Calls for Unity From Our Elected Officials Despite Deep Political Division
Suddenly, there is talk of “unity” for our politics in the aftermath of the assassination attempt, as if that’s what we have been seeking all along.
Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have been quick to disavow violence and adjusting public messages to promote this long-sought, but never-practiced, “unity,” even as they and their teams promote campaign messages and policies that savage the other.
Biden has been on television three times to say that we need to lower the temperature of election rhetoric, and took down campaign ads temporarily. Newsmax, Fox News and the Washington Examiner said Trump is rewriting his convention acceptance speech, tempering his usual fiery message to “bring this country together.”
What exactly is this “unity” — other than agreement that shooting candidates in the head or carrying the makings of explosives are beyond the pale?
That seems a basic notion, but hardly seems to explain what anyone listening to the incessantly divisive political talk in this country hears. More likely, “unity” means for each of the two an expectation that the other half of the country will come to its senses and agree with the speaker.
Maybe we need to look at what unity ought to mean, starting with a realistic view that the numbers of guns, semi-automatic weapons and ammo are out of control, while our mental health services are inadequate.
Elusive “Unity”
Even when the smoke clears on the details of the security issues that allowed a gunman onto a roof with a direct sightline 150 yards away from Trump, we will not have a united view of what happened and why. That requires seeking out and accepting facts, and an outlook that searches for compromise solutions — neither of which marks our current politics.
“Unity” is not what our politicians and their operatives thinks works with voters.
Among progressives, it is hard to see unity in a message that tells me what books we can read, what bathroom we must use or why women must flee of half the states to receive medical treatments, including abortions. It’s hard to see unity in a promise to round up millions of undocumented people, including families who have been here and part of American life for decades. The vow to seek a formally dominant white, Christian nation automatically excludes tens of millions from any version of “unity” that I understand.
For Trump followers, “unity” means dropping criminal charges filed for allegations over hiding classified documents, obstructing justice and falsifying business records for personal gain, or coordinating months of scheming over election denial that led to the Jan. 6 uprising at the Capitol. Unity means agreeing to limit justice, and the FBI from pursuing investigations of Trump allies, closing the border, and putting America First, even at the peril of allies. Where exactly does the spirt of pro-Trump Jan. 6 rioters meet up with any definition of “unity” — or a plot to kidnap the Michigan governor, an attack on Nancy Pelosi’s home or a threat against a Supreme Court justice?
Biden says the debate over policy and the appropriate role of government can be vigorous without crossing a line that leads well beyond passion into dangerous activity. But he sees no problem with calling Trump a danger to democracy, to allies, to an inclusive America, opening him to criticism for seeking “to put Trump in the bullseye” for his views.
Perhaps a near brush with a deadly bullet has changed Trump’s outlook, but his language and deeds have been filled with disdain, sneer and darkness for anyone who does not agree with him — Republican, Democrat, moderate or other. His messages about “toughness” have encouraged militias and extremists on all sides toward war-like talk that is amplified in ever-repetitive media reports.
It is a lot easier to see evidence of dis-unity in how we talk about the country than it is about our common concerns. Indeed, the imagery of a raised fist and a message to “Fight” is not about pursuing American Dreams, it is about winning and forcing someone else to become the “loser.”
Some Unity Proposals
How about a unity agenda from both that starts with recognizing the nation’s actual issues? How about a debate that does not start with demeaning the other candidate?
How about a realistic discussion about whatever is needed to reduce the effects of more guns in this country than people, about how best to extend health care access, or recognition that people come in more than one view of religion, ideology, identify, ethnicity and gender? Unity should involve more universal respect for Americans as well as the preconceived “America” that candidates claim as a sole vision.
How about a 10-second rule that might keep our most extreme lawmakers from automatically mouthing off to blame Biden or Trump for anything from overly hot weather to foreign invasions on allies? How about talk of impeachment reflect some evidence of real crimes and misdemeanors rather than political retribution? Indeed, doesn’t unity encompass some faith in governmental institutions and an acceptance that government exists to help rather than to grind us down?
How about a renewed commitment to accept the outcome of elections? That too seems basic.
It’s welcome news to hear a desire from all to embrace “unity.” But it would be good to know what we’re talking about beyond not literally killing one another.
A Distressing Dismissal
Unless you are a Donald Trump diehard who can see no wrong in anything that Trump says or does, the dismissal of all criminal charges in the classified documents case by Florida U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon yesterday had to be upsetting, because it was a technical workaround of law.
The dismissal was aimed at undercutting the whole idea of having special counsel prosecutors for the Justice Department — a step that has been presumed for 25 years to remove politics from federal prosecution in sensitive cases. Instead, this finding that appointments of special counsels are without basis in law itself felt highly political and devoid of legal or historical standing. It was not among the defenses that Trump’s legal team had brought up, but suggested by the judge.
It will, of course, be appealed and eventually find itself at the Supreme Court, where Justice Clarence Thomas has already written a concurring opinion in the recent presidential immunity case that apparently guided Cannon’s decision.
The decision does not clear Trump of charges that he illegally took and hid documents, including classified documents, or that he engaged in obstruction of justice in keeping boxes of evidence sought under search warrants from the same Florida court.
In that sense, the decision is neither substantive nor just for either Trump or prosecutors, and leaves the taint of political bias of the judge hanging in mid-air.
It certainly is no step toward “unity.”
