Tuesday, November 4, 2008

The Thin End Of the Wedge

In 1858, a man stood up and walked to the lectern at the front of the assembled dignitaries of the Illinois Republican party. Three hours previous, the assemblage had appointed him their candidate for the United States Senate. In his acceptance speech, this man – in his high reedy voice – would famously paraphrase Jesus's words in Matthew chapter 12: "…every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."

He was talking about slavery, of course. And he lost that election… according to many at the time, he was doomed from the outset because of the political incorrectness of that speech which went on to forecast the coming storm. As every schoolchild knows, he became our 16th president, emancipated the slaves, brought the southern states to heel and was assassinated in Ford's Theater by John Wilkes Booth, who raised the murder weapon before the crowd and shouted "Sic simper tyrranis". The state motto of Virginia then as it is now... "Thus always to tyrants."

Today, we a young black man stepped up to succeed him as president. He began his run on the steps of the old Illinois state capitol building where Lincoln made that speech. And as some have pointed out, he finished his run in Manassas, VA near the battlefield known as Bull Run, the touchpoint of the American Civil War.

As I have repeatedly noted here and elsewhere, we have been quietly fighting a new civil war, one which has been largely fusillades of divisive rhetoric rather than fusillades of musket shot. In this – the longest campaign for president in history – America has stripped itself naked before the entire world, exposing our scars and our still-seeping wounds wrought by wars both figurative and literal, our economic woes ground like glass into the unhealed wounds of the 11th of September seven years past. As the campaign dragged on, we have been forced to come to terms with our feelings about race, gender and age... or refuse to as the case may be.

And here we stand at the touchpoint of another tidal shift in American history. It is quite possible that the energetic young black man who began his campaign in the shadow of Lincoln – in every imaginable sense – has just fulfilled the motto of the state where he concluded his run. And gave new meaning in the minds of the current administrations detractors (myself included)

I admit a degree of shadenfreude that frightens me as I whisper softly 'Sic semper tyrannis' in the wake of two eloquent speeches. One conceding, one accepting the mantle of the presidency. We know he can lead, we know he can speak, can he unify us?

I cannot stress enough the degree to which this campaign season has changed the dynamic of American politics. Whether for the better or the worse remains to be seen. For one thing, this is very likely the end of presidential candidates trying to exist solely on public financing. And the part that alarms me the most... they have driven the wedges ever deeper into the cracks that divide us. Hammered them home for two straight years with speeches invoking words of hatred and division, invoked images of fear and the ineffable other.

On the bright side (and almost ironically) both campaigns have brought women and minorities deeper into the process than every before.

Which brings us back to Lincoln... sort of.

Awhile back I opined that America had embarked upon a "Rhetorical Civil War". It's interesting to me to see that this idea isn't unique to me and has found traction in both the right and left as those few pundits with the clarity of vision to realize what's happening are standing agog, at a loss for how to stop it.

Recent conversations I have had and observed with those I usually consider to be calm and logical thinkers frighten me. The ad hominem attacks both against the candidates and against their opposite number in the argument have escalated. Names have been called. Teeth bared. Crowds in front of Palin and McCain have chanted "Terrorist" and "Bomb Obama" and "McCain, not Hussein", "Get him", and raising in an ever more shrill fashion the specter of otherness that they wrapped around their opponent.

I listened to McCain's concession speech tonight with an air of surprise. This was the man that I admired what seems so many years ago. A man who - had he shown up for the campaign - may yet have won my vote. He spoke well. His words were well-intentioned, I doubt not, and I do not cast any doubts upon his intention to try to heal the wounds of this campaign. It was an honorable speech. But I hoped for more. I still do.

Too late McCain's effort came during the campaign to halt the whispers that Obama was a Muslim. He told that woman that the senator was an honorable man who they need not fear. But I fear it was too late, too little, too inadequate. And no attempt from the firebrand of the campaign who seemed so eager to unleash the rage of the chanting crowds. I look for Palin to help put the pin back in that grenade, but as a resident of the Northwest, I am all too aware of her style, tone and rhetoric and I despair that she recognizes the damage that has been done to the fabric of the republic on this quest for glory.

For most of my life I have watched as political operatives found and focused on specific issues, wedges to drive between the voters. Wedges that are hammered home with such blind zeal that any attempt to repair the broken social security system has been toxic to the career of anyone daring to assay such a thing. It has been called "the third rail of American politics." Abortion, defense spending, the war on drugs, pick your issue and find the single-issue voters who will relentlessly punish the candidate who crosses their involate line, no matter what else the might offer, no matter their intentions, no matter their reasoning...

