The Chimera Called Unity

 I thought President Biden's inauguration speech was quite good. The rhetoric was generally hopeful without being "soaring," patriotic without absurd hyperbole, humble and yet determined. Most of all it left an impression of the man himself, which may be its most important accomplishment. The man himself seems genuine, earnest, determined, and also humble (a refreshing change). 

I thought the weakest part of Mr. Biden's speech was his central theme of unity. Not only is any sort of real unity nothing more than a fleeting pipe dream, but the American political system does not depend on it. In fact, politics is a means for dealing with inevitable disunity. This is a point that Madison made strongly in his debate with Patrick Henry at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788.

If we posit that unity is necessary for progress, as the president suggested, the question then becomes, unity about what? Since on every important political issue there is widespread and earnest disagreement, where does unity come in? I suppose it is in the agreement to vet our differences through politics, rather than, say, mob violence (which 2020 had altogether too much of). The agreement to in fact disagree but not dismiss the other side from the field of political play. There will always be another side. The glass will always be half-full. There is no arc of history leading to one side's chosen land, while the other side's is rejected forever.

To speak of the necessity of unity in order to make progress is, in this sense, not only naive but it embodies the potential for a kind of tyranny of the majority. Being out of sync with the majority opinion, or at least the opinion presently in power, becomes a kind of rebellion against blessed unity. It becomes unpatriotic. If progress requires unity, then our leaders will be forever frustrated (as they in fact have always been).

In our system progress requires debate, coalition building, and legislative compromise. To the extent that the president, as the executive head of only one branch of government after all, can rule apart from legislative enactments, he can keep up the pretense that compromise is not a necessary part of politics, and simply emulate a corporate CEO and issue edicts. To that extent he is not truly a participant in the Madisonian conception of governance at all, but one who has found an end-around, a way to over-ride all that. This was Donald Trump's method of governing, turning the legislature into nothing more than a supporting cast in the drama. 

I don't say all this in order to mount a rhetorical assault on the Biden presidency. I voted for him despite many political disagreements, knowing that disagreements get hashed out in our political system, if it is working as intended, in ways that don't entirely satisfy either side. But I voted for him because I thought he was a man of character, of basic human decency, and I thought that such was what America most needed in this moment. Mr. Biden's inaugural address only confirms that view. There will be plenty of time ti differ about politics, but I'm thankful for a good man in the White House.