A need for unity even while in competition

Maybe this isn't the best time to be doing this, since it so easily gives rise to thoughts that could be described as "paranoid", but I've been re-reading "All the President's Men" lately, and it's both amazing and sad how much the attitude held by the Nixon administration as described in the book is similar to what I see in the Bush administration. I'm not suggesting that the Bush campaign is engaged in any of the same kinds of activities, necessarily, but both camps come across as having a sense of entitlement when it comes to the office, and a willingness to stoop fairly low when it comes to getting what they want. Neither seems to have any sense that maybe the people have a right to know what their government is up to, and both Nixon and Bush seem to believe they should be beyond questions. They both demand extreme loyalty. Mostly, though, there a sense from both administrations that truth that doesn't match their ideas, plans, goals or is otherwise inconvenient is simply irrelevant and need not be told.

One of the things I'm finding most interesting reading the book this time around is that the Washington Post has an extensive "Watergate" section posted at their website with copies of many of the original Woodward and Bernstein articles. Being able to read what was originally published, as opposed to excerpts from the articles, really helps connect all the pieces of the narrative together.

Reading one of their articles tonight - the October 21, 1972 piece "FBI Finds Nixon Aides Sabotaged Democrats" I came across this quote:

The investigators said that a major purpose of the sub rosa activities was to create so much confusion, suspicion and dissension that the Democrats would be incapable of uniting after choosing a presidential nominee.

Now, I'm going to give the Bush campaign the benefit of the doubt and try not to assume that they would actually try to use similar dirty tricks to the same end this year (though I do have to admit that between Bush's frat boy mentality and the fact that he's raising $200,000,000 for a primary campaign season in which he's running virtually unopposed, that sometimes seems to be asking a lot of myself), but confusion, suspicion and dissension can come about from forces that have nothing to do with Republican deceit.

There are aspects of the Democrats campaign this year that sometimes make it feel like a strong split from a hard-fought primary season could be a significant factor in the coming election. Because there are so many candidates starting out, they have to find ways to distinguish themselves from each other. Unfortunately, this can easily lead to rancor between backers of the different candidates - sometimes to the point where when one candidate finally wins the nomination, supporters of one or more of the other candidates won't want to transfer that support to the party nominee.

This year, though, more than ever, it's important that Democratic voters be willing to unify behind a single candidate when the time comes. I'm not saying not to push hard for your favourite candidate during the primaries - that's important because we need to make sure that whomever the nominee is, he or she is fire-tested and ready for prime-time. I just hope that when the convention is over and the nominee has been named, that the other candidates will give whole-hearted support to the nominee and that those who voted for them will follow the candidates' lead.

We can't let Bush win in 2004. Letting him win because we couldn't manage to pull ourselves together behind our nominee would be worse that foolish, it would be nearly suicidal. Even if the Republicans aren't doing a thing to create such a situation this time around, I think we need to all keep in mind that it's probably exactly what they want. Let's send them home empty handed, eh?

Posted by thorswitch at August 28, 2003 04:33 AM | TrackBack