In a change for me, I have taken an active hand in this election cycle. I have stepped out of the shadows where I have – as a rule – hidden my political opinions for most of my life. I didn't want to get involved. George W Bush and especially Dick Cheney changed that. They tortured people in my name. They broke the constitution, or at least bent it until it began to show stress fractures. And thus will you find it inscribed on the straw atop a broken camel somewhere behind me.

I have engaged. I have fought. I have won and lost and fought to a draw. I clawed with those opposite me in the political spectrum. I have been labeled a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, an elitist, a peacenik, a warmonger, a Jesus freak and many other less pleasant names besides. Some of them are even true.

I have been living on the thin end of the wedge.

About a month ago I realized that if McCain won, my world would not end. And began to notice the conviction with which my opponents were convinced that theirs would if the opposite were true. At that point, I began to come to grips with the core of the issues that divide us, with the dimensions of the gulf that yawns at our feet...

And I do not have the answers. I certainly hope someone does.

One thing I do know: I will continue to speak. That genie is decanted and there is no cork that could reseal that bottle. What is done cannot be undone.

As I saw it then and see it now: neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. McCain were launching a wholesale assault upon my life or system of beliefs. Truthfully, if you hold these past 21 months up to the light, you might well find that to be true for yourself as well.

My candidate won tonight, but I am not a Democrat. Too many pay lip-service to any party's political platform as the forge a path of their own devising for me to willingly surrender my desire to vote the candidate rather than the party. From the liberal-leaning Republicans to the "Dixi-crat" Democratic senators of the Clinton era, Rinos and Dinos make me cynical of any party-line vote.

The names tossed at me that I mentioned before are nothing as to what has been bandied about with abandon in this campaign, mostly from the Reds to the Blues, the gloves coming off and the nails coming out as we find ourselves in politics embodying what Tennyson might have called 'politics, red in tooth and claw.'

For too long we have sat and listened and watched in silence as our putative leaders drive in the wedges, chant and wave signs and trade barbed verbal attacks in rallies and on the internet, tell lies and sling mud as they pound gleefully upon the wedges without regard for those on the thin end. Wedge issues abound in this election, made all the more virulent by the stark differences in the candidates, the attachment of ageism to the one and the dangerous and ineffable 'other' to his opponent.

This is what scares me about an Obama victory.

I watched and listened as this election has unfolded, as we regressed from a national conversation to a national argument with shouts of "Terrorist" and "Commie" coming from the cheap seats. And it has become increasingly clear to me that we stand at the potential flashpoint of our hitherto rhetorical civil war. It scares me to think that I might be right, that the leaders who set this fuse might not be able to walk back the damage they have done. That we might not heal. I can't help but think that every time we walk down this path it gets more difficult to walk back. If 21 months is the new standard for presidential elections, then we have 24 months to rest - at most - before we do this again.

Rest, America. You've earned it. Communicate with your leaders. Tell them what you want from them in the next cycle of elections as the midterms already loom large on the horizon.

Tonight, John McCain made an excellent speech. An eloquent concession and call for unification. But it cannot pass mention that those calling and hooting from the gallery were only told 'please'. And there was no direct address to walking back the charges made, the whispers spoken on the internet.

We need more. The man has yet to assume the office and already two bizarre plots to kill him have been stopped. This is a dangerous time, a time that can be the time of honor and disciplined governance from both sides that our nation needs. A time of healing and statesmanship. A time of civilized discourse and earnest disagreements given voice with passion and erudition.

In the past 232 years, we have endured 43 men in the office of the presidency. Some have sought the office. Many assumed the mantle in a time when it was considered more appropriate that the office seek the man rather than vice versa. There have been successes and failures, giants and poltroons. And the republic still stands.

Whomever is reading this, I implore you to take a deep breath. If he's not your guy, this too shall pass as the 43 men before him have. If he is, enjoy this moment. Do you utmost to see to it that your candidate becomes the president that you saw in him. That his potential is fullfilled.

I believe that the thin end of the wedge to end all wedges is poised above us. It is up to us to see to it that it is never driven home. To re-couch the words of Lincoln from the speech with which I began this rambling blog post, from the conclusion of his famous speech, his words describing the insurgent Republican party of the election of 1854, but better still they could describe the coalition of Americans we need now from all points on the political spectrum:

"Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now?-now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come"

God bless, everyone. And God bless the United States of America.

7 comments:

David said...

Nicely said, Scott.

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

At least this election cycle is finally over. No messy recounts to drag things out, which is what I feared in a McCain victory.

Now the victors write the history.

I think it is historically unfair to accuse Republicans and rightists of doing most of the bomb-throwing, mostly because leftist bomb-throwing got such a pass in so much of the media. Nevertheless, I accept that is how the history will be written and that it is time to move on.

