What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What Will It Take For A Candidate To "Unite" The Country? Do We Even Want That? (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
I think we may have had a thread on this before but I was thinking about it again today.

@Sinn Fein posted the new Buttigieg ad in the Buttigieg thread.

It's inspiring and hopeful and talks about he's ready to "Pick up the pieces of our divided nation and lead us toward real action"

"Ready to gather up an American majority hungry for change and that is done with division.

"We will fight when we must fight. But I will never let us get so wrapped up in fighting that we start to think fighting is the point. The point is an America defined not by exclusion but by belonging."

At the same time, he draws applause asking the people to imagine waking up to the first day in America where Donald Trump is defeated. 

I'm a peacemaker at heart. It's how I'm wired. I hate it when people I know and care about aren't getting along. I don't like it when strangers aren't getting along.

So I'm an easy sell for "uniting". But I wonder how much of it's really possible. 

And I wonder how much of it we really even want?

Or is it really just uniting the Democrats where anything the Republicans feel pain with is a good thing? 

I mean on the other side, I don't think Donald Trump makes any illusions of "uniting the country". 

I just wonder if it's even possible? And even if we want it?

What do you think?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
Do we even want it? 

I'm not sure how you can ask that question. I believe that everyone wants things to be better. The only people that wouldn't want it, should move out of the country. 
Click to expand...


What do you think it would take from a candidate to make the country united?

 
And to be clear. I'm not saying "divided" like divided like something crazy like a civil war.

I just see such stark division now though I don't have any idea how a candidate would unite us. 

 
I think Mayor Pete is very serious. His early campaign focused on trying to appeal to Trump voters and empathize/understand their concerns. He made a couple of appearances on Fox News as well. When he talks about uniting people, he does mean everyone - not just Democrats. 

Now how that can be done is a whole different story, but I sort of trust this guy above everyone else to have a fighting chance at succeeding. 

 
TheMagus said:
I think Mayor Pete is very serious. His early campaign focused on trying to appeal to Trump voters and empathize/understand their concerns. He made a couple of appearances on Fox News as well. When he talks about uniting people, he does mean everyone - not just Democrats. 

Now how that can be done is a whole different story, but I sort of trust this guy above everyone else to have a fighting chance at succeeding. 
Click to expand...
Thanks. I don't doubt he's serious. I just wonder if it can be done, and maybe more importantly for Buttigieg, if it's the right strategy. 

I wonder if the other angle of just trying to unite your side and win and then you can rub the other side's nose in it isn't the more effective way. I personally hate that style. But I just wonder if it has a better chance of succeeding. 

 
And maybe the best a leader can hope for is all "their" side plus the moderates from the "other" side.

I've talked about how my Dad was a lifelong Republican voter but voted his wallet with Bill Clinton. 

I mean there will be the hardcore people on each side that'll likely never be too "united" with the "other" side. 

Maybe the best one can hope for is to get the "soft" support from the other side. 

I dunno.

 
Here's what a young Senator from Illinois thought about this 15 years ago, and his reward from political rivals was being "otherized" and asked for his papers.  If this can't unite us, what will?

 

It is that fundamental belief – it is that fundamental belief – I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper – that makes this country work.

It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: “E pluribus unum,” out of many, one.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything-goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.

There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?
Click to expand...



 
Or maybe ask it another way:  Which was the last president you can remember who did the best job of uniting the country?

 
Hate to be pessimistic but it’s only going to move a matter of a few degrees back to the middle at best and under the best of circumstances.  While I’ll gladly take that movement right now I don’t see any great unity coming absent a National tragedy like 9/11, which we’ll all clearly don’t want.

The majority of “engaged” people have chosen their “team” already.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
Or maybe ask it another way:  Which was the last president you can remember who did the best job of uniting the country?
Click to expand...
The only time I’ve felt the country united in my adult lifetime (44yrs old) was post 9/11.  That unity was extremely palpable, you could literally feel it in the air.  Despite the epic tragedy in the days and weeks after I was so proud to be an American because of how everyone I encountered reacted.  I’ll never forget that feeling.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
The only time I’ve felt the country united in my adult life time (44yrs old) was post 9/11.  That unity was extremely palpable, you could literally feel it in the air.  Despite the epic tragedy in the days and weeks after I was so proud to be an American because of how everyone I encountered reacted.  I’ll never forget that feeling.  
Click to expand...
I understand. I remember the feeling too. I do wonder though if it would be the same way today if it happened. 

But that's why I was clear to ask if a candidate could unite us. I know we all hope it doesn't take a tragedy to unite us. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not communicating insanely divisive stuff via Twitter pretty much daily will help. Politics is a dirty game though so not like it's going to go away, will just be ratcheted down quite a bit.

 
Uniting the country isn't a one person job. A President can set a tone, but they can't make it happen by themselves. Thus I think the more significant portion of your query is whether we want to be united or not, and really, before that, what do we think it means to be united? Because it's on each one of us to make that happen if that's what we want, a single individual can't do it for us (unless you want to go full authoritarian, which is a pass I still don't think we've come to yet).

