"Unity" is an empty slogan, or woefully naive

[tkmorris]

Time and again over the last few days I have seen various Obama supporters attempt to explain his support amongst the younger generation, and each time the argument essentially boils down the Gen X'ers being fed up with all of the divisiveness between the two parties. They express a desire for a leader who can reach out to everyone and bring them together, and how they believe Obama to be the candidate who will do it. Sounds great on paper doesn't it? Only one problem.

It's hogwash. It's tripe. It simply cannot be. There is no way to "unify" with someone who doesn't share your desire to do so. The big guns in the Republican Party etc. do not want to unify with anyone on the Left. They want to eat your face. They want to steal your car, export your job, foreclose on your house, throw you into the streets then arrest you for being indigent. When or if they release you from jail they will present you with the bill for your stay, then sue you when you tell them you can't afford to pay.

Are there really that many people out there who have concluded that the reason Democrats don't get more done is that we are somehow just too divisive? Really? Repeatedly over the years I have watched some Republican or another do something completely beyond the pale, only to then suffer the ignominy of watching the Dem "opposition" roll over and expose it's belly rather than stand up for themselves, or more pointedly, for us. I have watched a Congress with a bare Republican majority ram through some of the most vile, offensive legislation this nation has ever seen, Watched in horror as they approved nominees for cabinet positions and judgeships no matter how bigoted, sexist, or Fascist they happened to be. I have watched our Dem leadership offer nothing more than token resistance, no matter how much we urge them on. We needed powerful, determined, outspoken opposition; what we got was guy from "Office Space" looking for his red Swingline stapler.

And yet here we are, in 2008, on a website that owes it's very existence to the outrage generated by the outright theft of the 2000 presidential election, being lectured to by a group of people who claim that all we really need is "unity". And they have just the guy for the job.

Obama may have much to recommend him as a candidate, but the desire to "reach out" to Republicans and "unify" the political landscape isn't one of them. If anything it shows a naivete and lack of historical perspective that, to me at least, disqualifies him for the job.

[Levgreee]

1. Problem is, not even the Democrats are unified

he doesn't plan on strongly uniting with the repubs. He wants to make a working majority, about 60%, with Dems, some Independents, and a small amount of Republicans.

[tkmorris]

6. But therein lies the problem

His emphasis, in fact almost everything he says, is about that ability to bring everyone together. Our next president is going to find themselves at WAR with the Republican party, whether he/she wants to be or not. I need as candidate who recognizes that, and shows the ability or at least the desire to withstand it and get things done anyway. Perhaps Obama could be that person, but he certainly hasn't convinced me of it yet.

[Levgreee]

12. What does it take to convince you?

I think he will stand just as strong in his convictions to pass reform in health care, education, economic assistance, etc., as much as the other candidates. BUT, when the opportunity arises for compromise, if you have faith in his ability to unite people, he'll work well with people to get more things passed, or things passed quicker.

He has a history of passing legislation in a bipartisan manner.

[tkmorris]

23. I don't do faith

Faith is for people who desperately want to believe a thing, but lack any concrete reasons to do so.

As for his "history of passing legislation in a bipartisan manner", that is precisely what I fear. The Repubs at the Federal level don't DO compromise. The only time they will accept anything less than all is when you have them bent over a barrel and they know they have lost. Of what use is compromise with such people? Even Obama's proposed ideas, which are just starting points, are compromises. His health care proposal is just plain silly, it accomplishes nothing really. We need wholesale change; he proposes small step ideas and will in the end not get half of what he asks for out of compromising with the likes of Boehner, Graham, et al.

In the end he just isn't liberal enough for me. He has this idea that somehow we can all sit down and work something out like gentlemen and ladies. He will get eaten alive if he really believes that, and I am becoming convinced that he does.

[kerrygoddess]

2. Along that line of thought: The Obama Myth Exposed

The Obama Myth Exposed
by Darrell Prows
January 28th, 2008 @ 9:47 pm

The most intriguing part of the State of the Union Address for me was watching the Kansas Governor audition for the second spot on the Obama ticket. The main lesson I took from the entire experience, however, is that Obama is playing a dangerous game by creating expectations that he almost certainly cannot deliver on.

Sebelius was compelling, in an Obama like manner, in challenging Bush to finally step up and start acting like most peoples stereotype of a real President. He or they, therefore continue to impress me as a real campaigning juggernaut. But juxtaposed against that image were the scenes of Republicans inside the Chambers, and this created the inevitable conclusion that things need to get far uglier before they have any chance of getting to the good place that Obama promises.

MORE - http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/01/28/the-obama-myth-exposed/

[kurth]

8. "A picnic basket, checkered ground cloth, and a wildflower meadow"

And Republicans will be all nice and accommodating.

[kerrygoddess]

10. uh huh

not

[avaistheone1]

22. Sure if OBama becomes president minimum wage legislation will take only about 15 minutes to be

ratified by the republicans. Those republicans will be jumping out of their seats to approve it as long as Obama will high 5 them and give them some "BAM". Don't worry about CCHIP legislation approval in the future - the Republicans said Obama got a blank check. Obama's wish is their command. As long as Obama will come over and toast some marshmallows and hold hands with them
after the vote.