I agree, however, that this campaign revealed a great divide in American politics that I believe is mirrored in American society. I think this divide is not just rhetorical and represents a real division in how large groups of people view morality, government, and liberty. I do not think the election ending covers over those divides.

Unfortunately for those of us viewed as the losers, the reasons we see for that divide are fragmented. The reasons for fearing an Obama presidency are wide ranging, some reasons being legitimate, others being--I agree--uninformed fear.

I continue to stand ranked as one of the people who believe my way of life could be permanently altered by decisions President Obama might make, but my fear is not of socialism, though I agree Obama strays dangerously close to that kind of belief, nor of taxation, which is really the realm of Congress. My belief has always been that Obama is naive and unprepared to be diplomat- and commander-in-chief in a time of war and worldwide hostility.

Obama inherits a nation at war in a world twisted by forces we sometimes have no choice but to confront. I agree with his own vice-president that he will be tested, and I believe his first tests will be self-inflicted as he tries to abandon Iraq and negotiate with Iran. I believe my life could be changed because we live in a world where we cannot afford national security mistakes. The past eight years should have taught us that.

I am also pragmatic. For better or worse, Barack Obama is the president-elect. I campaigned as hard as I could against him, sometimes well and sometimes not so well. While nothing about this election changes my views about him or the state of our nation and the world, I understand there is now different work for someone with my views to do. From long experience as a military member, I have learned that sometimes one just has to accept who the leaders are and keep doing one's job in spite of them.

Our nation needs now, more than ever, citizens who are informed, active, and engaged. We need citizens who hold their government accountable to the people. We need people who faithfully hold to their worldview but know when to compromise. We need people who know how to disagree without disagreement becoming divisive.

I have a long way to go, but I plan to be numbered among the people I just described. I am not happy with how things turned out in this election, but I know it is time to move on to the next job that needs to be done.

David said...

"I think it is historically unfair to accuse Republicans and rightists of doing most of the bomb-throwing, mostly because leftist bomb-throwing got such a pass in so much of the media."

What exactly does this mean? Are you saying that the Obama camp made scurrilous comments about McCain/Palin that were unreported?

The liberal bias argument about the media is a ruse. They may look liberal to some because of just how conservative those eyes are, but that doesn't actually give them a liberal bias.

Look at the television ads alone. There is no liberal bias there. In fact, they show the true bias the media has: a bias toward money. The media covers the sensational. They wouldn't ignore a good controversy just because it started in the Obama camp.

Objectively, the Republican party -- specifically the Neo-Con extreme right of the party -- engages in dirty politics, ad hominem attacks, and smear campaigns. There is no meaningful bias in that observation.

The Democrats, liberals, left, or whatever you want to call them are not innocent and untainted in this area, but they have not made it the core of their approach the way the Republican party has for the past eight years.

And let's say the media chose not to air the right's attacks. What would be the response. It would be, "The media is biased against us. They censor us. They won't let us talk to the people."

If anything, you should be madder and more sensitive to their approach to politics than liberals are because it sullies the very party you seem most often to support. And I've not once seen you write something about Obama that stirs up fears of his religion or his race or that he isn't "one of us."

The right pointing out that Obama lacks experience isn't a personal attack. It's a legitimate point to make about any candidate since it relates to his ability to do the job. Going around claiming he's Muslim (which doesn't do anything to disqualify him as President) and emphasizing his middle name to provoke a fear response is a tawdry ploy that should anger all of us committed to reason and rationality.

That said, I am encouraged by your response. It is very similar to McCain's and is worthy of praise.

My own personal challenge is to hold President Obama to the same standards of conduct that I held President Bush to. I didn't trust Bush early on, so it was easy to be critical of him when he did wrong. I do trust Obama, and that can often slow down rejection of actions on their own merits. I'm sure I'll have help from everyone here in holding Obama accountable for his actions. :)

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

What exactly does this mean? Are you saying that the Obama camp made scurrilous comments about McCain/Palin that were unreported?

David, I am saying that the Obama campaign had the advantage of not having to make those kinds of comments (in my view the always exist in politics) because proxies were doing so on their behalf and not being called on it.

I agree that the McCain campaign took a wrong tack from very early on after Obama became the Democrat nominee. I have repeatedly questioned the direction of the McCain campaign on my own weblog and, I believe, here. I agree that the ad hominem nature of some of the McCain campaign and Republican rhetoric was out of line.

One area I think you and I will disagree is that I do not think questioning Obama's associations and affiliations is ad hominem. I agree the "Obama is a Muslim" meme was uncalled for, but pointing out that Obama has a history of associating with violent radicals and anti-American socialists is a comment on character.

