"Uniter" - Does it really mean anything? (2 Viewers)

[adonis]

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. 

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.

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.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.





 

Correct.

And the unfortunate reality is today, people are as certain of their answer as 10 or 20 as they are of 1+1= 2. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I used the term "uniter" which I suppose gave rise to this thread.  

I do think Buttigieg is a "Uniter".  But, its fair to define what I think that means.

First, a uniter is someone who actively seeks the input from multiple points of view.  You can't unite a group if you don't consider all of their views. 

Second, a uniter is not going to be able to unite everyone.  I would hazard a guess that maybe as many as 15% of the people on either side of an issue, are never going to cede their position on the fringe.  So, when we are talking about uniting - its that middle 70% that is what I am talking about.

Third, "uniting" does not (necessarily) mean meeting in the middle.  It could mean that - but people can unite on either side.  So, if someone wants to unite the country on one side of a debate, they have to convince everyone that is the best place to be - and you do that by speaking to the people on the other side of the issue in language and terms that they understand, and in validating their legitimate concerns.  And you move people - not by browbeating them, but by encouraging them to see an alternative point of view.

Not singling you out. Lots of people have used the word. 

I love that you think only 15% of the people are unmovable on a position. My fear is it's more like 95%. But I so hope your number is right.

I do think a lot of it bleeds over into how you see the "other" side. That is still clearly divided from you. One can clearly be a divider without demonizing the other side. I think that's a reasonable goal and expectation. 

 

[Ilov80s]

I used the term "uniter" which I suppose gave rise to this thread.  

I do think Buttigieg is a "Uniter".  But, its fair to define what I think that means.

First, a uniter is someone who actively seeks the input from multiple points of view.  You can't unite a group if you don't consider all of their views. 

Second, a uniter is not going to be able to unite everyone.  I would hazard a guess that maybe as many as 15% of the people on either side of an issue, are never going to cede their position on the fringe.  So, when we are talking about uniting - its that middle 70% that is what I am talking about.

Third, "uniting" does not (necessarily) mean meeting in the middle.  It could mean that - but people can unite on either side.  So, if someone wants to unite the country on one side of a debate, they have to convince everyone that is the best place to be - and you do that by speaking to the people on the other side of the issue in language and terms that they understand, and in validating their legitimate concerns.  And you move people - not by browbeating them, but by encouraging them to see an alternative point of view.

Well said and we refer to Reagan as a great uniter but he only got 50.7% of the vote in 80 and 58.8% in 84. There were still a lot of people who did not like him.

 

[Joe Bryant]

For how it relates to Buttigieg, this is pretty only uniting one side. "The only way to a better country is to very decisively defeat Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box."

Again, I'm not saying that's wrong. I think he's right. But it's not uniting. That was my only real point. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Well said and we refer to Reagan as a great uniter but he only got 50.7% of the vote in 80 and 58.8% in 84. There were still a lot of people who did not like him.

Correct. That's what I mean. I think it's just as inaccurate to say Reagan was a uniter. 

 

[adonis]

For how it relates to Buttigieg, this is pretty only uniting one side. "The only way to a better country is to very decisively defeat Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box."

Again, I'm not saying that's wrong. I think he's right. But it's not uniting. That was my only real point. 

So what kind of things would a uniter be saying in the current environment?  

 

[Ilov80s]

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.

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.

We agree for sure that’s not Trump. I thought Obama really spoke to finding common ground, acknowledging where we can improve and striving to better. However lots of people didn’t like his message and thought he was very divisive. For example the quote provided last page about statistics regarding the role race and ethnicity seemed to me as an attempt to acknowledge a problem without assigning blame and calling people to focus on their commonalities to solve our problems. To me that’s textbook training in conflict resolution but obviously a significant number of people felt it was racist and was bating extremists to attack police. I have no clue how these two sides can be united.

 

[adonis]

We agree for sure that’s not Trump. I thought Obama really spoke to finding common ground, acknowledging where we can improve and striving to better. However lots of people didn’t like his message and thought he was very divisive. For example the quote provided last page about statistics regarding the role race and ethnicity seemed to me as an attempt to acknowledge a problem without assigning blame and calling people to focus on their commonalities to solve our problems. To me that’s textbook training in conflict resolution but obviously a significant number of people felt it was racist and was bating extremists to attack police. I have no clue how these two sides can be united.

If the determining factor of whether a person is a uniter or not, is whether they actually unite the population, no one will be a uniter.