 
Joe Bryant said:
I understand. I remember the feeling too. I do wonder though if it would be the same way today if it happened. 

But that's why I was clear to ask if a candidate could unite us. I know we all hope it doesn't take a tragedy to unite us. 
Click to expand...
I do. It’s part of our DNA as Americans I believe. 
 

I hope beyond hope that one can but just don’t see it, despite my strong desire for it.  During Obama’s first campaign I was positive he was going to be the one to bring the change he rallied on.  I (like others) was massively disappointed in the results.  

 
The last time we were united was after 9/11.  That wasn’t the result of a politician but due to an event.  I don’t think we’ll come together again without another catastrophe.

 
Gr00vus said:
Uniting the country isn't a one person job. A President can set a tone, but they can't make it happen by themselves. Thus I think the more significant portion of your query is whether we want to be united or not, and really, before that, what do we think it means to be united? Because it's on each one of us to make that happen if that's what we want, a single individual can't do it for us (unless you want to go full authoritarian, which is a pass I still don't think we've come to yet).
Click to expand...
Yes. Good thoughts. I do wonder how much we really want to be united. I think people would like for the other side to move over to their side and think like them. But that's not exactly uniting. 

 
dkp993 said:
The only time I’ve felt the country united in my adult life time (44yrs old) was post 9/11.  That unity was extremely palpable, you could literally feel it in the air.  Despite the epic tragedy in the days and weeks after I was so proud to be an American because of how everyone I encountered reacted.  I’ll never forget that feeling.  
Click to expand...
Yup. I was very anti-W after 2000 election and his politics in general. But, the first pitch and his bullhorn speech on the rubble at WTC site were really great moments for him.

 
Biff84 said:
FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC have a much higher viewership than CSPAN. Boring doesn’t sell ads, partisanship and non-stop breaking news does.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can understand how a newspaper or TV network would benefit from division. 

But how is that tied to what a candidate is doing? I'm talking about winning elections, not selling ads. Are you saying they're connected?

 
Leroy Hoard said:
What this guy just said.  Should be painfully obvious.
Click to expand...
I'll ask you the same thing I asked him.

I can understand how a newspaper or TV network would benefit from division. 

But how is that tied to what a candidate is doing? I'm talking about winning elections, not selling ads. Are you saying they're connected?

 
Joe Bryant said:
Yes. Good thoughts. I do wonder how much we really want to be united. I think people would like for the other side to move over to their side and think like them. But that's not exactly uniting. 
Click to expand...
I think there are some core principles that this country has espoused (though not always completely lived by) that most of us share. I think at heart most people (not just in the U.S.) want the same basic things. I think if we can remind ourselves of those principles, and those basic human hopes, put them back at the forefront of our thinking rather than fringe policy issues/details, we could be closer together than we are now. We could come back together to agree upon those foundational things, and address the problems before us from that perspective of shared larger goals and principles.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'll ask you the same thing I asked him.

I can understand how a newspaper or TV network would benefit from division. 

But how is that tied to what a candidate is doing? I'm talking about winning elections, not selling ads. Are you saying they're connected?
Click to expand...
Those media sites just choose sides and prop up the candidates.  Free advertising for those candidates.

 
Take a thing like security. I think just about everyone places significant emphasis on security for themselves, their loved ones, their communities, and on up. I think living in a secure environment is a core principle most of us share.

Then take a thing like firearm access. How does that play with that core principle? For some, ownership of a firearm is a security enhancement. For others, ownership of a firearm is a security risk. We get so wrapped up in the seeming conflict between those two perspectives that we lose sight of the core principle we share - the need for security - and how we arrive at the best solutions for ensuring reasonable security for all. If we could take the discussion from that starting place, rather than the endpoint of gun control, I think we'd have a much better chance of coming up with reasonable compromises that work for most people. As it is now, we force ourselves into nearly binary positions on so many of these types of leaf level concerns - we're so far from the trunk we can't see our common ground anymore - that we remain disfunctionally fragmented when we needn't be.

 
I would think most people would want that but reality is it was not possible before Trump and it will not be possible after Trump. There was a divide under Bush and Obama albeit a quieter one than now. Bill Clinton seems so long ago but it did seem people were a little more united at that point in time but of course that was before social media.

  Things will surely quiet down a bit but fundamental differences will stay the same.

 
The answer is no we don’t want it. Because a united country means 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. 

I don’t ever want to be united that way again. But I would give anything for us to be more civil with each other and respect each other more. For that to happen we need to start shunning the extremists among us. 

 
I don’t think a candidate can unify the country in any sense close to a “one for all and all for one*” attitude.  I do believe one could dampen the overall divisiveness and contribute to a more productive/proactive dialogue among the two major parties and their constituents.  Demeanor and message are key:  a message of an idea rather than end game coupled with an open mind to allow varied input and viewpoints to reach the goal will be a most welcomed product compared to the current bully mentality.  I do think a big national goal/project would be a helpful diversion.  Similar to the moon landing for JFK, getting to Mars could become a great sense of national pride.

*the one should be read as the USA, not the candidate

 
Gonna be a while. The right went crazy from Obama. Had to happen sooner or later, but I don’t think there coming back any time soon.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Yes, I can understand how a newspaper or TV network would benefit from division. 

