Unity

Is it all it’s cracked up to be?

by Heidi Parent
12/01/04

Funny things happen when you lose an election. One of the funniest things happening this post election season is the Democrat Party’s plea for unity. During his concession speech John Kerry told us, “America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.”

This statement is humorous on many levels, not the least of which is what caused this division in the first place. Kerry conveniently left that out. He left out Michael Moore, George Soros, and the other kooky liberals unleashing their war of hate against the President. He left out the ads comparing President Bush to Hitler. He left out the books and magazine articles that imagined the assassination of President Bush. He left out the fact that Democrats attempted to obstruct nearly everything the president tried to accomplish during his first term. But putting all of that aside, let’s take an objective look at their call for unity.

Since I don’t seem to recall Democrats, when they held the majority, offering to abandon their agenda in an effort to placate Republicans and unify government, we could take their newfound plea for unity as a wonderful notion that just now occurred to them. “Hey guys, here’s a great idea. How about we work together?” But something tells me their motives are not quite that altruistic.

The bigger question is, is unity even necessary? Here’s your answer: Except for the immediate period following 9/11 – and that unification was only on the issue of Osama bin Laden – I can’t think of an occasion in recent memory when government was completely unified. So the next question becomes: Is government still operating and accomplishing things? Of course. Which means the sky will probably not come crashing down if we’re not unified. In fact, most people fear a government united around one idea or party. Dissention is not only good, it’s desirable. So I guess I could stop typing right here. But since I have a column to fill and a deadline to meet, let’s take a look at their plea.

Assuming unity is necessary, who should be the one to move? It seems to me it’s up to Democrats to move in the President’s direction, not vise versa. He’s the winner, for goodness sake. And as much as Democrats wish is wasn’t so, President Bush not only won, he won decisively. He won more popular votes than any President in history, he is the first president in sixteen years to win a majority of the popular vote, and he is the first president in sixty years to increase his party’s majority in the House and Senate when being reelected. But most important, when someone wins an election he has a responsibility to his voters to implement the agenda he promised on the campaign trail. Suddenly adopting his opponent’s agenda – the losing agenda – would seem a bit odd, not to mention deceptive. Moreover, it would be nothing short of thwarting the will of the voters.

But, if we take them at face value, Democrats don’t see it that way. They see nothing wrong with the President abandoning his agenda by pulling our troops out of Iraq, canceling his tax cuts, and undoing everything else he did in his first term. While this certainly would move the President in their direction, it isn’t what the majority of voters voted for. And there in lies the problem with unity. If unity means abandoning your positions in favor of your opponent’s, well that’s not going to happen. Nor should it.

And the dirty little secret is, the Democrats know this. They know they have no intention of moving and neither does the President. So the stand off continues. But by being the ones who make the public call for unity, they will be able to blame the President when it doesn’t happen. Now you won’t hear them admit this, mind you. Instead you’ll continue to hear them preach to us ad nauseam about “coming together” and how important it is to be “unified.”

That is, unless they’re discussing President Bush’s cabinet. In that case, their unity cheer quickly changes. (Hypocrisy exposed!) Suddenly we need to be concerned that the president is packing his cabinet with people who agree with his agenda; in other words, unifying it.

Oh, the humanity! What an underhanded thing to do!

Funny. I don’t remember Bill Clinton being criticized for surrounding himself with people who shared his worldview. So I guess Cabinet unification is only a danger when a Republican President is doing it. But really, all joking aside, just what is a President supposed to do? Is he supposed to surround himself with people who disagree with him? With people who will actively work against his agenda?

Once again Democrats are trying to have it both ways. Unification in Congress is good (at least that’s their public claim) but unification in the Bush Administration is bad. Don’t buy it. In fact, unification in government isn’t such a great thing. It’s one of the main reasons why our Founding Fathers developed our system of checks and balances.

So the next time you hear the can’t-we-all-just-get-along bleating, remember that dissention is not only good, it’s a healthy part of our democracy and shouldn’t be feared. That is unless you’re a liberal and recognize that your positions will fall short in any national debate. In that case, hoping your opponent abandons his positions in favor of yours is pretty much all you can bank on.