Is "Unity" the easiest and cheapest word in the American political vocabulary?

It is very fashionable to desire unity in a party, especially when it begins to look remarkably fractious. It is also the easiest word to say as part of wishful thinking because most of us dislike conflict and simply yearn for a quiet life instead. But unity comes out of two main elements: sincerity - genuinely ditching the past to concentrate on both the present and the potential for the future, and forgiveness - to pave the way for a better understanding and appreciation of all parties working together. With no forgiveness, it is very difficult to move on to get that sought-after bonding.

Two days after her great speech in Denver, the one almost everyone thought was a unifying moment, the one many thought did the job to heal the wounds and support Barack Obama, in the cold light of a new day that speech is found wanting, because the two main elements of getting unity are absent. Hillary said some supportive things, yes, but there were many others she did not say which she could easily have said to show that sincerity and one of them should have related to Barack's potential.

As Christopher Hitchens points out in his thought-provoking little piece for the Mirror, Hillary said quite a few negative things about Obama during the campaign, especially regarding his lack of readiness to take command, which many people would not have forgotten. Yet she "certainly decided not to utter a word - a word - about Obama's readiness to assume the burden of commander-in-chief." It means that there is no sincerity there at all. She still holds to her view, her possible trump card for the future, when she stands against Obama again. Perhaps quietly lying in wait to say "I told you so"?

Yet an emphasis on his potential to do the job, for many people, would have been the most important sign that they are both on the same team now, unified and ready to run together for the benefit of the Democrats. Acknowledging that, for now, at least, he is the man of the moment, as ready as can be to assume command. Her acknowledgement of his suitability would have retracted what she said during the campaign.

Everyone says things about one another when they are rivals, especially when they are playing for such high stakes. But being rivals in the same party carries a different kind of responsibility than being on opposite sides of the political fence. The responsibility to always remember that you and your colleague are on the same side, with the same party values and, most important, that the two of you will have to support each other at the end, regardless of who gets the nomination.

Without that sincerity regarding Barack Obama's true potential, there is obviously no forgiveness, either, on her part. Whatever the Democrats are hoping to have over the next few weeks until the election, unity, sadly won't be part of it, because the deep animosity and anger felt by her supporters for her defeat is really being repressed by superficial gloss hiding the wounds beneath.

As Hitchens concludes:
But the most honest line of the whole speech was her accidentally truthful assertion that "John McCain is my friend".

Yes, indeed he is, and if he should beat Barack Obama for the Presidency he is the even-better friend of the never-ending campaign to keep the Clinton cult alive.

With the opposition nominee affirmed proudly as 'her friend', on a night when she should have been denouncing him as a public enemy, in true unity with Obama, that truly says it all.

Back To Top