But how is that tied to what a candidate is doing? I'm talking about winning elections, not selling ads. Are you saying they're connected?
Click to expand...
Partisan media drives a large portion of the electorate and they wouldn’t have it any other way. They’ve driven the divide so far that a good portion of both sides wouldn’t even consider a candidate from the other side. With that comes the rejection of anyone who is anything but partisan dismissed with terms like RINO. That’s a fairly significant hurdle for any unifying candidate to get over to win an election.

The media has a lot to do with it but a lot of other factors do as well including special interest money and the need to stand out in a large primary field.

The better chance for unity might be the result of everyone uniting against a candidate. Someone so bad that everyone is looking something different. I thought that might be something we’re looking at now but the continued support of Trump makes me believe that we’re past that point as well.

I saw a recent article about Krysten Sinema, a freshman Democrat who won a solidly red seat in Arizona. The article said that Democrats are frustrated with her because she hasn’t consistently voted with the party. My first thought was ‘great sounds like she’s doing her job.’ But I doubt I’m in the majority with that opinion.

 
I think what's commonly diagnosed as a left vs. right problem, is really an up vs. down problem.  This country is run by a system that serves the ruling class, and disenfranchises the rest of us.  The good old days of 'civility' and 'unity' are not coming back until that is addressed.  Until then, we're gonna get a lot more division, blame, hatred, anger, Trumps, Brexits, Bolsonaros, etc.

 
If we wanted unity there would be support for someone like Klobuchar. Since there isn't that tells us all we need to know about our wants. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think we may have had a thread on this before but I was thinking about it again today.

@Sinn Fein posted the new Buttigieg ad in the Buttigieg thread.

It's inspiring and hopeful and talks about he's ready to "Pick up the pieces of our divided nation and lead us toward real action"

"Ready to gather up an American majority hungry for change and that is done with division.

"We will fight when we must fight. But I will never let us get so wrapped up in fighting that we start to think fighting is the point. The point is an America defined not by exclusion but by belonging."

At the same time, he draws applause asking the people to imagine waking up to the first day in America where Donald Trump is defeated. 

I'm a peacemaker at heart. It's how I'm wired. I hate it when people I know and care about aren't getting along. I don't like it when strangers aren't getting along.

So I'm an easy sell for "uniting". But I wonder how much of it's really possible. 

And I wonder how much of it we really even want?

Or is it really just uniting the Democrats where anything the Republicans feel pain with is a good thing? 

I mean on the other side, I don't think Donald Trump makes any illusions of "uniting the country". 

I just wonder if it's even possible? And even if we want it?

What do you think?
Click to expand...
what things would the Democrats do that would make the Republicans feel pain?  Universal healthcare? Sensible gun control?  regulations to take care of our planet?  raising taxes on rich people and corporations?  

because those are the things that will keep some people divided.  things can never get better if people can't even agree on even the most basic issues.  who could be against leaving a better planet for our kids?  people were divided over whether gay people could get married.  how does one person bring people together who fight tooth and nail against issues like these?  look at the rhetoric already, Radical Democrats, Socialists.  I can't imagine ever this country being united again until the next major tragedy occurs and I mean major.  if a school shooting where 20 kids die or a concert where 60 people are killed obviously couldn't do it, any one person can't

 
Joe Bryant said:
What do you think it would take from a candidate to make the country united?
Click to expand...
Decency, civility, an ability to respectfully listen to others.  Respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.  Legislating and Administering for the benefit of the people/citizens first, humanity second, the future third, education forth, and profit and creature comforts a distant fifth. 

 
There is a swath of our populace, a sizeable one at that, which voted for both Obama, and Trump.

Somewhere within our nation's failure of these people, lies the answer to your question.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Or maybe ask it another way:  Which was the last president you can remember who did the best job of uniting the country?
Click to expand...
I would say FDR after Pearl Harbor but eventually he was derided as a “socialist”.  

And even though I never voted for him...GWB right after 9/11.  There was something in what he said and how he said it that was reassuring.  Unfortunately, he eventually screwed it all up.

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
At the risk of defying The Edict...I agree.

Trump hit a nerve with people that really see politics (and the world, in general,) as black and white.  No nuance.  
Click to expand...
Yeah I know I'm walking that line too here, but I honestly feel that's where we are at.

 
cap'n grunge said:
Yep. There will be deep psychological studies done on this era. It's all really interesting when you think about it. Until you realize how dangerous it is.
Click to expand...
Word

And totally NOT related...I mean just random...but my son was rewatching Band of Brothers last week.  After the episode when they find the death camp (and the locals feign ignorance) he said “I get it but I don’t get it...how could they just pretend nothing was happening?”

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Opportunity - The gift our country gives to all
2 3 4
Replies
160
Views
3K
Da Guru
Da Guru
timschochet
What should we do about illegal immigration?
5 6 7
Replies
304
Views
7K
Sand
Sand
GordonGekko
Newsweek: Muslim & Christian Parents Unite In Michigan Against "Sexually Explicit" School Books (10/14/22 02:46 PST)
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top