Hillary: still dividing

Last updated on: May 9, 2013 at 6:07 am by Faithful Democrats

Hillary: still dividing 2013-05-09T06:07:36-06:00 Faithful Democrats

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

What does it mean to be a uniter in politics?

Politics, after all, is about choices. Without clear differences between candidates, between parties, between policies, elections have no meaning. Hand-wringers who long for complete national unity should try North Korea. Division is a hallmark of democracy.

And yet there’s something pernicious when politicians actively seek to pit citizens against one another. The classic example in modern U.S. history is conservative politicians who have spent decades scapegoating minorities, immigrants, and “secular elites” for the problems of “regular” (read: white, middle-class) Americans — all while implementing policies that benefit the privileged few over everybody else.

It’s one thing for politicians to explain why their proposals are superior to those of their opponents. It’s another thing for politicians to intentionally cultivate resentments among groups of people. In other words, there’s creative division — the kind by which we express our voices as free people — and there’s destructive division, which clouds our judgment and keeps us from understanding how to improve our lives in the political arena.

Consider, for instance, this gem from a recent George Packer article in the New Yorker:

[Pat] Buchanan gave me a copy of a seven-page confidential memorandum — “A little raw for today,” he warned — that he had written for Nixon in 1971, under the heading “Dividing the Democrats.” Drawn up with an acute understanding of the fragilities and fault lines in “the Old Roosevelt Coalition,” it recommended that the White House “exacerbate the ideological division” between the Old and New Left by praising Democrats who supported any of Nixon’s policies; highlight “the elitism and quasi-anti-Americanism of the National Democratic Party”; nominate for the Supreme Court a Southern strict constructionist who would divide Democrats regionally; use abortion and parochial-school aid to deepen the split between Catholics and social liberals; elicit white working-class support with tax relief and denunciations of welfare. Finally, the memo recommended exploiting racial tensions among Democrats. “Bumper stickers calling for black Presidential and especially Vice-Presidential candidates should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country,” Buchanan wrote. “We should do what is within our power to have a black nominated for Number Two, at least at the Democratic National Convention.” Such gambits, he added, could “cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.”

Republicans call this strategy “positive polarization”; I call it destructive division. Take your alliterative pick. But my sense is that the ideal form of unity in politics occurs when disagreements are policy-based, respectful, with empathy for those who are not like us, and with earnest honesty from our leaders. And instead of appealing to the worst in people, politicians appeal to our hopes, to what we actually want to achieve from our politics. For those are the conditions — some of them, anyway — that empower the public to arrive at constructive political decisions.

The reason I bring all this up is I’m seeing a destructively divisive impulse in Hillary Clinton’s Black Knight-esque presidential campaign. Last night, after Barack Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary seemed utterly uninterested in graceful conciliation. She’s no Pat Buchanan, but in the context of an intraparty fight that her opponent has already won — and in which the policy differences are minimal — she’s doing what she thinks she can get away with.

First, she had Terry McAuliffe introduce her as “the next president of the United States,” thereby continuing to spit in the face of Obama’s victory. Then she repeated the lie that she won the popular vote — a claim that depends on awarding Obama zero votes in Michigan since his name wasn’t on the ballot (so much for rewarding those who “work hard and play by the rules”) and discounts several caucus states that don’t track the popular vote (so much for making sure “every vote counts”). Then Hillary rubbed her supposed electability advantage in Obama’s face by recounting all the swing states she had won — ignoring, of course, the swing states like Iowa and Colorado where Obama came out ahead. And she maintained that making “every vote count” was central to her campaign, perpetuating the preposterous idea that delegates in Florida and Michigan were illegitimately stolen from her — never mind that she herself acknowledged long ago that these votes wouldn’t count.

Perhaps most annoyingly, she asserted: “I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, and no longer be invisible.” How, exactly, were her supporters “invisible” compared to Barack Obama’s? And how could they now be made more visible? The only plausible answer seems to be to hand Hillary the vice presidential slot — an honor that her surrogates have been insisting non-stop that she wants.

In other words, Hillary is trying to blackmail Obama for the vice presidency. She’s not arguing about issues. She’s even not being honest about her political strength. She’s trying to stir up resentment among her supporters. She wants them to feel cheated over Florida and Michigan, over supposed media bias, over sexism as the cause of her defeat (as if racism hasn’t been equally if not more grotesque in this election, given exit polling suggesting a disconcertingly large portion of her voters were racially driven).

Her implication all the while is that if Obama doesn’t offer her the vice presidential nomination, she’ll keep stoking bitterness in her supporters. The fact that her policy prescriptions and Obama’s are pretty darn close is irrelevant. What matters is power, and if Hillary has to threaten party division in order to achieve that power, so be it.

Barack Obama has made unity and reconciliation — the good kind — central to his campaign. It’s sad to see a great public servant like Hillary Clinton stoop to the level of undermining this noble effort.

Still, if Obama needs to pick her for veep in order to maintain party unity and win in November, fine. She’s certainly a lot better than John McCain. But Obama should also bear in mind that he won’t win unless voters believe in his message of unity and change. Whether Hillary can effectively buttress this message is an open question, to put it mildly.

Featured Writers

Previous Post

June 4, 2008

"Emasculation Proclamation"

Next Post

June 10, 2008 McCain and Bush Virtually indestinguishable on most issues

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category About Us About Us Action Center Advertise Ask a Theologian Ask a Theologian Blogs Books Campaign Blog Candidate Spotlights Commentary Donate Facebook Featured Writers Fellows Fellows From the Pulpit General Information Hillary Clinton Interfaith Blog Latest Media Center Media Center Media Center MyBlog MyBlog News Newsflash Newsflashes Our Team Reader Blogs RSS Sermon of the Week Shop Social Networking Static Items Support Talking Points Test blogs The Basics Theology Uncategorized YouTube

Select a Month November 2020 October 2020 February 2020 August 2019 July 2018 July 2017 March 2017 February 2017 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 January 2006 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was a "phylactery," criticized by Jesus in Matthew 23?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A fishing net A robe A small box with Scripture A lamp