House of Eratosthenes

But I think this shaking-up of candidates on both the Republican side and on the donk side has been good for the country because it’s got us talking about things. And from all that talking about things, even at this late date, I’ve been learning a lot. This dosey-doh between Hillary and Obama, for example, has taught me a lot about what it means when someone says “only (blank) can unite the country“…(blank) being the candidate of choice.

Mood icons Recent events have educated me about that verb. “Unite.” It doesn’t mean what a lot of people think it means. I’ve talked to too many people who are giddy about Obama, for example…vociferously opposed to my objections that Obama’s positions on the issues, while perhaps defined to some cursory extent, remain so pliable as to be meaningless.

They start out “educating” me about where Obama stands on this-or-that…

…and before they get too far, end up babbling some jibber-jabber about “charisma.”

It is not my intent to single out Obama here, for I think this is where the country has gone in general. And it’s a recent thing. Four years ago I would have similar objections to a John Kerry, and a Kerry fan would “educate” me with those four wonderful magic words: “Go to his website.” Missing the point entirely that it’s one thing to articulate a position, and a different thing entirely to commit onesself to that position.

It’s kind of like the story about the pig, the chicken, and the ham-and-egg breakfast. The chicken was involved with the breakfast, the pig was committed.

But four years ago, if I lowered myself to hitting a candidate’s website to learn about his position, at least I’d probably find one there. It might change the very next day — that was the point of using websites, although nobody said so out loud.

Nowadays, it’s even worse. “Positions” are things that are stated as vaguely as possible. Not in such a way as to involve any kind of a plan…not a plan you’d implement for your own private matters, anyhow. If you wanted to win at them.

In this way, Obama left himself open for a good skewering lately by John Gibson:

Obama was talking about the Iraq war — which he opposed — and the surge — which he opposed — and he said Democrats deserve credit for the reduction of violence in Iraq and he said:

“…Much of the violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province… Sunni tribes… who started to see after the Democrats were elected in ’06… you know that, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we’re going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”

Obama is going to argue in a debate that the Dems who wanted to quit immediately, surrender now, were the ones who won the war?

I would be anxious to hear John McCain or Rudy Giuliani reply to that assertion. Obama’s line appears to be: We win wars by refusing to fight them.

I keep hearing about how we need a candidate that will “unite the country.” My point is, I think we’re not really communicating with each other when we say this. Unite the country, according to tradition, has something to do with coming up with a plan that will draw widespread support. Obama comes out and says: “We should start negotiating now.” Is that the plan?

It isn’t one that will draw widespread support. It will draw DailyKOS support, sure, but I don’t think that is what most people mean when they talk about uniting the country.

Blogger friend Phil made some good points about Obama’s evasiveness lately, and I think his words echo some doubts a lot of people might have about things, even though the message itself has yet to find resonance. But he really nailed it, I think.

In the paper the other day I saw a picture of Bara[c]k Obama with his campaign slogan on the podium in front of him. It was also plastered all over supporter’s signs behind him. It said:

Change We Can Believe In

I hate to state the obvious, but that doesn’t mean anything. Worse, it means nothing on purpose.

The candidates and pudits alike are all talking about “change” as if it means something. Something even semi-specific.

It means whatever the listener wants it to mean. That’s why they use it. It’s calculated ambiguity. Triangulation. Whatever you want to call it. [emphasis mine]

It bears repeating: Calculated ambiguity. Uniting the country…through calculated ambiguity.

As I said, it is not my intent to single-out the Senator from Illinois. Across the board, mostly with donks but lately I notice with Republicans as well…in 2008, I see the candidates who attract the greatest hope for “uniting the country,” are the ones who have left themselves the greatest latitude for changing positions later without shattering covenants, be they explicitly stated or implied. They are the candidates who address roomfuls of people, and in so doing, exert control over the mood in those roomfuls of people. The “charisma” candidates. The candidates who achieve unity by means other than by stating a position.

I’m left to arrive at one conclusion, and only one.

I think “unite” has something to do with dictating a mood, now. It has less to do with actually forming a plan, than it ever did before. You do what we call “uniting” in 2008, and what you do is set a current mood. You make the current mood “happy,” for example, and anybody who would just as soon feel sad or sober, simply doesn’t count. Or vice-versa.

That is what unity means today, I’m afraid. And it has its place. People who are given to communicating by articulating what “everybody feels,” by dishing out one baritone proclamation after another of the bullying, coercive, “Am I The Only One Who” variety…don’t like to wrestle with the thorny issue of the individual…that irritating guy off in the corner who might not be so easy to bundle up into some overly-simplistic statement about what “the room” is thinking.

They like all persons in the immediate vicinity to be united. To feel all energized at the same time, or all disappointed at the same time. So that our leaders — and our not-leaders as well, the ineffectual middle-management suck-ups, the bootlickers, the show-offs, the guys who simply laugh louder than everybody else — can easily figure out where the parade is going, and run to the front of it.

In short, I’ve come to the conclusion that most of the time when the word “unite” is used, that is what it means. Don’t unite the priorities. Or the plan. Or the concerns. Just unite the mood, and the rest will follow.

The problem I see with it, is that the rest won’t follow. Uniting a mood is not solving a problem.

So looking for reasons to be encouraged by the primaries, that is the one that I find. A bunch of sycophants want Iowa and New Hampshire to agree on things, and the two states have agreed on precisely nothing. This frustrates many, I think, and I’m glad for that if for nothing else.

[…] We Don’t Communicate Congratulations to Anchoress Let’s Stay Divided Selfless Sacrifice We Agree With FeministingBest Sentence XXI Memo For File L Questions We Never Answered in 2007 Olmstead RIP Thoughts On Iowa Houseflies Stalker Drove Forty Hours TTLB […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/09/2008 @ 06:58

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Let’s Stay DividedWednesday, January 9th, 2008

Let’s Stay Divided
Wednesday, January 9th, 2008