Posted by Benjamin on: 01.07.2008 /
Scott Rasmussen of the polling organization Rasmussen Reports recently wrote a really fascinating commentary entitled “The United States Needs a Confirming Election“. He says:
The United States is in dire need of an election where somebody wins big, an election that confirms someone with a real majority, and an election that provides the nation with some sense of a prevailing public perspective. Big Victories in Presidential elections don’t make everyone happy, but they do help to unify the nation and improve the health of our political system.
More…
He defines a Big Victory as winning at least 55% of the popular vote and 75% of the electoral votes. He says only 1 of the last 8 elections have been a big victory (Reagan in 1984), whereas 9 of the 14 elections before 1976 were big victories.
I think he has a great point. I mean how nice would it be to see the nation united instead of so bitterly divided? And I think it’s exceedingly clear that Barack Obama is the only candidate from any party who can accomplish that. He’s certainly the one who promotes the ideas of national unity and dialogue rather than partisanship the most, and has been doing so for the longest.
George Washington, called by some “the father of our nation”, appears to agree with Rasmussen and Obama. In his farewell address, Washington said:
Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.
To me, one of the most attractive things about Off The Map, and the Off The Map blogs, is our desire to, as Jim Henderson puts it, defend the relational space rather than defend our own opinion or position. What do y’all think? If we must contrast the two, in your way-of-seeing is relationship/community/dialogue more or less a priority than position/rightness/belief? *Is* it more important to be kind that right? Does this carry over into the realm of politics? Your thoughts?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Jeff
1 01/7/08 7:33 AM | Comment Link |Good thoughts. Since less than half of the country votes, and you only need around 50% of the votes; you can be elected by less than 25% of the population. That actually does not seem that hard, but I guess that is how we got where we are now.
I think politicians feel they have to be right, mainly because we ask them questions about what ever our issue is, and expect a good answer. If not the pundants tear them apart. It is part of a bad system we have created.
I am tired of legalism. From a Christian perspective I am tired of the fighting over what music is holier, is it ok to wear shorts to church, then enter all then theological debates. Then there are the Christians -v- everyone else. If I were gay I would never feel I could attend a church. If churches really have concerns for peoples soul’s they need to be kind.
Comment by: Rachel
2 01/7/08 9:36 AM | Comment Link |Wow, that sounds awfully familiar! Security vs. freedom - the age old dilemma. That reminds me of another great presidential quote, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (FDR). When we become afraid, we are willing to surrender our freedoms, and our hopes and dreams for the future, for the promise of safety and security in the here and now.
Comment by: Benjamin
3 01/7/08 10:12 AM | Comment Link |Jeff,
You say we have created a bad system. I kind of agree that the system is broken, and … usually I’m a bit of a cynic, thinking it probably won’t be fixed anytime soon.
Meta-politics seems more useful and hopeful to me. I mean if we can … go up one level of narrative (as in the Arabian Nights), and talk about how we talk about the issues, rather than just talking about the issues, maybe we can make some progress. Does that make sense.
I’m fortunate to live in a place where it’s easier to be gay and Christian than just about anywhere in the country, I guess. There are over 100 affirming churches in the greater Seattle area, which is yotta kewl. It’s a model the rest of the country would do well to emulate, IMNSHO.