One or Two Americas? So, like you I'm sure, Barack Obama's speech at the DNC last night blew me away. I've been loving Edwards for a year or so but his speech seemed lackluster in comparison, to me anyway.
This article in the New Republic
Online may not be accessible, so here is a long excerpt about this issue of divided or united America and how Obama's message resembles and differs from Bush's in 2000:
"So in 2000 Bush portrayed the country as divided (and therefore needing a uniter); and in 2004 Democrats portray the country as united (and therefore needing to get rid of a divider). But the funny thing about both these formulations is that neither was, or is, really true. In mid-2000 America wasn't nearly as divided as Bush contended. The economy had grown long enough and strongly enough to begin lifting all boats; there hadn't been a major war in decades; and, despite his Oval Office dalliances, Clinton was leaving office with an approval rating topping 60 percent in most polls. The election was considered dull news largely because no one felt a need for drastic change in the way things were headed. Bush's greatest success was convincing just enough people that, despite the evidence, the country really was a divided place, and new leadership was needed to bring us back together.
But if Bush was wrong in 2000, the Democrats are wrong today. The country is, in fact, divided. A hard-core 45 percent has rallied behind Bush, and a similar number behind Kerry. People are worried about terrorism, but deeply divided on what to do about it. The same goes for the economy, gay marriage, and abortion. To be sure, the Democrats will argue that all of this is Republican spin--that most people don't care about gay marriage, that a majority are critical of the war in Iraq. And to an extent this is true. But this line of argument can also be pushed toward self-parody, in which Democrats embrace a worldview that blames any kind of political tension, even healthy debate over real divisions, on the GOP spin machine."
All these arguments over whether or not we are united just make me think: what unites us? What should? "Freedom" obviously is a bit too vague a concept when some people are willing to get their bags checked on the Boston subway and some aren't. I know what I think: I think it's our tolerance for our plurality, and our ability to reinvent ourselves within and between generations. Some of "them" would say god, to which I say, bite me. But they'd be more right than I am, I do think.
Maybe the point is just that it's an ongoing experiment and it's set up such that nobody can impose their view for long. So since everyone feels like their values are dying, they fight for them, and the struggle is ensured to continue. Not very satisfying an explanation, not good for a campaign sound bite :)
Or maybe I'm reaching philosopho-burnout. I've been philosophizing about red/blue etc. for a few days now and it's starting to hurt.
