Is America's Political Divide Such a Bad Thing?

By JAMI LUND Senior Policy Analyst

Is America's

a bad thing?

We're constantly lectured about the importance of political unity. But that advice always seems to come from the party in power, not the one trying to get it back.

The theme of Joe Biden’s inauguration — on paper, at least — was unifying the country. But the fledgling chief executive wasn’t more than a few sentences into his inaugural address before demonstrating his commitment to the term comes with the caveat “...around my beliefs, not yours.”

“(L)et’s give each other a chance. It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric. To lower the temperature. To see each other again. To listen to each other

By JEFF RHODES VP for News & Information

again. To make progress, we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy.

We are not enemies. We are Americans.

The Bible tells us that to everything there is a season — a time to build, a time to reap, a time to sow. And a time to heal. This is the time to heal in

America.”

Heal what, exactly? And why is now the time to heal it?

To Biden and those who voted for him, the answer is obvious.

They're convinced country is broken and needs fixing because someone with a different set of values —in this case Republican Donald Trump — spent

U.S. politics used to be more civil? Sen. Sumner disagrees

On May 22, 1856, the “world's greatest deliberative body” became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate Chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.

The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Sen. Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the union as a slave state or a free state.

In his “Crime Against Kansas” speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime — Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a “noise-some, squat and nameless animal … not a proper model for an American senator.”

Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator’s stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking “a mistress … who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight — I mean,” added Sumner, “the harlot, slavery.”

Rep. Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs.

Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metaltopped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself.

After a very long minute, it ended.

Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.

Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately re-elected, and soon thereafter died at age 37.

Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years.

The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.

— Courtesy of the U.S. Senate

previous four years in the White House enacting his vision, and that of the millions who voted him into office. Suffice to say Trump backers are about as likely to agree the country needs a course correction now as Barack Obama’s supporters were when his term ended in 2016.

And neither side has a monopoly on “harsh rhetoric” when they come up a few votes short.

Where were Joe Biden’s calls for unity when Leftists literally rioted, looted and burned in the streets over a lost election? Was he urging disgruntled liberals to give Trump a chance, or was he backing the baseless impeachment effort his party literally launched before Trump had spent even a day in office?

For his part, Trump expended little effort during his administration inveighing on the virtues of unity, presumably because one only had to glance at the front page of any mainstream media newspaper to understand he needn’t bother.

Meanwhile, in the few months since Biden’s bitterly contested election victory, at least 50 major publications, and their associated web pages, have carried stories echoing his call for harmony.

To cite just a few:

n “Biden vowed to unite the country. Can he do that?” (Washington Post, Jan. 21, 2021); n “Biden wants to unite the country. How can he do it?” (Politico, Jan. 21, 2021);

n “Joe Biden wants to unify America” (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 15, 2021); n “Biden wants to unite America — Republicans have a different idea of what that means (NBC News, Jan. 20, 2021); n “Biden’s elusive goal: A divided nation united” (Roll Call, Jan. 20, 2021); and, most euphemistically of all, n “Biden inherits a deeply divided nation, but most voters think he can bring unity (BBC, Jan. 19, 2021).

Really? And what do they base conclusion this on? The fact that he says he wants everyone to get along?

Of course he does.

Like every other human being on the planet, Joe Biden wants everyone to agree with his ideas and make it easier to get his way.

But acquiescence and unity aren’t the same thing.

Nor should they be.

Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats spent four years fully availing themselves of their constitutional right — and obligation, some would say — to represent the “loyal opposition” viewpoint to everything that came out of Donald Trump’s mouth.

At the drop of a hat, their righteous indignation would boil over into a jeremiad about how this country was created by revolution and why vigorous protest is the duty of every patriot.

But now that the tables have turned, we’re all expected to link arms and smile obligingly as Biden and his allies dismantle programs and policies at least half the country enthusiastically support even if they didn’t always admire Trump’s colorful verbiage when describing them.

Trump never asked any quarter, nor did he extend any. Then again, neither did his predecessor. In a fit of pique, Obama once famously told his detractors, “I won. Get over it.”

In a more contemplative mood, however, he then added:

"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."

The two quotes are obviously completely contradictory, but politics is the province of hypocrisy. And at the presidential level — particularly for presidents like Obama, who enjoy favor with the mainstream media — it’s seldom accompanied by a penalty.

In point of fact, principled opposition is always a bad thing when your party is in power but a wonderful thing when it isn’t.

And since we can never be entirely certain when to expect one or the other, it’s probably not a bad idea to preserve freedom of speech for both sides.

Is the nation divided nowadays? Most assuredly. But when wasn’t it?

The notion that the country’s political divide can be bridged is at least sophistry. But any reference to a time when it didn’t even exist is something much worse — a boldfaced lie.

When was this era of universal comity? Was it during the country’s infancy, when its sitting vice president was killed in a duel by the former Secretary of the Treasury over their competing visions of the form the government should take?

Was it during the Civil War, when 620,000 Americans on differing sides of a political question were killed and the president later assassinated by a constituent unable to “get over it?”

Could it have been during the 1950s and ’60s, when the U.S. was grappling with contentious subjects like civil rights and the conflict in Vietnam?

Democrats no doubt wax nostalgic for the Roosevelt years, believing there must have been unanimity if he was elected to four terms. But that assumption overlooks the reality that our singleness of purpose was actually reserved for our Japanese and German enemies during World War II, who helpfully managed to show up just in time to prevent anyone from taking a hard look at FDR’s near-criminal mishandling of the Great Depression.

In terms of political ideology, you might imagine the parties could have found common ground in 1972, when the voters re-elected by a landslide a Republican president who was a confirmed champion of big government and higher taxes. A man whose administration oversaw the establishment of theEnvironmental Protection Agency, normalized relations withCommunist China, participated in theStrategic Arms Limitation Talks(SALT) to reduce the availability ofballistic missiles and even instituted wage and price controls.

But if you think Richard Nixon was the Democrats’ idea of a kindred spirit, you’re not old enough to remember the endless impeachment hearings and the Left’s unrestrained glee when he was finally driven from office.

The plain, historic truth is that the political harmony so many claim to miss never existed in the first place. It may appear to when the branches of government are under the control of one party — yours — but it’s doubtful those who spent the same period on the short end of the stick recall them so fondly.

That’s one of the curses of democracy — but ironically one of its major blessings.

Contrary to popular myth, Americans don’t crave unity unless the rest of the country magically decides to coalesce around what we, as an individual, happen to believe.

Which can’t possibly happen.

Nor do we send our elected representatives to the state capital or Washington, D.C., to make compromises in the interest of “getting things done.”

When we entrust a politician with our vote, we rightfully expect them to represent our interests, not those of the losing candidate.

The only people for whom gridlock is a dirty word are those whose agenda is blocked because of it.

For everyone else, there’s something far worse than a donothing Congress, Legislature or president — and that’s one that busies itself doing things we don’t like.

There are lots of countries in the world where everyone agrees with what the government does.

Because they’re afraid not to.

Whichever side of the political divide you happen to find yourself on, however, pray the United States never enjoys that kind of unity.