Can you be an inspirational speaker without inspiring everyone?

Can you be a motivational speaker without motivating everyone?

Certainly some part of the type of speaker you are is based on the impact you have on those who support you or react positively to you, but that can't be the primary measure especially in a field as reality-averse as politics can sometimes be.

 

[timschochet]

Correct. That's what I mean. I think it's just as inaccurate to say Reagan was a uniter. 

Except that he was. He made Americans feel better about themselves after the turbulence of the 60s and 70s. That doesn’t mean everyone supported him or agreed with him. But Reagan always projected a positive, optimistic attitude and this is the key reason he is so fondly remembered. 

I don’t believe voting indicates unity. No democratic politician in the 20th Century ever had his people more united than Winston Churchill in 1940 and 1941. Yet by the time he faced his first election in 1945, having won the war, he was tossed out of office. The public still loved him but they wanted somebody new. 

 

[Ilov80s]

If the determining factor of whether a person is a uniter or not, is whether they actually unite the population, no one will be a uniter.

Can you be an inspirational speaker without inspiring everyone?

Can you be a motivational speaker without motivating everyone?

Certainly some part of the type of speaker you are is based on the impact you have on those who support you or react positively to you, but that can't be the primary measure especially in a field as reality-averse as politics can sometimes be.

It’s all interesting and I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. Just thinking it all through. 

If someone is a motivational speaker, they won’t motivate everyone. Some naturally will not be interested in the message. With politicians it is different. Take the motivational speaker and imagine if their message motivates 40% of the people and pisses off another 40% of the people, are they motivational? Does their intention matter?

 

[adonis]

If someone is a motivational speaker, they won’t motivate everyone. Some naturally will not be interested in the message. With politicians it is different. Take the motivational speaker and imagine if their message motivates 40% of the people and pisses off another 40% of the people, are they motivational? Does their intention matter?

Motivational speaker seems an apt description of politicians.  

How politicians motivate people seems to be closer to the root of what we're discussing, so yeah, I think the tools a politician selects to motivate their base determines whether they're trying to motivate folks using a positive/uniting manner or a divisive/negative manner.

 

[Ilov80s]

Motivational speaker seems an apt description of politicians.  

How politicians motivate people seems to be closer to the root of what we're discussing, so yeah, I think the tools a politician selects to motivate their base determines whether they're trying to motivate folks using a positive/uniting manner or a divisive/negative manner.

Agreed but I feel like the moment a current politician says something that might represent policy, the +/- dynamic is out the window. Pete B or Bernie or Trump could give a flowery speech about how great we all our and how every American brings something important to the table but the moment they say “we need to raise minimum wage to ensure all of us are able to participate in this powerful exonomy” or “we need tax cuts for businesses so they can keep the engine of America driving and continue to provide jobs for everyone” 30% of population is going to become enraged. 

 

[Ilov80s]

So I guess I’m saying can anyone unite unless they are totally absent of policy?

 

[The Commish]

Uniter is a step too far IMO...the best a politician can do is compromise.  Unity is an individual choice...it can't be forced by a third party.  I think "mediator" is probably a better term.  My  

 

[joffer]

For how it relates to Buttigieg, this is pretty only uniting one side. "The only way to a better country is to very decisively defeat Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box."

Again, I'm not saying that's wrong. I think he's right. But it's not uniting. That was my only real point. 

I guess it depends who you want to unite.  obviously uniting everyone isn't possible.  can't watch the video right now but every time I've heard him give that answer was to the question "should Trump be impeached".  Calling for a sound defeat of the Trump stain can still be uniting.

 

[Ilov80s]

Uniter is a step too far IMO...the best a politician can do is compromise.  Unity is an individual choice...it can't be forced by a third party.  I think "mediator" is probably a better term.  My  

The historical trends for POTUS approval ratings are very clear. If we want a President with exceptionally high approval ratings, we need a war that the people support. WW2 was good for FDR's approval rating. Truman's approval rating was over 80% until the war ended and it dropped under 40. Kennedy was President during the peak of the Cold War tensions and he had really high approval.  HW Bush's approval ratings rose and dropped with the Iraq War. His son got a great spike after 9/11 but it all downhill from there. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Except that he was.





 

Ok. 

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

In terms of POTUS, the opposite of Trump.  Every other POTUS maybe with the exception of Nixon, preached how we were all Americans.  We were all in this together.  Trump see's Americans either for him or against him. And if you are against him he will do his best to make you pay. For example getting rid of the SALT deduction that was prominent in states that voted him. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think it's the exact opposite of that.

