The Political Inquirer

Yesterday, pro-life Democrats Robert Casey and Timothy Roeder endorsed the strongly pro-choice Barack Obama for president, saying he was the only candidate who could “bring this country together”.   At first glance, it sounded encouraging.  There are too many single issue voters in America, and when a citizen forgoes tunnel vision for a broader perspective, democracy wins.  I tire of Evangelicals who merely focus on gay marriage or Environmentalists who only talk about global warming.  Politics is too complex and interconnected for someone to rely on one issue as a voting guide.  Anyone who does so is shortsighted and probably ill-informed. 

And yet, the reason that Casey and Roeder sighted for supporting Obama, his ability to unify the country, comes with its own baggage. 

People have been billing the Junior Senator as a unifier for some time.  It’s in his speeches, ads, and his surrogates’ vocabularies.  His supporters say people are tired of the “partisanship” that keeps Washington frozen in gridlock.  They say they want change, they say they want unity, and they say he can bring it. 

The trouble is, in an age where the word “partisan” is considered an insult, I don’t want unity.  Not in Washington anyway.  Unity, or virtual unity in congress only occurs when pointless, PR bills are passed, or when the public is too scared of terrorist attacks for the politicians to disagree.  In Washington, unity passes ridiculous stimulus packages.  Unity can cause wars. 

Contrastingly, division causes debate and argumentation, which in turn helps make bills more sophisticated.  It slows the process down, allowing for thorough investigations.  Quick moving bills like the Patriot Act would have benefitted from five or six more months of revisions.  Honest dissent would have helped too.  Instead fear mongering, an extreme situation, and a growing executive power pushed a hugely controversial bill through Congress before some of the representatives had a chance to read it.  So much for unity. 

Division isn’t perfect of course.  It can hold the government in gridlock and hinder positive legislation for years.  So while it is less likely to make a mistake, it is also more likely to miss out on an opportunity. 

I’m not trying to argue that Division  is more beneficial than Unity for the general public.  What I am trying to say is that ”partisanship” is not the sole cause of America’s troubles.  Lack of unity did not bring about the housing ‘crisis’ and dissent did not send us to Iraq.  Partisan politics has hurt America at times, but only when it was petty: when individual, meaningless squabbles determined the directions of bills, the allocation of funds, or foreign policy. 

For the sake of argument, let’s say that what Obama means when he pledges to end the “partisanship” in Washington is  that he plans to root out the “pettiness”.   Put that way, Obama is promising to wash away the trivial infighting that plagues our capital, and replace it with sound, substantial thought.   I could get behind that kind of spring cleaning.  And yet, if his present campaign for the democratic nomination is any indication of his ability to root out trivial infighting, then I think we might be in for a disappointment. 

There are plenty of reasons to vote for Obama, but his ability to unify the country is not a good enough one.  Unity alone will not fix Iraq, cut the deficit, or close the educational gap.  Thousands of arguments, disputes, and close votes will do much more to solve those problems than unanimity ever will.