It is remarkable that the central characteristic of the American republic, the ability of the people to select their leaders in free and open elections, is so often lamented as though it were an unspeakable burden to be avoided.
We are still months from actual balloting and already there is a chorus of voices calling for amity and common purpose. The nation must, we are told, “come together” and reject the “divisive politics” of the past.
Nonsense. Elections are about choices. Choices are about differences and differences (hold your breath) create friction and, yes, division. If there is a time for unity and common purpose it is after, sometimes long after, the results are in.
Many people may be confused about the process, but few seem as confused as Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who was chosen by the Democratic Party to give a brief response to Monday’s State of the Union address by President Bush.
Sebelius began by suggesting that it doesn’t matter if one is a Democrat, Republican, Independent or “none-of-the-above.”
We are all Americans, she said, and it really doesn’t matter how the president’s speech was received by Democrats or Republicans, adding that those reactions have nothing to do with the average American.
These average Americans, according to the governor, may have lost their jobs, their homes and are unable to pay their bills and need both short- term and long-term government help.
“And so we ask you, Mr. President,” Sebelius continued, “will you join us? Let’s get to work.” She went on to suggest that the nation needs to overhaul its health care system and trade policy, get the troops out of Iraq and “restore America’s role in the world.”
Finally, adding insult to injury, she intoned that a new majority has formed in America and that she was speaking for that majority in calling for an end to the old politics.
The governor is mistaken on almost every point. Party affiliation does matter, especially during elections. She may be right that we are all Americans but that does not diminish the importance of both political affiliation and political philosophy.
Name the topic, whether it is health insurance, energy production, environmental protection, global warming or illegal immigration, and all sense of common purpose goes flying out the window. There is not, nor will there be, speedy agreement on what should be done about them. If there is any doubt about this, ask an “environmental Democrat” what he or she thinks of nuclear power.
The central fact of the current political climate is quite simple. Democrats like Sebelius believe that once George Bush is gone, everything will change. It is therefore no longer even necessary to say what policies might be put in place. Where there was hatred, love will come and the people will be happy.
It is possible, of course, to make the case that this view of the future may not last. Sebelius may rejoice in the fact that the minimum wage has been increased and that college loans have been made more affordable, but these are insignificant issues compared to the larger questions that are part and parcel of this year’s election campaigns. Sebelius may think a new majority has already formed and is ready to work its wonders. Some of us think otherwise. Clear choices are not to be avoided, they are to be welcomed, and the more “divisive” that process is, the more likely it will be that the country, having considered the options, has made the right decisions.
Al Knight of Buena Vista (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears twice a month.