A divider rallies his own base while disparaging the other side as the enemy.

A uniter is the converse of a divider. A uniter is someone who tries to understand where the other side is coming from and, instead of vilifying them as the enemy, welcomes their input and tries to address their concerns as if this whole nation is really supposed to be on the same side, working together.

A uniter puts country over party.

Thanks. Not sure we disagree there.

What are you saying is the opposite of what?

What you're saying about a uniter is fantastic. That's how I'd love to see it work. I'm saying I don't know that's very likely to happen. I don't think when Buttigieg says "the government's been in crisis since this president arrived" that's doing a lot to bring the other side over. I think it's drawing the divide. Which is likely the way to win. 

 But I don't disagree it would be awesome to see a real uniting. 

Dividing and uniting are opposite end points on the same spectrum.

Some statements are more divisive, less unifying, than others. For example, “Members of the other party are angry radical extremists; they are enemies of the people, and we should lock them up” is a more divisive, less unifying statement than “We should work together to accomplish common goals like building infrasctructure and creating jobs.”

I don’t think that’s a controversial point.

Maybe all candidates make each kind of statement on occasion, but they don’t all make each kind of statement in the same ratios as each other. Some have much higher ratios of the first kind to the second kind than others do. I don’t think that’s a controversial point, either.

If we rank all the candidates according to their respective ratios, we can call the highest quintile dividers and the lowest quintile uniters.

People can make their own decisions about whether to use quintiles or quartiles or deciles or whatever, but I think we should all be able to agree that there’s some separation between the most divisive candidates and the least divisive ones.

The least divisive (i.e., most unifying) ones are the uniters.

 

[jonessed]

I don’t think this should be made overly complicated.

Dividing and uniting are opposite end points on the same spectrum.

Some statements are more divisive, less unifying, than others. For example, “Members of the other party are angry radical extremists; they are enemies of the people, and we should lock them up” is a more divisive, less unifying statement than “We should work together to accomplish common goals like building infrasctructure and creating jobs.”

I don’t think that’s a controversial point.

Also, not all candidates utter the first kind of statement and the second kind of statement in similar ratios as each other. Some have much higher ratios than others. I don’t think that’s a controversial point, either.

If we rank all the candidates according to their respective ratios, we can call the highest quintile dividers and the lowest quintile uniters.

People can make their own decisions about whether to use quintiles or quartiles or deciles or whatever, but I think we should all be able to agree that there’s some separation between the most divisive candidates and the least divisive ones.

The least divisive (i.e., most unifying) ones are the uniters.

But it is more complex than that.  The definitions of “Uniter” and “Divider” are much broader than your suggested spectrum/scale.  When I think of a Uniter/Divider it’s based on historical leaders of all kinds.  If you wanted to make it specific to politics it would, at the very least, include historical leaders.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But it is more complex than that.  The definitions of “Uniter” and “Divider” are much broader than your suggested spectrum/scale.  When I think of a Uniter/Divider it’s based on historical leaders of all kinds.  If you wanted to make it specific to politics it would, at the very least, include historical leaders.

I’m not excluding historical leaders. Go ahead and include them. My point is that the endpoints on the spectrum exist — on both ends, including the “uniter” end.

One might say that nobody is really a great uniter — there are only different degrees of dividers. But that’s like saying there are no tall people, only varying degrees of short people. Or there are no smart people, only varying degrees of stupid people. In each case, it’s a matter of where we draw the baseline. But if we’re putting the baseline someplace that defines whole basic categories of people out of existence, I don’t think it’s a very good baseline. Whoever the least-short human was (Robert Wadlow, 8’11”), I think we should call him tall even if he’s shorter than we’d consider perfectly ideal. Similarly, whover the least divisive leader ever was, I think we should call him a uniter even if not everything he ever did or said was unerringly unifying.

 

[jonessed]

I’m not excluding historical leaders. Go ahead and include them. My point is that the endpoints on the spectrum exist.

They do.  The spectrum is the key though.  How you define it will have a huge impact on the results.  It would have to accommodate the possibility that, for any particular election, that specific subset of the population is skewed.

Your model would actually be quite complex to build correctly.  It’s obviously possible though.

 

[adonis]

They do.  The spectrum is the key though.  How you define it will have a huge impact on the results.  It would have to accommodate the possibility that, for any particular election, that specific subset of the population is skewed.

