I was listening to Biden campaigning to provide unity in America.
I wish, but I don’t see it ever happening. The evangelicals are not going away because they absolutely believe that God hates gay sex, those acting like the opposite gender and loves the zygotes that he allows to survive. On the other hand , the left hold ideals of fairness and compassion to apply to these issues. I can’t see any side here compromising their beliefs or ideals.
“Unity” is one of those words that sounds nice… until you engage your brain and actually think about it.
I think this is actually changing: as the younger generation of evangelicals replaces the old guard, they’re becoming more accepting of homosexuals. We’ve come a long way—it wasn’t that long ago that we had unity because “everybody” “knew” that homosexuality was aberrant.
Which doesn’t mean I think we’ll have unity in America; we’ll just find other things to divide us. I’m afraid that the only thing that would really unify us would be a common enemy.
Yeah, unity, at least in a political and cultural sense in the US, is a pipe dream for suckers at this point.
I’m actually moderately surprised nobody is yet running on a “we need to put the other side up against the wall!” platform.
Of course, what we really need is a “we need to put all current politicians up against the wall and start over fresh” platform, but loyalty among thieves prevents that from ever being an option. But if anyone ever ran on that platform, they’ve got my vote! 
That’s who I’ve never liked “Imagine” by Lennon. Strikes me as a fascist piece.
“Unity” in the sense of “everybody agrees about everything” is neither possible nor desirable.
“Unity” in the sense of “we all agree to share the same country, and even the same grocery store aisles, without trying to murder each other and at least mostly while remaining reasonably civil to each other” is both possible and desirable.
(How likely it is may be another question. But it is often pulled off by groups of wildly varying people.)
“That’s why”
Why, dammit!
Stoopid auto-correct…
Grumble, grumble grumble…
Sure, there are plenty of “Deplorables” in the U.S. (and perhaps in many countries), but most Americans are relatively good-spirited people who fit along a bell curve rather than bipolar extremes.
(I make that assertion — that Americans fit on bell curves, not bimodal extremes — without proof. I did download some PewResearch datasets that might have the answer but, when I answered a fellow data processor’s question about the format he went silent! Other volunteers?)
Certainly the gulf between D and R politicians has become wider than at any time in our lifetimes; the question is: To what extent has this partisanship infiltrated the masses? IIRC, Polls show that many Americans want bipartisanship. This is especially true of swing voters — the ones who will decide the 2020 Election.
Appeals to bipartisanship are the best way for politicians to get votes. If you think that makes Biden, like Trump, a “liar,” then … I give up.
I don’t disagree with the approach but that specific word is a mindless, meaningless platitude at this point. Dem politicians need to come up with a replacement. They should hire Frank Luntz for a day to come up with one.
Soon as I hear that word, I roll eyes and change the channel.
I think you’re pretty much correct. To a large extent, the “polarization” that is discussed so much in popular discourse is more a rhetorical cliche that has come to serve certain political ends (and certain media, because it’s dramatic and simplistic), than a reflection of what people really would want if they knew how things actually work. Yes, “unity” is a kind of meaningless abstraction–but it’s not exploited the way “dividedness” is. (And this is not a “both sides do it equally” thing, either–though that’s a common rhetorical ploy, too.)
Since “bipartisanship” in practice simply means “utter surrender to the Republicans”, it’s not surprising that the Republicans support it.
It’s also not surprising that the word is poison to most even remotely moderate people, much less left-of-center people. Which excludes any “swing voter”, since by definition they are well to the right or they’d never consider voting for the Republicans.
Wow. since we are voicing opinions, I disagree with both these points.
Unity will never be possible on all issues, but it should not be too much to expect that there could be unity on basic civil rights (race, women’s rights, gender preference) and the principle of treating everyone as equals. It should also not be too much to expect basic decency and honesty in politics. It’s the shortfalls in the former and the complete decimation of the latter that has made the era of Trump so ineffably disastrous.
I think we’ve mostly got that already.
“Can’t we all just get along?”
Mostly, yes. That’s one of the reasons I think that it’s possible.
But there are cracks in it. The marchers in Charlottesville, for instance. The people who beat up other people, and sometimes kill them, for being gay, or black, or Muslim, or Jewish, or otherwise not fitting into whatever box the beaters think everybody ought to be in. There are other examples, some of them subtler.
I suspect it’s not possible to manage to have no cracks at all. But trying to shrink them instead of widening them is a really good idea; and not only for the people who are currently falling into them. In that sense, I’ve no objection at all to calls for unity.