HUH?

Perhaps Randy Barnett can explain precisely what he thought was interesting about this silly little piece by Jonah Goldberg. Boiled down to a simple argument, Goldberg argues that Democrats should stop saying that we are a "deeply divided nation" and that Dems have the policies to heal the divide. No, in case you're wondering, Goldberg most assuredly does not dwell on the fact that this kind of appeal is precisely what lulled many Americans to vote for Bush last time around. As I've said before, I am bitter about this, not because I voted for Bush, but because I actually believed that he would be a "uniter, not a divider." My own fault, perhaps, but at the very least it has led me a) to a greater appreciation of the significance of party as a governing institution, b) to a greater appreciation for the public's lack of appreciation for the role of party (see Hibbing and Theiss-Morse on "Stealth Democracy)," and c) to a greater appreciation of the appeal of non-partisanship, which is essentially meaningless in the current electoral climate, but which may hold electoral attraction for some centrist voters nonetheless.

Basically, Goldberg writes a little less than 2000 words to tell us that there was a civil war a while back, that divisions among rich and poor are a natural part of politics ("sown in the nature of man," perhaps?), that Democrats want to win at the polls, and -- hinting darkly -- that the New Deal was fascistic in focusing on common purposes pursued by government. I'm beginning to think that Goldberg has such an attraction to the "you can't criticize X since you approve of Y" line of argument because, secretly, he sees it as the main vulnerability in his own arguments, but by virtue of his role as an ideological hamster for NRO, he can't get off the wheel and make it stop spinning. I mean, for the sake of God and all that is right in the world, DEMOCRATS should stop talking about being uniters, not dividers? Democrats should stop talking about common purposes of government (in the middle of the war on terror)? And, perhaps more subtly, Democrats should stop appealing to their constituency by flattering them that their interests are actually the general interest? (Consider the "rising tide lifts all boats" argument in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy.) As a move in an elaborate but predictable partisan game, well, fine, but as a description of what people should or should not be saying, this is really, really shallow.

MORE (2/9): So far I've seen three links to this story (Michael at Southern Appeal, Ed Driscoll, and Randy Barnett's link, seeabove); a shortened version of the piece also appeared in the Washington Times. No one is particularly interested in evaluating Goldberg's substantive response to Kerry, Edwards and Dean, which is not surprising I guess. I am trying really hard to resist the (morally corrupting) habit of calling foul -- as in, "wait, Bush gave a reprise of the 'uniter not a divider' line just this past weekend and Goldberg didn't care, so he clearly is just out to pick on Democrats." Telling people what to say is fundamentally imperious. Plus, I mean, who really cares whether or not Goldberg levels the same charge against Bush? Again, in ideological commentary, the main point, the first premise, is harm your enemies and help your friends. If the facts get in the way, ignore them or explain them away. I'm fine with that, I suppose, although it does give me heartburn on occasion.

The interesting points here are why a "uniter" line appeals to voters in the first place. Perhaps the kind of hard-nosed reference to the inevitability of social conflict over economic issues is not appealing to voters because people do really want to believe in common purposes. A belief in common purposes probably helps to fulfill deep-seated human needs to believe in the impartiality and fairness of authority, which, at the end of the day, help to cement bonds of trust. Decrying divisiveness is a way of appealing to deep-seated human fears of being taken for a sucker. I don't see anything surprising in any of that. In fact, it's so unsurprising that all of the candidates do it at least some of the time. Some, like Bush and Edwards, have built campaigns around these ideas. Fair enough.