|
Listening to Clinton
Manzili Davis
On November 18th the political establishment of the United States descended en masse upon rain drenched Little Rock, Arkansas, to fete former President Bill Clinton. The occasion was the dedication of his presidential library. Freshly reelected President Bush, former Presidents Bush and Carter, countless former and current members of Congress, and cabinet officials were counted among the 30,000 attendees of this event.
Amid the endless humorous anecdotes that made up the speeches given, Clinton said something that merits consideration. Commenting on the current tone of political debate in the U.S., he said, “Our differences do matter, but our common humanity matters more.” With this brief statement, Clinton seeks to balance two forces that are often at odds in politics: fidelity to our beliefs and civility.
The former demands that if we truly believe in all that we claim to, we have to pursue policies that correspond with those beliefs. The latter force urges that in dealing with those who hold beliefs contrary to our own, we should treat them with respect and, in so doing, give their ideas a fair hearing and expect the same in return. Civility suffers when the stakes are raised and politicians focus solely on winning.
There are certainly gains to be won in the short run, but in the long run the cost of such gains is the damage done to civility. This benefits no one. Recent events illustrate these costs and no event more so than the last national election. The stakes could not have been higher, and both sides decided to use the tried and true approach of tearing down their opponent to win.
The rancor between the leaders in Congress is also evidence of the damage done to civility. In the Senate, Majority Leader Frist, a Republican, decided to actively campaign to unseat his Democrat counterpart Tom Daschle. Traditionally leaders have as a courtesy refrained from that sort of behavior because of what it does to relations between parties. Having successfully unseated Sen. Daschle, not one Republican attended Daschle’s farewell address.
This episode is certainly indicative of the lack of civility of the Republicans, but it also says something about the Democrats. They too are guilty of partisanship. It goes without saying that Daschle worked hard to make enemies in the Senate, calling some of Frist’s early moves as Majority leader amateurish, among other things.
In the House of Representatives, things are no better. Republican Majority leader Tom Delay and Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been busy setting the tone by trading attacks on each other’s ethics. Who would have imagined politicians having ethical problems? This is not to say that politicians should not criticize one another. It is to say that the criticism should be substantive and not done to score political points.
Who benefits from this sort of behavior? Certainly the public does not benefit. This bickering does not help politicians get things done. What it does is destroy what common ground there is and pollutes the larger political discussion at every level as local parties learn from the example of the national parties.
Clinton’s words need to be taken to heart precisely because relations between the parties are as rancorous as they are. His statement captures the proper mindset needed in order to have a rigorous debate, one that, however, discourages personal attacks.
His is not a message calling for false unity that ignores points of contention. In fact, by emphatically stating that “our differences do matter,” Clinton seems to embrace that very contention. At an earlier point in the speech, he refers to the “two great dominant strands of political thought,” namely “conservatism, which at its very best draws lines that should not be crossed; and progressivism, which at its very best breaks down barriers that are no longer needed or should never have been erected in the first place.” This contention is part of who we are as a nation.
After pointing out the significance of our differences, Clinton describes something even more significant. That something is “our common humanity.” This is what we all share, what relates each us, one to the other, what demands that we respect one another. That Clinton chooses the ultimate commonality here is important. He could have chosen American citizenship, instead, as what brings us together. But as inclusive as that term is (encompassing both blue and red America), it is still a term that includes some and excludes others. Humanity is a term that encompasses the entire species. This choice suggests that Clinton wants to highlight what is essential and that which makes our differences pale in comparison.
He goes on to say that “[e]verybody counts. Everybody deserves a chance. Everybody's got a responsibility to fulfill. We all do better when we work together.” This is the equality to which Clinton is appealing when he says it matters more than our differences. These are shared values because they represent principles that everyone should support; they are responsibilities we have a duty to live the values; and they are benefits because the results of honoring our values are positive.
Clinton avoids the simplicity of a dichotomous perception of politics where either our differences matter or our humanity matters. They both matter. Ultimately, when working out our differences, we should never forget that we share so much. Our politicians seem to have forgotten this.
Such an appeal to our humanity is easy enough to make, especially if you are a former president. Given the state of affairs, with the Republicans looking to capitalize on their well-earned success and the Democrats poised to try to get in the way as much as possible, Clinton’s message is probably dead on arrival.
Further, those who engage in the politics of personal attacks and in other activities that serve to coarsen the tone in Washington argue that this is the way the game is played. It is true that those who claim that the current situation is unheard of reveal their lack of familiarity with U.S. history. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists hated each other, and as bad as things are in the Senate, no one is being caned until they lose consciousness (which happened in the 1850s). Neither is this a solely American problem. Conflicting principles seem to bring about personal conflict.
Politicians, however, should not appeal to history or to human nature to justify their behavior. What they should do is choose to make things better. If this takes working against the grain of what comes naturally, then so be it.
Manzili J. Davis is a native of Chicago, Illinois, and is a junior in the Politics Department.
| 