Tag Archives: unity

About That Unity Thing

Posted on by

Yesterday Bloomberg posted a very interesting article about bipartisanship. Despite President Biden’s claim that he seeks unity, there seems to be very little unity in Washington these days. I should mention that bipartisanship is not a requirement. The Democrats control the White House and the House of Representatives and essentially the Senate. There is no requirement that they work with Republicans. However, the article points out that the Republicans are not solely responsible for the lack of bipartisanship.

The article notes:

During the Obama years, Democrats cited incidents like this one to cast Republicans in a bad light. Obama and several other Democrats also complained bitterly that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had announced at the start of his first term that his top priority was preventing a second one. Democrats said they tried again and again to meet Republicans halfway on health care, too, and were rebuffed.

With President Joe Biden in the White House, Democrats are saying that the Republicans’ behavior then justifies ignoring them now: There’s no point wasting time trying to negotiate with them.

The incidents didn’t actually happen, though, or at least didn’t happen the way Obama related them. Before he met with House Republicans in January 2009, House Democrats had already introduced a stimulus bill without any of their input, and Republicans had already made public statements of opposition. In his meeting with the Republicans, Obama reportedly said he was open to changing the bill; the Republicans then voted against the unchanged bill; and Boehner issued a statement saying he would still like to work with Obama on the issue.

McConnell’s remark, meanwhile, was made well into Obama’s term, right before the midterm elections of 2010. He said in the same breath that he would work with Obama if he moderated the way the previous Democratic president, Bill Clinton, had: “I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change.”

Part of the problem right not is that we really don’t know who is making the decisions in the White House.

The article concludes:

Republicans and Democrats worked together to pass a large Covid-relief bill last spring, and did it again just a few weeks ago. The second one was passed after Biden had won the election and the Electoral College had met. Republicans knew that any positive effect it had would buoy Biden politically, and did it anyway.

There’s no moral or constitutional obligation for Democrats to bargain with the Republicans. Obama came into office with large Democratic majorities in Congress, and had the votes he needed to pass the stimulus and his health-care bill without Republicans.

Maybe they will have the votes they need in Congress this time, too. It would be nice, though, if they would stop pretending that they have no other choice.

If you are going to talk about unity, it would be nice if you did something to promote it.

Building Unity, One Attack At A Time

Posted on by

Yesterday’s incident involving Game Stop had the potential of being something Congress could agree on. Note that I said potential. However, it is becoming very clear that some members of Congress are not necessarily agreeable.

PJ Media reported yesterday that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called for an investigation into the Robinhood trading app after the fiasco with Game Stop. Ted Cruz immediately agreed with her. She did not take kindly to his agreement.

The article reports her reply to his offer to work with her:

“I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out,” AOC responded. “Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed. In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign.”

AOC went on, claiming that “accountability” for the January 6 Capitol riot “includes a new Senator from Texas.”

AOC’s Twitter thread made it clear the congresswoman holds Cruz personally responsible for “serious… mental harm” she and others suffered.

“You haven’t even apologized for the serious physical + mental harm you contributed to from Capitol Police & custodial workers to your own fellow members of Congress. In the meantime, you can get off my timeline & stop clout-chasing. Thanks. Happy to work with other GOP on this,” she concluded.

The facts just don’t line up with her accusations.

The article notes:

Cruz encouraged his fellow Republicans to block the counting of Electoral College votes, but not to overturn the election. He called for a bipartisan commission to investigate election irregularities.

Cruz — like Trump — never called on supporters to storm the Capitol and breach it, much less to threaten the lives of elected leaders. He merely worked to stall the final certification until after an investigation had answered concerns of fraud and irregularities.

In fact, when the rioters stormed the Capitol, Cruz condemned the attack in no uncertain terms. He went further than Trump, who also called for peace.

“Violence is always unacceptable. Even when passions run high. Anyone engaged in violence—especially against law enforcement—should be fully prosecuted,” Cruz tweeted during the attack. “God bless the Capitol Police and the honorable men & women of law enforcement who show great courage keeping all of us safe.”

“Those storming the Capitol need to stop NOW. The Constitution protects peaceful protest, but violence—from Left or Right— is ALWAYS wrong. And those engaged in violence are hurting the cause they say they support,” he concluded.

There was a time when a Congressman would have been censored for making such an unfounded accusation. But since the accusation was made against a Republican, there will be no consequences. Also note, the Democrats fear Ted Cruz as a potential future presidential candidate. The baseless attacks on him will increase over the next three years.

 

Don’t Expect The Restoration Of Unity

Posted on by

The Federalist posted an article today with the title, “Why Joe Biden Can’t Restore Unity.”

The article explains:

Biden, however, will not oversee the restoration of national unity—whatever that actually means—because our culture now operates on a bloated definition of bigotry that unjustly implicates decent people in the evils of racism, sexism, violence, and hatred. Biden and his administration accept this definition and will consequently fan the flames.

They already have. On Wednesday, Biden set out to sign an executive order that would prohibit the federal government from “discriminat[ing] on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” His list of Day One executive orders also included several measures on “diversity” and “equity.” This innocuous language masks intensely charged policies built to enforce the left’s standards by rendering dissent hateful.

Biden deliberately delivered an inaugural address that steered clear of “deplorable” language, but enforcing a definition of “gender identity” that requires people to accept of cultural leftism or face charges of violence and hatred basically has the same effect. Decent people disagree on this matter and on others, but the left’s current progressive-or-bigot binary formulation reflexively defines many decent people as bigots.

The article concudes:

Bigotry is, of course, still alive in this country. But it dwells not in the hearts of the vast majority of conservatives and centrists and even authentic leftists who happen to disagree on particular questions of race and sex. Biden and The New York Times don’t need to agree with the conservative agenda to foster some sense of unity. They merely need to dispense with the notion that dissenters from cultural leftism are necessarily bigots.

Hyperbole is obviously an immutable feature of political rhetoric. That sense of unity Biden wishes to recapture, however, will elude us until the cultural left abandons its bloated definitions of bigotry. It’ll require more than a letter in Harper’s or a Boomer president who waxes poetic about serving “all Americans.”

This is about our institutions purging their dominant cultural ethos and cleaning up the pipeline. At best, it will take many years and a lot more than presidential platitudes.

It is naive to expect the country to unified when there is fundamental disagreement on moral issues. Many Americans, myself included, believe that abortion is murder. We believe that homosexuality is in conflict with Biblical Christianity. We don’t want to hurt those who have had abortions or those who are homosexual, but we just cannot support their choice. We want the freedom to live with our beliefs while extending them the freedom to live with their beliefs. Until both sides of the spectrum stop calling names, unity is impossible.