More to the point, my comment was really intended as a footnote that history rarely tells the whole story about what happened because it is often edited by the people who won. History will record the vitriol of the right in a harsh light while it will give similar vitriol on the left a pass.

David said...

"History will record the vitriol of the right in a harsh light while it will give similar vitriol on the left a pass."

All I can say is I disagree. I don't think there is a liberal bias to history. Both voices will be heard in history.

"pointing out that Obama has a history of associating with violent radicals and anti-American socialists is a comment on character."

Maybe. It's also an old debate trick called guilt by association. Since you have already conceded that the victors write the history, I'm sure you'll see the parallel between the actions of our founding fathers and those of "violent radicals" and "anti-American socialists."

Further, to state factually that Obama knows one of these people (let's say his name, William Ayres) is one thing. It is another to dismiss Obama's own characterization of the "relationship" and to insist that mere contact with Ayres means that Obama holds those values. I think it is a much more telling mark of character to see how that information is used.

And if guilt by association is, somehow, valid -- which it is NOT -- let's also look at who McCain chooses to "pal around with." It would be hard to find more hate-filled rhetoric than that which eminated from some of McCain's so-called "religious" supports. Hagee, is that his name?

Violent protest against one's own country is literally a founding principle of our own. It is dangerous and sometimes (one might even argue often times) misguided, but it isn't necessarily evil or even "anti-American." It might just be anti-the-way-America-is-currently-being-run.

Point being, not to advocate revolution, but rather to say that the way that information was used was more than an issue of character or judgment.

You and I disagree all the time. Does it show bad judgment on either of our parts that we "associate?" Is it a character flaw? (Humorous answer: "In you it is, but not in me.")

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

David, Ok, I'll take a bait I choose to see:

Is there anything the Obama campaign or its proxies did wrong? Is there anything wrong with Obama?

Perhaps more relevantly, is there anything the McCain campaign did right? Is there anything right with McCain?

These are not challenges but clarifying questions.

David said...

I'm assuming you mean in the realm of their campaigning, not on the issues necessarily, but on their tactics. Is that right?

FactCheck.org has a list of inaccuracies for both campaigns.

And I want to be careful about using words like "right" and "wrong" here. I don't want to get trapped (nor trap you) into a discussion of legality. I think I can't avoid a discussion of ethics.

Both campaigns fought hard. Both used standard campaign tactics to make themselves look good and the opponent look not so good ("weak", "inexperienced", "unready", "misinformed" what have you).

I'm not a shrinking violet. I can stand to hear that Barack Obama is unready to be President. But mocking his work as a community organizer, trying to make him appear to be a radical, suggesting that he is un-American - these things were unneccessary and created a divisive tone to the campaigns that bother me.

I would be just as bothered if we had seen people or ads mocking McCain's service etc. He could have been painted as a loser for crashing his plane five times, for being captured and tortured. Images of his torture could have been used to show him as weak. They weren't. The Obama campaign, to my knowledge, didn't question McCain's associations with radical right thinkers.

They did point out his close support of Bush. This is fair game just as the McCain campaign's use of Obama's voting record or Bill Clinton saying he didn't think Obama was ready to be President. Of course, it would have been nice to point out that Clinton's quote made clear that he didn't think anyone who hadn't been President was truly prepared, but hey, this is real life not Candy Land.

I've seen a lot of people complaining about how the media aided Obama. Yet, I never saw anyone question how McCain had more experience for President than Obama. He has more experience as a SENATOR, but neither has been President.

Much was made about Obama knowing Ayres and serving on a board with him, yet when Palin's ongoing association with Alaska's cessessionist group were noted, it was touted on the right as a media conspiracy of the highest order. We had video of Palin making speeches avowing her support very recently. This was direct evidence of a shared mindset. Was there any such evidence of Obama's beliefs being those of Ayres? No.

So, I'm saying that the far right kvetches about a liberal media and how unfair it is, and those things are clearly excuses. I'm saying that they have no problem using the slightest association to try to tar someone as "socialist" and other scare words, but they find fact-finding about their own candidates to be "liberal bias." It adds up to a tone of fear-mongering and "win at any cost" types of actions.

I'm saying that Obama's middle name has nothing to do with what he thinks, how he acts, or his ability to be President, yet this was used constantly to create suspicion of him. By the same premise I could point out that your name is Denny which is like Deny so you must be a Holocaust denier and anti-Semitic. You're no friend of Israel and so you should never be elected President. Sadly, what I just did is only marginally worse than what the McCain campaign and certain McCain supporters were doing to Obama.

I have a problem with that behavior and I think IT says a lot about the character of the people doing it and "approving" it.