Unity versus Democracy
Politics
| February 15, 2008
| Tim
Just remember: Democracy is, if nothing else, about ideological diversity and peaceful disagreement. Democracy means that different ideas and people who hold them compete vigorously for space in the public mind. What some deride as "divisions" and "factions" are actually a sign of a healthy, thriving democracy.
Those who call for unity mean the opposite: that disagreements are wrong and unhealthy for our society. And, by calling for "unity", they never mean that they will lay down their views and adopt the outlook of their opponents. Instead they mean that all others must agree with them.
"Unity" rhetoric sounds nice superficially, but it's really just a pleasant way of saying we should (in ways large or small) give up on democracy (with which the speaker is signaling their displeasure) and become more authoritarian and intolerant of intellectual diversity.
Ahh, a quick note while waiting on a plane. I find it amusing how we have a group of people calling for "unity" against an enemy, who accuse their enemy of doing the exact same, but when it's America versus terrorism, it's bad, not when it's "The People" versus the "Corrupt Government," or "War," or "Imperialism"
During one campaign stop in New Hampshire, Obama was heckled by anti-abortion protestors. When his decidedly pro-abortion crowd began to jeer them, Obama defended the protestors, saying that their demonstration was honorable and within the great American political tradition. It was a striking moment of Obama acting as a unifying presence.
link
I admit to not following the campaign too closely, so correct me if I'm totally off base here.
While Obama's calls for "unity" don't seem to take into consideration the possibility that he or his supporters might be wrong, it does seem that he acknowledges disagreement as healthy part of the political discourse. He has encouraged people to disagree respectfully with one another. Likely "W' wanted the same thing so I'm not too hopeful of success, but it's better than nothing. At the most cynical, his calls for unity seem to imply a sort of compact with his supporters; if the Democrats are willing to compromise on some issues in order to form a majority coalition and be respectful of moderate Republicans, then in the long term they'll be more effective at getting their desires enacted, which he believes are good. The alternative is "standing up to the Republicans" and, in essence, obstructionism.
Granted, his usage of 'unity' is not the only one on the political field.
Hullo Ryan! Good to hear from you, and hoping all is well.
Frankly, I personally like Obama, or at least his public persona. And I actually also like his conciliatory stance, when he takes it. We don't always need to see our opponents as meaning badly. They might be mistaken. Or, as you hint, perhaps we can be mistaken at times too.
But that said, it's funny to see his stance in the quote above cited as one of "unity". That's not unity, it's tolerance. That used to be how the political tradition was carried on: Tip O'Neil and Reagan were on opposite sides of the political aisle (and vigorously so), but they'd go for a beer afterwards.
That's not unity (at least not at the political level -- though there may have been some higher things they both agreed upon). That's division. But it's polite, civilized division, carried out in rough compliance with the voters' wishes.
And I wasn't specifically picking on Obama (he's just one person, and who knows how much of his rhetoric he actually believes?) but rather on huge wave of people who apparently find his vision of "unity" mesmerizing. (And I like it too, but the only time we get "unity" (or the appearance of it) in this world seems to be times when everyone is united around the wrong things!)
The alternative is "standing up to the Republicans" and, in essence, obstructionism.
I saw a rather hilarious response to some speech he did, in which he criticized Hillary as being too "divisive" because, he claimed, she was too willing to work with Republicans.
"Unity" simply means it's wrong to disagree with US. When "we" are disagreeing with "you", well, then "dissent is patriotic". (And I agree that dissent is part of the American tradition; my point is only that rhetoric switches easily between these two poles.)
I don't criticize my opponents for failing to "unify" with my views. I hope I criticize them for being wrong -- that is, I criticize the content of their position, rather than the awfulness of not agreeing with me per se.
Thought you might think this was interesting, given the topic of this post. Warning about some implied language in the coimment section.
http://www.peachpundit.com/2008/02/18/republican-state-senators-introduce-sr-919/
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Dialoging with the Left's Supporters |
Front Page |
Page Two
| 60 Minutes: Denmark! The Happiest Nation on Earth? »
|
Ahh, a quick note while waiting on a plane. I find it amusing how we have a group of people calling for "unity" against an enemy, who accuse their enemy of doing the exact same, but when it's America versus terrorism, it's bad, not when it's "The People" versus the "Corrupt Government," or "War," or "Imperialism"
Posted by: Michael Zappe on February 15, 2008 08:09 PM