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

[Joe Bryant]

Very.  It’s the fringes that don’t want that. The fringes are bigger than they used to be but they’re still the fringes.

And to make sure I was clear, I'm asking how mainstream you think your opinion is of Buttigieg that "If that wasn’t his hook, he would be completely out of the running right now."

I may not have been clear there.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

   Of the 2020 hopefuls Mayor Pete is probably the closest IMO but he is far from centrist based on policy proposals and rhetoric so doubtful he could pull it off.  

I view him as pretty centrist. Where do you see him veering too far left?
 

 

[Henry Ford]

And to make sure I was clear, I'm asking how mainstream you think your opinion is of Buttigieg that "If that wasn’t his hook, he would be completely out of the running right now."

I may not have been clear there.

Oh, I don't know.  But there isn't a lot else he has going for him, compared to the field.

 

[adonis]

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.

I think 9-11 was more of a cease-fire among American infighting, than a true uniting.  People still disliked Bush, but they put aside their squabbles for a short time to deal with the attack.

I'm not looking for a united America, I think most folks just want a functional country where folks who disagree can come together and get stuff done.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I think most folks just want a functional country where folks who disagree can come together and get stuff done.

That would fit my definition of united. Don't have to be completely of like minds or sing  Kumbaya

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm saying a centrist candidate only works if we can agree that compromise is the way to go.  If one of the groups is of the "ok, let's compromise" and the other group is of the "screw that, give me everything I want" opinions a person in the center isn't going to be all that fruitful. 

I'm saying it has to be demanded by us the people that they behave correctly.  We need to hold them accountable for their actions.  But to even be in a position to do that, this "team" stuff has to go...and it starts with us. 

A big part of the problem is that "holding them accountable" means calling a spade a spade, whether or not it's perceived as being politically objective.  In that way, the both sides-ism that we see everyday is perverse in that it punishes the side that is trying to behave correctly.  Why play by the rules if those in the middle are going to simply blame both sides at all times?
 

 

[The Commish]

A big part of the problem is that "holding them accountable" means calling a spade a spade, whether or not it's perceived as being politically objective.  In that way, the both sides-ism that we see everyday is perverse in that it punishes the side that is trying to behave correctly.  Why play by the rules if those in the middle are going to simply blame both sides at all times?
 

If it were happening "at all times", I'd agree.  That's not been my experience here.  I don't think anyone in the middle here sees a time in the Dem past (or present) that equals what Trump is doing.  We agree it's unprecedented.  That doesn't change the fact there are times where both of the "sides" are behaving poorly.  There's nothing wrong with calling that out.

 

[timschochet]

That's another way to look at the issue.

Maybe we've never really been united (outside of tragedy) and never will be.

But look at it from the other side. 

How do folks feel about how divided we are now compared to the last 50 years. (Obviously we had a war over division a while back)

It’s pretty bad today but my impression is we are not as divided as we were during the Vietnam War. 

 

[Shula-holic]

I don’t think we truly want it because the “sides” view success for their country in different ways now. I think there’s always been differences on how to get there in the past.  However, I think the ultimate goal was closer to the same vision than it is today. 

 

[Insomniac]

Interesting. I was a kid then but I can see how that could have been. Do you have more on that?

IMO the Vietnam War was a much more powerful and immediate issue than anything these days.  At the height of the war every week there would be 200-300 KIAs. We're not seeing things like the 1968 Democratic Convention protest/riot. National Guard members aren't opening fire and killing protesting students at Kent State. The pro war people really hated the anti-war protesters and vice versa. Lets face it, these days we just get a lot of snarky posts and memes on facebook, twitter etc

There were also cultural changes going on. For most of the history of the US we had a society where white, male, Protestants dominated the political, economic, cultural, and social realms of society. Evrybody else was figuratively (and in some cases literally) relegated to the back of the bus. This started to change in the Vietnam era and there was a great deal of resistance and hostility towards these social changes.

 

[msommer]

There were also cultural changes going on. For most of the history of the US we had a society where white, male, Protestants dominated the political, economic, cultural, and social realms of society. Evrybody else was figuratively (and in some cases literally) relegated to the back of the bus. This started to change in the Vietnam era and there was a great deal of resistance and hostility towards these social changes.

IMHO, there still is. Cue the "woe be onto me, the white male" rhetoric

 

[Insomniac]

IMHO, there still is. Cue the "woe be onto me, the white male" rhetoric

I agree but it seems to be at a lower intensity than 50 years ago. It's certainly an obstacle unifying the people of the country.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

IMO the Vietnam War was a much more powerful and immediate issue than anything these days. 

I have seen in the past (sorry no links) that throughout the past 100 years or so each generation has faced a more stressful life at 20* than the previous generation will their entire life.   How can that possibly be?  I think the answer (mine at least) is pretty much the same for politics being more divisive.  I think what happens is that over time people have fewer really big things to worry about.  We solved disease, we created safety nets,  a land military invasion isn't going to happen, nuclear annihilation isn't what it used to be, etc., etc.   But as the really big things go away we start to worry about smaller and smaller things.  And there is an infinite number of smaller things to  stress us out.  Or politically divide us.

We should be more comfortable today about just about everything, more good things to share with all our neighbors but somehow we need to sink into stressing the trivial.

*This is from memory so I'm probably whiffing completely on the details.