If you're in a math class and half the class has the answer as being 10 and the other half has the answer as being 20, the teacher isn't being "divisive" by giving the class the actual answer.Joe Bryant said:That's cool. We can disagree there. I do think that's how it works.
I think it has to be a divider overall. It's two opposing sides. I don't see any way around it. He's saying the right things for his side with "I think the government’s been in some kind of crisis ever since this president arrived”. But if you're in the 45% that approve of the current president, I'm not sure that's anything but divisive. That's just the reality of two opposing sides.
I guess what I'm saying is that what determines whether someone is a uniter or a divider in politics, isn't simply whether they actually end up uniting or dividing folks, or whether something they say upsets a group of people. By that measure, Obama's decision to wear a tan suit was divisive because it caused a lot of consternation on the conservative side.
Focusing on the end result and using it to determine whether someone is a "uniter" or "divider" misses the intent behind how candidates approach politics, and that's what matters to me and I suspect many, who value a "uniter" characteristic in politicians. These are folks who call us all to better versions of our selves, and who don't cater to our baser instincts. Folks who seek to point out the commonality between us, across party lines, who seek not to make things about race, gender, or other characteristics of our society but who attempt to reframe issues as affecting all Americans.
"There is no red america, no blue america. There is only the united states of america." That's example of uniting language, because of course there are segments of america that are red, and segments that are blue, but we're being called to see our commonality across boundaries, rather than having boundaries emphasized, increased, and fears stoked.