State of the Union

In May of 1999, a Republican governor told a writer from Salon.com that his secret to winning reelection at a time when most Republicans were fighting tooth and nail to hang on to their posts stemmed from a refusal to “play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another”. His gubernatorial campaign was noteworthy because he had received the endorsement of every major Democratic politician in his overwhelmingly conservative southern state. This was, to be sure, no small feat. That distinction almost certainly played a role in his subsequent election as President of the United States, perhaps as much as name recognition, a deep campaign war chest, and a resemblance to his father, former President George H.W. Bush.

Two terms later, our nation is not more united than it was before. It is as fractured and splintered as ever. If not more so. In all honesty, however, one cannot solely place the blame for our segmented society on President W’s shoulders. We were moving in that direction long before George Bush had ever even heard of Salon.

Politically, our leaders and representatives are members of increasingly polarized parties. The days in which a Republican and a Democrat could effectively draw the line between their work and their personal personas in order to sit down together for a beer at the local Washington pub after a long day spent debating the others’ principles on the floors of the House or Senate are over. Spurred by a media that seems to have abandoned its principles of ‘just the facts’ reporting in favor of providing us with their own informed take on the news, the Republican/Conservative versus Democrat/Liberal hype reminds me of the East Coast/West Coast rap rivalry of the 1990s.

And we appear to have bought into that rivalry hook, line, and sinker. Yes, there are legitimate and genuine differences between the two major parties. But to believe that the stakes of putting one party in power over another represents nothing less than the very salvation or damnation of the entire country is not only insulting, but absurd.

Racially, we’re no better off. As I’ve written previously, the great Postracial Rapture did not occur when Barack Obama was elected President; we were not swept up into a distant hereafter where race no longer matters. Instead, we must deal with such things as the aftermath of death created by an 88-year old white supremacist who decided that, like that news anchor in the movie Network, he was as mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. We have Bonnie Sweeten choosing to pull a Susan Smith to provide cover for her to take her daughter to Disneyworld. And we have a South Carolina GOP activist who decided to publicly note on a popular social networking site that a recently-escaped gorilla was no cause for concern since it was probably just an ancestral relative of First Lady Michelle Obama.

Economically, we are what John Edwards termed, “two Americas”, one of haves and one of have-nots. As a student of sociology, I’d been hearing for years that the middle class was shrinking. In this economic climate, it is not surprising that the population of the have-nots (or “have-littles”) is on the rise. But addressing the systemic problems of poverty must go beyond knee-jerk cries of socialism if we are to accomplish anything meaningful.

In the weeks and months following September 11, 2001, the country was awash in a wave of nationalism and unity unlike anything I’d ever seen before. For a memorable moment in time, we were reminded that we were all Americans, brought together by four horrific acts. We were as close to being of one mind and one spirit as possible, supportive of a leader determined to exact penance for the loss of innocent human life. Yes, the price of that unity would ultimately be the loss of civil liberties and a blow to our standing in the international community, but it sure was a sight to see so many “United We Stand” billboards and bumper stickers everywhere.

We are not a nation of uniters. We are, instead, a nation of individuals who define ourselves not by what we support, but by what we stand against. It’s a subtle, but crucial difference. It means that we rally and riot reactively, not proactively. Maybe that’s the way it’s always been; after all, the country was founded by a group of activists seeking to take a stand against a powerful British monarch.

For a democracy to be worth its salt, perhaps unity should come at a price. Here in Minnesota, deliberations over whether Al Franken or Norm Coleman should represent the people have gone on an incomprehensible seven months. But what’s the alternative? Elections like those in North Korea where a candidate (typically the candidate currently in power) receives 100% of the popular vote? We all know those elections are a joke, a farce designed to bolster some dictator’s brittle ego.

Although I do wish it were just a little easier sometimes, when all is said and done, we are doing what we must as a democracy: exercising the freedom to disagree.