Your model would actually be quite complex to build correctly.  It’s obviously possible though.

Name a uniter, in history, who didn't use divisive language at times.  Who didn't challenge an opposing vision.  Who didn't challenge the status quo.  Who didn't speak out against wrongs - whether people or circumstances or laws.

 

[Workhorse]

In terms of POTUS, the opposite of Trump.  Every other POTUS maybe with the exception of Nixon, preached how we were all Americans.  We were all in this together.  Trump see's Americans either for him or against him. And if you are against him he will do his best to make you pay. For example getting rid of the SALT deduction that was prominent in states that voted him. 

Case in point, Trump's fundraising messaging draws a pretty clear divide between who he believes are really Americans and who aren't:  https://twitter.com/Shakestweetz/status/1118244210669424640

 

[jonessed]

I’m not excluding historical leaders. Go ahead and include them. My point is that the endpoints on the spectrum exist — on both ends, including the “uniter” end.

One might say that nobody is really a great uniter — there are only different degrees of dividers. But that’s like saying there are no tall people, only varying degrees of short people. Or there are no smart people, only varying degrees of stupid people. In each case, it’s a matter of where we draw the baseline. But if we’re putting the baseline someplace that defines whole basic categories of people out of existence, I don’t think it’s a very good baseline. Whoever the least-short human was (Robert Wadlow, 8’11”), I think we should call him tall even if he’s shorter than we’d consider perfectly ideal. Similarly, whover the least divisive leader ever was, I think we should call him a uniter even if not everything he ever did or said was unerringly unifying.

Why would anyone do that?  It would defeat the purpose.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Why would anyone do that?  It would defeat the purpose.

Isn’t that roughly what the title of this thread is contemplating? That there may be no such thing as a uniter?

 

[jonessed]

Isn’t that roughly what the title of this thread is contemplating? That there may be no such thing as a uniter?

Perhaps.  I interpreted it as no Uniter currently running for President or within striking distance, not that they haven’t ever existed.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks for the discussion on this.

I think it's maybe morphing to an absolutes and grading on the curve or relative to _____ discussion.

There are lots of different tangents. From 2nd place is the first loser to the title of the worst student to graduate from Med school still being "Doctor". All are interesting. 

For me, I'm not seeing this as defining one as it's relative to another. (and I understand baselines to measure from are important in how one defines or measures something).

In this case, and at least in the spirit of what I was saying, I don't think the person in the bunch who's the least divisive can be called the "uniter". They're the least divisive. 

And I think that's a reasonable goal to hope for. Things like giving at least cursory acknowledgment to the "other" side. Trying to make sure you understand the other side. Not demonizing the other side. Those are all things that help. And things I'd hope we can do. 

 

[adonis]

And I think that's a reasonable goal to hope for. Things like giving at least cursory acknowledgment to the "other" side. Trying to make sure you understand the other side. Not demonizing the other side. Those are all things that help. And things I'd hope we can do. 

I always appreciate honest and good discussion.

However, I want to point out that your goal essentially rules out rational discussions relating to demons.  The essential result of this philosophy seems to me that if you encounter true "wrongness", calling it out as such means you're being divisive.

 

[Insomniac]

I always appreciate honest and good discussion.

However, I want to point out that your goal essentially rules out rational discussions relating to demons.  The essential result of this philosophy seems to me that if you encounter true "wrongness", calling it out as such means you're being divisive.

What's so great about being a uniter when there is a really deep division in a society about what the values of the society should be? Most of the arguments appear to be that we all believe in high minded concepts like "liberty and justice for all", "freedom of speech", "freedom of religion", "prosperity", and even "we should have better infrastructure". In my view the difference in policies and their likely results on all of these ideas are so great that the terms clearly do not mean the same things to the left and the right in the USA. If the terms don't mean the same thing then using these platitudes as a means of unifiying the country is engaging in self deception.  Lying to other people is a bad thing, lying to yourself is worse.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I always appreciate honest and good discussion.

However, I want to point out that your goal essentially rules out rational discussions relating to demons.  The essential result of this philosophy seems to me that if you encounter true "wrongness", calling it out as such means you're being divisive.

And the bigger issue, of course, is we each get to define "true wrongness".

I know people who consider it true wrongness to allow a late-term abortion. I know others who completely disagree. I think it can be discussed without demonizing each side. It's not an easy goal.