[emilyg]

3. Kick

[napi21]

4. I've been posting similar statements for weeks, and nobody

agrees with me! (or you I guess) There's only one way to get anything done, and that is to elect a Dem President and a super majority in both houses of Congress. The Pubs DO NOT WANT to negotiate, and they don't want unity! They want their own way and nothing else! When are the people going to recognize that? There has NEVER been unity in Congress. The only way people like LBJ got things pushed through was by twisting arms and threats. I admit, there used to be a bit more camaraderie at least in the Senate, and that's gone now, but there was NEVER any love lost between the Parties!

[Yossariant]

5. tkmorris, did you

see the game that was posted here a few days ago?

"What Obama Really Meant."

It's funny and speaks to your point very well, I think.

[tkmorris]

7. I've certainly seen plenty of it being played

In various threads about some silly thing or another he said. It would have been funnier if those trying to interpret his words for him weren't so eagerly sincere in their beliefs that they knew what he really intended to say.

[Yossariant]

9. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4194873#4195041

I think you'll enjoy it.

Ponies, Dude. (which you'll 'get' after you read the game) :)

[readmoreoften]

11. Thank you for the injection of sanity.

It's pure, unadulterated lunacy. The supporters try to play it off as "Obama just wants everyone to vote for him, then he'll pull out his "progressive" guns." Another "keeping the powder dry" fantasy. Let's be real kids: Obama is going to do as president what he does now: triangulate and talk big. The man hasn't done anything earth-shattering or even significant while in Congress. He hasn't stood up to the Republican machine--ever. He says he isn't going to, and he isn't. This man is a nobody with a good speechwriter and a shaky platform.

Obama isn't going to save you. The Republicans are going to pull his strings from behind the curtain. Nothing's going to change. He's promises are silly, empty, and impossible.

It's time to fight against these thugs or get out of the way. To hell with this battered wife syndrome. No matter how well we cook the Republican's meals, no matter how neatly we fold the laundry, they'll find some way to backslap us.

I'm done with this blame the victim crap. If you've been at DU complaining about Republican tactics for 8 years, and now you want "unity" with them, then you're either lazy or a coward. Naivety can't be an excuse; you've been here too long to play dumb. They have no intention of working with us. You have to unite the American people against the Republicans on issues of equality and liberty and then you take the sick, corrupt, delusional bastards down. Period.

[Levgreee]

13. He doesn't plan on uniting with all the Republicans

but he'll sure have a chance at uniting with some.

Another important thing to note, is the INCREDIBLY high turnout that is coming to vote. The apathetic voters who have never voted Democratic, but decide to unite under the Democrats during this presidency, are JUST as valuable. He is trying to unite the American people, and every extra person he brings together, regardless of political affiliation, may later add up to the testament of progress and success.

[Andy823]

30. Sadly it would be very few

Republicans you could "unite" with the dems. Don't you remember the way the republicans ran things before 2006? They had the power, and the loved it. They had no intentions of being "united" with the dems. Now the dems have some of that same power, and they will probably get more come Novemeber, and they will be the same way. The leadership of both sides wants only one thing, "THE POWER"! When they get it they are in control, and they use that. The other side wants that power, and they do everything they can to make the ones with the power look bad so they can make points next election.

There will be "no" unity with the leaders of the two parties, and that will stop any kind of cross the isle comprimise from making any headway. Obama will do the will of those with the "power", and just like with Bush.

I want a president that will stand up to congress, and kick some butt, no matter which side of the isle he needs to kick it on!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. Clinton isn't going to save you either. But you probably already knew that.

Neither is Edwards.

[DesEtoiles]

14. A better slogan: "It's all about me. Fuck the party!"

[kurth]

16. No need for "unity" with GOP if Dems have a president and 60++ senators

along with a simple majority in the House.

[incapsulated]

17. And until this slogan became "popular" everyone KNEW THIS

Now suddenly, our problem is we aren't nice enough to the fucking repukes we have been screaming that the dems have been caving into for years.

Amazing.

Up is Down.

[Helga Scow Stern]

18. We do desperately need unity with each other, now

no matter who our candidate is. Although I sure have felt that same annoyance and I'm glad you express it. It needs to be expressed.

I want to say bravo that they are so moved, and have some patience because of the times I have been so overly zealous in my beliefs that I didn't mind steamrolling over anyone who stood in my way. That happens with being young and inspired. It is a good thing, much better than not caring. And they do have legitimate grievances. By hearing them and showing respect, we will keep that fire instead of it being drained by manipulations from the thugs who will do anything to stay in power.

[EFerrari]

20. Ojai Person, it's good to read you again after so long.

I recently watched an anniversary celebration via BookTv of the integration of Central High in Little Rock.

It was a great segment. A historian had researched the politics of that episode and explained / described it to the audience. It was fascinating, complicated and sort of hearbreaking, too.

But I noticed that the audience was very interested to know how much things had "changed". They asked great questions. It was a wonderful discussion -- not very defensive, caring, trying to be honest. Like the fact that the schools were re-segregating but how other parts of the community were doing better or even, differently.

