|
"Unify the nation?" You don't have the guts Guest Editorial #G15 There seems to be a rule that every speech by a candidate must include a vow to "unite the country." At least, this is what I've gathered from the presidential campaign. Offhand, this sounds like a perfectly noble ideal. Who could be against it? But I've started to wonder exactly what these declarations mean, and what they say about the people who make them. For one thing, these vows are completely at odds with everything else the candidate says. The call to unite the nation is confined to a brief paragraph, while the rest of the speech informs us that the opposition supports injustice and is intent on destroying the country, if not all of civilization. Demonizing a good 40% or so of the population hardly seems like a recipe for national unity. Moreover, no one ever spells out what exactly it would mean to unify the nation, beyond feeding us with equally ambiguous phrases like "reaching out to the other side," "not being divisive," and "bringing us all together." But how does this apply in real life? How would a candidate unify the nation on, say, abortion? By convincing everyone to be pro-life, pro-choice, or some position in between? Or by convincing everyone that the abortion issue just doesn't matter? Apparently, no one's bothered to think it through that far. Worse, all this non-specific talk presumes that consensus is instantly good, that all of us moving in the same direction amounts to all of us moving in the right direction. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but my idea of valuable consensus is everyone believing the truth, not everyone merely believing the same thing. "Unity" is a word with positive connotations, but, without specifics, there's no guarantee that it's really desirable. So, what on earth is going on, here? If this lofty, "let's all get along" talk is so insincere, pointless, and misguided, then why is it so popular? Why does it keep popping up in political speeches? What is it supposed to achieve? Unfortunately, it's about nothing more than perception. Candidates have an overwhelming, irrational fear of being seen as "going negative." They are afraid that, in fighting for certain causes and issues, they will appear imperious, arrogant, judgmental, or - worst of all - secure in what they believe. To temper this image, they treat us with the empty rhetoric of "uniting the country" just frequently enough to make us think that they are reasonable, open-minded, etc. After all, the alternative would involve a concerted, thoughtful effort to win over those who disagree. It would mean trying to convince the opposition that they should change their minds about the issues. And, Heaven forbid, that might come across as proselytizing. This is a real shame, because politicians - presidential candidates especially - are in perhaps the best position to unify the country, given the platform they have to discuss issues and put forth arguments. But they never take the opportunity. When it comes to abortion, each candidate has a position. But none has the courage or intellectual discipline to do more than note where they stand, wait for the applause to stop, and then move quickly along to the next subject. None of them bothers to justify why we should all believe as they do. And the same goes for virtually every other issue. The electorate is routinely scolded for being cynical, but I'm beginning to think they're just perceptive. We often hear candidates proclaim "I will fight for this, because it is what the American people want"; seldom do we hear, "if the American people don't want this, then someone should change their minds, and I'm the one to do it." Instead of fearless lions taking the lead, we get black-and-white, equitably colored pander bears. These half-hearted, meaningless calls for unity only demonstrate that our 'leading' politicians don't have the guts to do what they've promised. They would rather appear agreeable than take the time to actually forge agreement.
|