Not now, not ever.
Any number of times where we’ve been victorious, the left, by rote, starts demanding unity, that we get rid of our differences, that we come together. But it always ends up being us that has to do it. They never have to change a damn thing about themselves, even and especially when they lose. No, it’s all up to us to compromise, to unify, to do whatever it is so they won’t be angry anymore, so their protesters can get off the streets and once again enjoy life. Why is there disunity in America in the first place?
Well, it’s natural when you have partisan politics as the governing system of the country, and it’s not gonna change. And as long as you have passionate people on both sides, you’re going to have partisan divides. And as long as both sides have people are never gonna compromise their principles, you’re always going to have a circumstance where there is never unity. The nation’s never been unified in the ways that people today are demanding it be unified anyway. It’s a pipe dream, something that sounds really wonderful to hope for.
And, by the way, it sounds really wonderful to say in the afterglow of an election, to talk about putting aside our differences and unifying. It sounds wonderful, and maybe that’s what Americans want to hear. I’m hoping it’s just what people think they have to say right now on our side. Look, there’s a headline in The Politico today: “Obamacare Defenders Vow ‘Total War.'” They’re not gonna lay down, folks. They’re not gonna unify.
For unity to take place, they would have to agree with us that Obamacare is a disaster and help us get rid of it and put something in its place. They’re not gonna do that. Why, when they just got beat, they just got shellacked, when their entire agenda was repudiated and all because Trump put this stuff out there that he was going to get rid of Obamacare? Trump won! Why in the world should we, after victory, say, “Okay, we’ll leave it and we’ll let you guys come in and participate in the meetings that we’re gonna have to save it”?
It’s not how things would work if we lost.
No, and it never has been. But the GOPe was all too happy to lie down and roll over for them anyway, and while Rush says it’s because of cowardice, my belief is that it’s more like collusion.
It is a trap.
There is disunity because the left views this as constant, never-ending war. We have tried. Our party, members of our party have tried to appease the Democrats and the left for as long as I have been doing this, and it never, ever works. It never makes the media less mean. It never causes Democrats to say they love us and like us more. Not that that matters, but it seems that some people want that to be the case.
Well, it does if you assume that they’re so stupid as to be blind to a reality easily enough seen by the rest of us. I don’t buy that.
As for disunity, it’s because we have a clash between two very different views of proper government, and they are irreconcilable. The Left, the Progressivists, the liberals, whatever, believe that there should be no limits at all on what government may do. They believe, against all historical evidence, that a powerful central government is necessary not only to restrain a stupid and hapless populace from harming themselves and others, but to coerce the sheeple into proper modes of behavior and thinking. They believe in a near-omnipotent federal government as the shepherd and protector of people too benighted to act in their own best interests. They believe that the best solution to nearly any problem you could name is a government solution.
The rest of us believe in the people’s right to be left alone. They believe that, if not carefully monitored and checked by our Constitutional system, the federal government will slowly but surely expand its reach and power to whatever degree it can get away with. They believe it will stifle the economy, usurp our individual liberty, and slowly transform us from a hardy and independent people into a nation of meek, servile children. They believe most particularly that this part of the Constitution—although long neglected and abused—means exactly what it says, and just might be its most eternally relevant and vital statement: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Again: there is no reconciling this conflict. Which is why this election, heartening though it was, will settle precisely nothing. The divide cannot be bridged; the conflict will have to be settled in some other fashion, if it ever is.
Update! Think I was kidding about how much they hate the Founders, and all their principles and prescriptions for proper governance?
University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan is being asked to refrain from quoting Thomas Jefferson because of his racist beliefs, according to The Cavalier Daily.
A letter, signed by 469 faculty members and students, was sent to Sullivan on Nov. 11 protesting the use of a Jefferson quotation in her email calling for unity after the presidential election, the student newspaper reported.
“We would like for our administration to understand that although some members of this community may have come to this university because of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, others of us came here in spite of it,” the letter read. “For many of us, the inclusion of Jefferson quotations in these e-mails undermines the message of unity, equality and civility that you are attempting to convey.”
Lawrie Balfour, a politics professor who signed the letter, told the newspaper that those who signed the letter were grateful that Sullivan responded to anxiety following the election but felt it was the wrong moment to turn to Jefferson because of recent incidents of identity-related hate speech.
“I’ve been here 15 years,” Balfour said. “Again and again, I have found that at moments when the community needs reassurance and Jefferson appears, it undoes I think the really important work that administrators and others are trying to do.”
And there you have it, straight from the horse’s…uhhh, mouth.
Our “countrymen”? Not hardly. Not in any sense beyond a strictly geographical one, anyway.