Many of the questions revolved around "change".

So, the next time Obama invoked "change", I heard it differently, having heard that thoughtful discussion.

[Prophet 451]

19. I'm hoping it's naivete

If it's just naivete, Obama can be taught otherwise (perhaps by eight years as VP). If it's posturing, he's a lost cause.

Problem with looking for unity is that the entire modern Republican party defines "unity" as "doing things my way". They've taken Norquist's famous comment about bipartisanship to heart.

I've said this before but Obama is Chamberlain. Oh, don't jump on me. Chamberlain has been unfairly demonised. He was trying to come to a reasonable agreement and stave off a war, his main mistake was negotiating in good faith with a bunch of thugs who wouldn't have understood the term if it bit them on the ass. Naivete, in other words. In a nobler time, when Republicans were gentlemen of good will who were genuinely trying to improve the country (even if they disagreed on how to do so), Obama would have made an excellent president. If elected, he may surprise me and make an excellent one today but the left doesn't need unity, it needs to fight back. No more compromising with evil, no more picking at crumbs thrown from the table. This is class war and the left desperatly needs to wake up to that fact. You don't need Chamberlain, you need Churchill.

[lvx35]

21. I was just thinking about this.

There can be an issue with having both a willingness to struggle and fight, and do the compromising and hand shaking. Unfortunately I think these two things are mutually exclusive; you can't just fight against the ideas of the right but not the people, because so many of the people are so invested in it at this point.

[tkmorris]

24. I agree with you re: what motivates the big money people

They are never going to give an inch just because someone tells them "it's for the good of America". They don't give a tinker's DAMN about that.

Here's a thing I have been mulling over. When watching Obama I am always impressed by how he carries himself. I really want to like him, because he just oozes intelligence. In the last 7 years, and actually for longer than that, I have longed for a president like that. Not just a persona, but an actual intellect I could respect. I really really wanted Obama to be that guy but...... Obama's comments about Ronald Reagan are no accident. Oh I am not one of those who will claim that Obama admired what Reagan did, or agrees with his policies, but rather that Obama carefully observed HOW Reagan brought that about.

People liked Reagan. I DESPISED, with a purple passion that knew no bounds, Reagan Democrats. Yet there did exist such morons, and the reason they did was Reagan's public persona. He came off as this steady, fatherly jokester with a supremely optimistic viewpoint. Remember his "It's morning in America" nonsense? People who knew no better ate that shit up. They were unhappy and pessimistic about the world around them and here was a guy saying "Lighten up! Everything is gonna be just ducky". They ate that up. They were wrong, everything was most decidedly NOT ducky, but it's what they wanted to hear.

I think Obama has studied that whole era quite well, and I think perhaps he wants to imitate it. The idea gives me some hope. Reagan sure tried to appeal to everyone when running, and had some success, but he GOVERNED like a far right-winger. Of course, I think he really had little to do with actually presiding over the nation, I am of the opinion that Reagan was merely a figurehead, much like I believe Bush jr. has been. The real decisions were made by others.

So where does all that leave us? Is Obama just running plays from the Reagan playbook, and will he once elected try to maintain the optimistic persona while governing as more of a Leftist than he advertised? Is he, also, a frontman for others? If so, who? I don't believe he is to be fair, but in the end I don't know WHO he is, and thus there is no way I can support him.

[lvx35]

28. Smart post. Its exactly the same with me.

Sometimes when I read the posts here, I just want to cry out "Drat! We were trying to take over, and we would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you kids and that blasted Scooby Doo!"
There's something cartoonishly simple to the idea "the conspiracy" needs to repeat presidents from the same two families over and over, and we are guarunteed a real "outsider" if we just break that chain. There are a million "outsiders" with faces we've never seen before that can be plugged into power who will precisely represent the same old shit...So the question becomes, who can we really trust? Both Hillary and Obama are embraced by the media, which is a product of the fact that they BOTH have corporate allegiances. With Hillary, I know where they lie...I know they don't deeply interfere with the core work we need to do with energy independance and such. With Obama, I am not so sure, though I really like what he says. So there really is a gamble.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

25. So is 35 Years Of Experience(TM)

When none of that "experience" has done a damn thing to stop the march of the military industrial complex/globalization/corporatocracy.

[Perry Logan]

26. During these critical times, I suggest we try never to publically attack a Democratic leader.

That's the best way to strive for unity, it seems to me.

Ironically, this lets most of the Obama people out.

[Apollo11]

27. Obama will unify the 70% who hate Bush, then marginalize and defeat the right-wing rump.

It's called having a strategy to win the Whitehouse and both Houses of Congress for the next 8 to 16 years.

In case you hadn't noticed, Obama is going for the triple prize in 2008: a Blue landslide, a Democratic Administration and a mandate for change.

www.barackobama.com B-)

[PerpetuallyDazed]

29. Where can I read more about this ambitious strategy?

Or are you "hoping" that this is Obama's plan for victory? Is there any evidence to back this up or is it all empty rhetoric??

[VotesForWomen]

31. both. nt