Primary Season is Finally Over

Comments

4 responses to “Primary Season is Finally Over”

1. 

   Josh

   2008-06-04

   David,

   I found your site recently and I really enjoy the level of dialog. Your posts are thoughtful, as are many of the comments.

   I have a question about your support for Obama, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve already discussed it in an earlier post. My question is, what do you mean by “unite the country.” In your post you said “even McCain would have a better chance at uniting the country than Obama with Clinton on the ticket.”

   How might a president unite the country? What kind of unity are you talking about? Would it be ideological unity? Do you think the two major parties should come closer together and compromise more? Would it be political unity? What do you think the government should be doing that it could do if the government were more united?

   If you’ve already addressed those questions, could you please direct me to the appropriate posts? Again, thank you for posting so thoughtfully.

   Reply
2. 

   David

   2008-06-04

   Josh,

   That’s a good question. When I talk about the possibility of Obama being able to unite the country (or anyone else for that matter) I am talking largely about rhetoric and tone.

   I don’t think that the two parties should come closer together – there is very little functional difference between them. One talks about lower taxes, but they really mean taxing out children rather than us. The other, in a nod to fiscal responsibility, talks about taxing the rich, but they just means taxing today instead of tomorrow.

   The unity that I would hope for would be less characterization of those in the other party as enemies, or as unpatriotic to the nation. I believe that Obama would attempt to do that. I also think that McCain would attempt to cross the aisle to get things done rather than emphasizing a largely-imaginary red/blue split in the country. On the other hand, Clinton has shown that she is happy to exploit divisions for her own political gain.

   One reason why I favor Obama over McCain is that he has already shown more willingness to reject politics as usual as he has refused to accept donations from lobbyists. If he keeps his promise to accept public financing and the attendant restrictions in the face of the obvious fact that he would have a fund-raising advantage without it then I would vote for him to support that decision and to help shake things up in Utah with our static Republican-controlled political environment.

   I admit that there are those in each party who will fight to maintain the divisive rhetoric no matter who the president is or how he operates but my preference will always be to favor a candidate who can disagree without being disrespectful.

   Reply
3. 

   Josh

   2008-06-04

   My follow-up question might sound a little bit simple-minded, but why do you think tone is so important? What advantage does a president have who respectfully disagrees with Congress on everything over a president who is mean and nasty, but gets things done? What is wrong with divisive rhetoric?

   Reply
4. 

   David

   2008-06-04

   The more we support divisive rhetoric from the head of our federal government with the excuse that it’s effective the more excuse we give to other elected officials to do the same. Others may disagree, but I would contend that someone cannot talk mean and nasty consistently without becoming mean and nasty. Not only that but we cannot support a mean and nasty political environment without becoming meaner and more nasty in our more immediate interactions. What we accept in those who represent us we are bound to begin to accept in ourselves.

   Mean and nasty might be effective in the short term, but I believe that it is destructive over the long run.

   Reply