Beware (Obama's) Calls To "Unity"

We live in a republic. A representative democracy.

America's founding was amidst dissent, debate and compromise.

It's in our blood..beginning with the blood of the Revolutionary soldiers and sailors that delivered us from British rule.

It took two tries to get our Federal government structure right.

Never, ever, outside of the limited domain of American support of our armed forces during declared wars, has there been "unity" in our country.

Even during the Civil War, Lincoln had to run for re-election and risked a real chance of defeat by George McClellan, the general whom he had fired in 1862. Elections were not suspended.

A need for "unity" did not result in non-military policies being coercively implemented during WWI or WWII. There was a temporary suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, along with some other fairly draconian suppressions of the press. But these were lifted at war's end.

Thus, when you hear a Presidential candidate, e.g., Obama, call for "unity" on any issue aside from war, beware. That candidate means to rule without dissent.

"Unity" means, in other words,

'When I become President, I will dictate, and, in the name of 'unity,' you will comply and there will be no dissent. Dissent goes against unity. And unity will be the mantra by which I lead and enforce all my demands of Congress.'

Even Reagan didn't appeal for unity with his economic rescue of the country after Carter nearly ruined it, economically and militarily. He simply appealed to Americans to back his push for more economic freedom, lower taxes, less government spending, and a stronger defense.

The siren song of never-before-realized 'unity' in America will bring unintended consequences. What begins as a naively-hoped-for single-mindedness on social issues like healthcare, race acceptance, etc., will soon become a coercive drive to demand group-think and univocal acceptance of one party's positions.

Rather than compromise, complete agreement will be demanded, and dissenting debate will be squelched.

There's no reason any Presidential candidate should ever be wanting to unify a country that has never, even in its most successful non-military eras, ever been unified for anything.

Why start now? Especially with a tax-and-spend liberal hack like Obama?

He's not a post-partisan politician. He has no magic elixir. He will not 'unify' anything.

If he does bring about any univocally-backed solutions, you can bet they'll be coerced, and not the result of debate and compromise.

My father warned me, and my brothers, long ago,

'Beware the loss of freedom in America. It won't come all at once, but slowly, step by step, down a slippery slope. FDR began it by requiring the withholding of income tax payments, removing your right to not pay, per civil disobedience. Further losses of freedom will come in equally small, sometimes unnoticed steps.'

Whenever I see or hear Obama, and hear the word 'unity' in conjunction with him, I shiver with fear at the coercive state I envision him creating to force the 'unity' that he decides we should all have.

He won't ask you for your opinion on what should be our unified position.

He'll just tell you.