CAN WE, THE WILLFUL MANY, BECOME ONE?

By Edwin Cooney

The polls in California had barely closed last Tuesday night when all of the networks and cable channels declared that Senator Barack Obama had been elected President of the United States of America.

These declarations were followed, almost immediately, by an exceedingly generous, classy, and patriotic concession speech by Arizona Senator John McCain. Next came the President-Elect who acknowledged Senator McCain’s service to his country and asserted the importance of respect for and consultation with representatives of differing political opinions.

Standing before tens of thousands of his supporters in Chicago’s Grant Park, America’s next President insisted, as he has throughout his campaign, that “yes, we can” surmount the difficulties Americans face at home and abroad in a changing nation and world. Even more, Barack Obama insisted that we have more in common than we have differences. “…Out of many, we are one,” he said.

“…If I have not earned your vote tonight,” said the President-Elect to millions of down-hearted political opponents, “I have heard your voice and I will be your President, too.”

Exactly twenty-eight years ago to the date and very day of the week, Tuesday, November 4th, 1980, another man received the overwhelming support of the American people at the polls. His name was Ronald Wilson Reagan. His victory over President Jimmy Carter brought ideological conservatism into power. Mr. Reagan’s national and world views differed sharply from that of even recent Republican presidents Nixon and Ford. Supply-side economics replaced Keynesian economics. In foreign affairs, the Soviet Union became “the evil empire”. The “START treaty” which would allow us to install cruise missiles in Western Europe to counter Soviet SS-20 missiles aimed at Central Europe replaced the SALT 2 treaty. “Tax indexing” to adjust increases in earned income was adopted to reflect inflation. The line item veto became a popular proposal to limit government spending. It would remain so even after it was declared unconstitutional by a conservative Supreme Court.

By 1984, it was “Morning in America” and President Reagan lost only the state of Minnesota (the home state of former Vice President Walter Mondale, his opponent) in his bid for re-election. Reaganites, along with millions of other satisfied and gratified Americans, were united in the belief that President Reagan had brought the country out of the “malaise” of the Carter years. America was rich, prosperous, politically and morally principled, and in control of its prospects for peace and security. Thus, on the surface, we appeared to be one.

Or, were we? Did our general satisfaction with President Reagan and his political doctrine constitute a lasting unity—or should it have?

I say, of course not.

Twenty-eight years after our 1980 consensus, ideologists of both the left and right insist, even between political seasons, that they alone are the guardians of the pathway to morality. This insistence, Senator Obama pointed out in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” is what prohibits consensus between Republicans and Democrats in the media, in the highest councils of government, and even in our current culture.

Hence, even as President Obama seeks a way out of our current economic morass, his greatest task will be to teach both conservatives and liberals an essential lesson: acknowledgment of and cooperation with one another is the essence of good government.

Liberals, who consider themselves the most tolerant of people, destroy their reputation for tolerance by insisting that all conservative ideas are narrow, racist, selfish, exploitive, and jingoistic. Conservatives, who consider themselves to be the supreme lovers of freedom, could be even more powerful if they acknowledged that those who differ with them are no less patriotic, fiscally responsible, or spiritually principled than they are. The first principle of freedom is inclusiveness not exclusivity. Differences in strategy or tactics do not constitute a lack of patriotism or a threat to America’s safety.

History is replete with our differences as a people. During the War of 1812, powerful forces in conservative New England considered secession forty years before the South seceded. We differed over slavery and reconstruction. Vast economic differences in the late nineteenth century brought about rural granges and urban unions. We differed over women’s suffrage, the social adjustments during the depression, and isolationism vs. internationalism during and after World War II. Civil rights and civil liberties inevitably draw us up short and force us to consider uncomfortable questions. These differences have been largely overcome by individual as well as group familiarity and acknowledgment. Ultimately, we will always be united in support of the peace, prosperity and security of our nation.

President-Elect Obama is right to seek national consensus, but the right and power of a free people to offer or withdraw its consent is the gift of we, the willful ones.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY