The Politics of Division

In 1999, during the early part of his campaign for the White House, George W. Bush described himself as "a uniter, not a divider." This phrase was widely used for mockery when Bush turned into one of history's most partisan presidents, but compared to his successors as conservative-value standard bearers, Bush is starting to look like Gandhi. Sarah Palin and the far-right-wing cadre that John McCain never wanted a part of until he deemed it necessary to be a viable Republican candidate have amped up their rhetoric in recent weeks to a degree that McCain's campaign now looks like the most bitterly divisive since George Wallace took five Southern states in 1968.

Here are just some of the many recent examples:

* During a speech in North Carolina, Palin discussed how much she liked visiting "pro-America" parts of the country. Naturally, this implies that there are "anti-America" parts of the country. Her pro-small-town rhetoric during the RNC equally implied that urban areas - which tend to go heavy for Democrats at election time - were not full of the "good people" whose virtues she extolled. Then, of course, there's her use of inflammatory terms when referring to Obama, suggesting that his policies are little more than socialism and accusing him of "palling around with terrorists," as though he and Osama Bin Laden were playing Connect Four or something.

* McCain advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer saying the following on MSNBC: "I certainly agree that northern Virginia has gone more Democratic. As a proud resident of Oakton, Virginia, I can tell you that the Democrats have just come in from the District of Columbia and moved in to northern Virginia, and that's really what you see there. But the rest of the state, real Virginia if you will, I think will be very responsive to Senator McCain's message."

That's right: real Virginia. Not that ersatz, Virginia-like substance in the northern part of the state. Clearly Democrats have just been flooding in from DC, which explains why DC no longer has any people in it. What the fuck is she talking about? Guess what - it's yet more division. If you're not receptive to McCain's rhetoric, it must be because you're some sort of liberal carpetbagger. That's the only reason McCain could be losing ground in traditional Republican strongholds. I wonder what her excuse is for North Carolina and Colorado?

* The worst of them all comes from Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann:



Bachmann can't even be bothered to separate her talking points, which Matthews calls her on; Tony Rezko isn't exactly known as a "radical leftist." But the scariest part is the last minute or so of this, in which Bachmann asks the media to "do a penetrating expose" to find out which members of Congress are "pro-America or anti-America." If this sounds like McCarthyism, that's because it is.

If you think this all reeks of desperation, you're right. Because that's all the Republicans have left. Even fear tactics, which have dominated recent elections as Republicans insist that only they are equipped to defend America, haven't been working. Division is the only avenue even more extreme. People aren't swayed by the suggestion that Barack Obama is too liberal? Then call him anti-American. Districts aren't voting your way? That's not the real part of the state anyway.

The irony in all this is that the only thing that seems to qualify someone for the "anti-American" label is not being a flag-waving, jingoistic yahoo who supports the government no matter what it does. So, assuming Obama wins, is that going to make all the Republicans who hate him "anti-American"? (Of course not! Nothing can be negative if it's done by Republicans.)

It always reminds me of the quote from The American President, in which Sydney Wade asks liberal-minded president Andrew Shepherd how he's able to keep quiet in the face of mounting attacks on his character by his Republican challenger (not so ironically played by Richard Dreyfuss, who would go on to play Dick Cheney in W.). "How," she asks him, "do you have patience for people who claim to love America but clearly can't stand Americans?"

That's exactly how I feel. How can you take the McCain campaign seriously when it's talking out of both sides of its mouth? It's ready to label anyone who isn't voting for McCain as "fake," and people with liberal viewpoints as "anti-American." But what's more anti-American than slandering half the population like that? It doesn't even matter what McCain's policies are anymore, apparently - you're either for them or you're against them. Of course, if you're Palin - the nasty, mud-slinging attack dog who has lied about virtually every facet of her record as mayor and governor - that's the only reason you're here. She doesn't have the background that would lead her to have formulated any national or foreign policies. All she has is supposed blue-collar cred, enabling her to toss around words like "terrorist" and "pro-America" with no regard for the issues (never mind her connections to the Alaskan Independence Party, at least as solid as Obama's ties to William Ayers and about as "anti-American" as it gets).

Some people wonder how much of this ultra-right-wing attitude McCain really buys into, speculating that maybe he's just doing it because he thought it was the only way to win the presidency in what's clearly his last chance. I say it doesn't matter. Are you really willing to take the chance that McCain the Maverick would suddenly show up again on his first day in office, with a wingnut VP ready to step forward should anything happen? The Republicans would like you to believe you can judge a man by the company he keeps, but if it's true of Obama, it's true of McCain as well. And McCain has surrounded himself with people who clearly loathe more than half of the country. After eight years of failed Republican policies, why should we accept more leadership from a party that openly hates those of us who aren't willing to goose-step?