I think the country is plenty ready for a black man. They're ready for anyone -- man or woman -- who can heal our divisions.)
While the jury is still out on whether Obama is that man, from where I'm sitting, he stands a MUCH better chance of doing so than the others. Of course, I'm giving him the benefits of some doubts. He's only 45, and thus it is impossible for us to be certain about what kind of President he'd be. We'd have to take a chance on the guy -- much like we took a chance on another young Presidential candidate, Teddy Roosevelt.
Let me add that today (March 6th), there's a wonderful Op-Ed about Obama in the New York Times, written by Nicholas Kristof. It should be must reading for all who question Obama as a candidate due to a lack of "experience."
Daniel: It pains me to say that my experience with the "Suthren" mindset exceeds yours. But even were I a true-blue Yankee I would still have the evidence of the 2006 Senatorial election in Tennessee. The Democratic candidate, Ford, was ahead in all polls until, at the urging of the clever devils at the RNC, a TV ad of easily recognizable racist quality made a national splash. Ford lost be 6 points, and would have lost by more if the election were held a week later.
Here in "purple-state" Virginia, Jim Webb defeated the racist scion of "the coach" by a narrow margin, so narrow that in an address -- which I was present to hear -- Webb said to the 4000 of us, "This audience looks like my margin of victory." I agree that the Webb incident does not provide as clear an example of the racist south as does the Tennessee fiasco, but it at least tends in the same direction. A nation that has come to hate all "rag heads" can hate anyone. And I did not learn Obama's middle name from him personally.
I should add, though, Daniel, that I think Obama would make a great president. He has more experience in high office than Lincoln had.
I agree with you that Obama will have trouble winning in the south. No question about it. But remember, Gore could have won the nation with only a single southern state (Florida) that arguably voted for him anyway.
As for the Tennessee Senate situation, that was absolutely despicable. How I wish the media spent more time on that fiasco and less time on stuff like Anna Nicole Smith.
Post a Comment
<< Home