Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » In The Midst of Disunity, Rededicating Ourselves To ‘Peace Eternal In A Nation United’

In The Midst of Disunity, Rededicating Ourselves To ‘Peace Eternal In A Nation United’

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

GETTYSBURG, Pa. — Watching charming, autumn-tinted scenery roll by driving the rural highways of this corner of Adams County, you could think yourself anywhere in rural America.

Further, the campaign signs that read: “PRO TAX RELIEF PRO JOBS” are indicative merely of a rightward tilt pervasive across the nation as a whole.

That 7,863 Americans lost their lives here over three bloody days in July 1863 in civil war — and tens of thousands of others left seriously wounded — gives this ground a unique place in our national unity and disunity, however.

Gettysburg, of course, also is famous for the 272-word speech President Abraham Lincoln gave here four-and-a-half months after the battle was over, delivered to bolster approval for a war that at the time was quickly losing public support.

Less known is that 75 years after the Union, just barely, beat Robert E. Lee’s army here, some 1,800 Civil War veterans gathered on the same hill from which Maj. Gen. Robert Rodes launched a Confederate attack. They came to dedicate the Eternal Light Peace Memorial, to “Peace Eternal in a Nation United.”

It’s certainly not at all clear, though, that here in 2010, we’re living up to that dedication.

To be sure, an election — even one as contentious as we face in less than a week’s time — is not tantamount to an armed struggle such as that which once cleaved our nation.

But the recent talk of “Second Amendment solutions” to political debate, and the stomping of a peaceful campaign protester in Kentucky, seem to carry the same strains that inflamed passions ahead of the Civil War.

And while slavery is no longer a salient political issue, our persistent Red State/Blue State divide bears much in common with the sectionalism which helped spark the war in 1861.

Even if our political leaders were interested in fostering a greater sense of national unity, our winner-takes-all government doesn’t easily lend itself to creating governments of national unity such as have been more common in Israel, or even the United Kingdom.

Yet that was Lincoln’s goal for his second term. A Republican, Lincoln purposefully chose Democrat Andrew Johnson as his vice president and ran not under either the Republican or Democrat banner, but rather won election on the Union Party ticket.

I am neither naive, nor a fool. I understand full well that, at one another’s political throats as they are, no one is terribly interested in spreading harmony or solidarity — especially with Republicans poised to crush Democrats in less than a week’s time.

And yet.

Putting aside heat in favor of light, there are real, rational, and yes — self-interested — reasons for Democrats and Republicans both to forge a deeper sense of cooperation and common purpose.

With the economy continuing to limp as badly as it is, almost no one expects a dramatic recovery anytime soon. That the downturn is proving to be so pernicious is what’s driving so much of the discontent in the country.

If Republicans succeed in retaking control of all, or part, of Congress on Tuesday, they will immediately start to own a significant share of that discontent.

Republicans may drink their Kool Aid, but I’m willing to bet that there are some conservatives of consequence in Washington who have not become entirely fact-free.

These conservatives will understand, though they crave tax cuts, those cuts alone won’t truly pull the economy out of its deep slump. Given that they would then own some responsibility for fixing the economy, these smart Republicans will want some meaningful solutions — lest voters turn their anger back on them in the next election.

They no longer could long afford to continue only as the “Party of No.”

Democrats, of course, could offer such solutions,that if enacted, could provide Republicans potentially significant political upside in 2012.

The Democrats, meanwhile, would be able to implement at least some of the economic salves they’ve been wanting to all along. To be sure, it would take much horse-trading, and it wouldn’t come quickly — but, then again, they could see that as at least marginally better than the current filibuster-in-perpetuity that exists today in the Senate.

What would be in it for Democrats to go along with all this? Aside from a chance to actually help average Americans, you mean?

How about keeping a Democrat in the White House? Wouldn’t that be worth it?

Powered by

About Scott Nance

  • Baronius

    I’m hoping that the red state / blue state myth dies in the aftermath of this election. The geographic political divides in the US are between urban and non-urban areas. It’s more like blue versus red counties. Urban Georgia is liberal; Rural New York is conservative.

    But even within that geographic split, you’ll rarely find places that one party is guaranteed a win. In most places, at least 1/3 of the voters have loyalty to the minority party. Other than the effect of the Electoral College, there are no good reasons to think of the US in terms of regional politics.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The electoral college is a pretty powerful reason. So let’s get rid of it!

  • Baronius

    Handy, I think it’s a pretty good method of preventing a regional party from emerging. But aside from the Electoral College, would you agree with my comment #1?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    As long as there is an electoral college, we will continue to speak of blue and red states. Count on it.

    We can speak of blue or red congressional districts, sure; and gerrymandering keeps as many as possible of them pure, not purple. That’s another form of anti-democratic [small d] evil.

    I’m more interested in dialing down the overblown rhetoric that dominates political discourse now, which is closer to Scott’s point here.

  • Baronius

    I agree that that’s closer to Scott’s point. And gerrymandering is a problem. But with the number of Congressional seats that have changed parties in the last four years and the next few months, I don’t think it’s as effective at the machine politicians would like it to be. All that aside, would you agree with my comment #1?

  • doug m.

    Agree about the city folk vs country folk comparison based on some interesting charts I’ve seen. While no guarantees, seems hard to deny certain parties dominate in certain areas.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    With caveats, Baronius. The South is ruled by conservatives. When I lived there 25 years ago, we liberals were consistently the 30% minority, same as now. It’s amazing that Clinton and Gore could spring from that background, but unfortunately few others have.

    I worry about the racial polarization of the two parties as well. Most Americans are moderates, so the extremists shouldn’t have so much influence. I think their influence is mostly on the right — Republican moderates are anathema to many in their party now, while moderate Dems are fairly numerous.

  • Baronius

    Urban versus non-urban, Handy. You guys are mayors of major cities by like 3-to-1, and of southern cities by more. As for electoral votes, Obama won Fla, NC, and Virginia, which together account for 1/3 of the region’s total. So no region is unwinnable for either party.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    And two of those three wins made headlines, along with Indiana, for being so unusual. I’m not sure why this point is so important to you. In addition, the country is not likely to become significantly more rural, is it? [Or, in fact, whiter.] So is the GOP on an inevitable decline unless it appeals to urbanites and people of color?

    So many people live in the suburbs anyway. And those are different politically in different parts of the country.

  • Ruvy

    I don’t care what you guys rededicate yourselves to. It is an irrelevancy. America is rapidly becoming irrelevant. As soon as the pressure of your huge overhanging debt forces a recession in the world economy – your dollar will hyper-inflate, and you Americans will experience the leadership of those two gentlemen, Messrs. Smith and Wesson.

    Good luck with the hymn singing of re-dedication in the meantime.

  • zingzing

    DOOOOOOOOOOOM