creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Ben Shapiro
Ben Shapiro
15 Feb 2012
Obama's Budget: It's My Money, America

On Monday, President Obama released his budget to the world. As per his usual Orwellian arrangement, Obama … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Is the Constitution for Everybody?

According to The New York Times, the American Constitution is losing popularity with people around the world. … Read More.

1 Feb 2012
The Republican Party Becomes the Whig Party

In 1831, Henry Clay formed a new political party. He called it the Whig Party. His goal was to ensure … Read More.

Americans Embrace Childish Unity

Share Comment

The Great Election of 2008 is over. Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States.

Now is the time to ask what this election was about.

Here's what this election was not about: Barack Obama. It was not about his record: He didn't have one. It was not about his views, which are radical in the extreme. It was not about his associations: Americans didn't care about Wright, Ayers, or Khalidi. The media didn't want Americans to know about Obama. Obama didn't want Americans to know about Obama. And Americans didn't want to know about Obama.

This election was not about John McCain. No one cared about McCain, except the liberal media that nominated him president after one win in New Hampshire.

This election was not about President George W. Bush. Bush was used as a punching bag by both sides — and by election time, he was completely irrelevant.

And this election was certainly not about the issues. In the general election, Barack Obama campaigned as a centrist, titularly abandoning his more extreme positions to do so. He lied about his policies. And no one cared.

This election was about one thing and one thing only: Americans' puerile need for unity through self-congratulatory, cathartic membership in a broad, transformative political movement.

For eight years, Americans have been engaged in hostile politics. And after eight years, Americans were sick of it.

That isn't to America's credit. Hostile politics — hard-fought political conflict over the issues that matter — is not a bad thing. It is precisely the sort of messy republicanism the founders embraced. Early elections were replete with mudslinging, character assassination, brawls and scandals. They were also replete with some of the most substantive debate on policy ever put before mankind.

Apparently, we're no longer interested in the dirty business of politics. We'd rather feel ourselves part of a high-minded movement. Not the sort of movement that espouses particular policies — not the antiwar movement, or the pro-life movement — those movements are too divisive. We want to be part of a movement that is solely about us.

Barack Obama was the vessel for that movement. He was an utter cipher. But he embodied the need of the American public for unity by hearkening back to the ultimate unifying feature of American life: third-grade slogans.

He spouted Hope and Change. He told us, “We're All Americans.” He told us, “Yes, We Can.”

From any other politician, it would be ridiculous drivel. From a black candidate, it was inspiring. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson didn't talk like that — they spoke the language of division. Because Obama spoke the language of unity, he had to be a moderate. So went our logic.

Barack Obama had us from the moment he said, “Hope.” In that moment, Obama accomplished two simultaneous transformations. First, he transformed himself into a moderate. Second, he transformed himself into a messianic figure, the object of our longing: the physical embodiment of America's progression beyond racial conflict. If America wanted to move beyond conflict, what better way than to embrace a candidate who could end all racial conflict?

And the Obama campaign subtly played on this theme. They implied that if we voted against him, we were engaging in racial hatred; some supporters even implied America would undergo a race war if he lost. That's the last thing we wanted.

We wanted to feel good again. That is what the Great Election of 2008 was about. It was about Americans' desire to feel a part of Something Larger. To do something together, as Americans. In today's day and age, that Something Larger cannot be the America Ronald Reagan preached about — the left has attacked that America as racist, sexist, and selfish. That Something Larger had to be an individual who could provide us with the feeling of unity.

Barack Obama told us that we could do Something Larger simply by voting for him. When he said, “Yes We Can,” and we followed by screaming it, chanting it, shouting his name in unison, we were Doing Something Larger. We were uniting.

America has always recognized that unity for its own sake is useless at best and dangerous at worst. Unifying behind a mysterious charismatic figure promising transformational change may make us feel good, but it is a betrayal of the open and honest governmental debate our Founding Fathers sought and so many Americans have fought and died to preserve.

Americans think they grew up during Election 2008. They think they moved beyond the past. In one way they did. In another, more important way, they regressed dramatically — to a time before politics mattered. In the next four years, there will be plenty of growing up to do.

Ben Shapiro, 24, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. He is the author of the new book "Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House," as well as the national bestseller "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth." To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

9 Comments | Post Comment
Mr. Shapiro: While I have a bit more faith in Barack Obama's ability to lead this nation than you seem to have, you've nonetheless raised a significant point that Americans ought to be made aware of. Divisive and confrontational politics is a necessary part of the messy business of freedom. We should indeed be wary of the "puerile need for unity through self-congratulatory, cathartic membership in a broad, transformative political movement." You say "We'd rather feel ourselves part of a high-minded movement. We want to be part of a movement that is solely about us." That's exactly how dictatorships get started.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Scot Penslar
Wed Nov 5, 2008 10:53 PM
Not to discount the desire for unity, but... there WERE other things in this campaign that people cared about, and which led to the result we got. For starters, yes, the campaign was in part about George W. Bush. He didn't have to be on the ballot for many people to be voting against the party he led. A good many people, myself included, were former Bush supporters who were disillusioned by his inept governing. For another thing, it was also about Sarah Palin, and the unwillingness of many people to place her next-in-line for the presidency to a man of 72 who's already had one bout with cancer. I hope McCain lives a long and healthy life, but if he didn't, I couldn't risk having helped put Sarah Palin in place to take over for him. And finally, while unity for unity's sake is silly, campaigns do not have to be entirely about "us vs. them", and if it's honorable to disagree, then Palin should have kept her yap shut instead of going on about who were the "Real Americans" and who were the real patriots. It's one thing to stress policy differences; it's another to demonize your opponents as scum.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Kevin Morgan
Thu Nov 6, 2008 2:04 AM
Sir;... You're late... All the mud you spent getting just so, sticky, and slimey, and nasty smelling to boot, can't catch up to Mr Obama cause he is already gone... You may have noticed that John Mccain was novacaine for the republican brain; but it is time to wake up, and scratch your nads and pull your britches on... A new day has dawned, even if it will take a few months getting here... Yes;...The tide has turned, and it is going to cover the smell of rotten fish shit, and I was thinking of another metaphore too, but I will save it for the next election... If you were all a man, I would tell ya'll to look at the many ways you folks paid to grind out hate against the liberals really did help the election of Mr. Obama and a few more democrats... Look at your words honestly, and say: would I have my fat face slapped for saying this in a bar to a man with no reason what ever to take my crap??? You see, you folks insulted a lot of perfectly good voters, and you insulted the intelligence of everyone you did not insult on purpose, and you abused the life right out of freedom of the press, but mostly, you got your man unelected... And I know you did not do it alone...We had to help... And for once it was nice to be on the same side as you... So, next time you jews up the mud, invite me along, and I will help you to crud up the whole process for the best... I mean, there are times when the necessity of life forces people concentrate their faculties, and to screen out the nonsense, and at times like that, if you really want to make yourself pointless, you have to try extra extra hard to be not taken seriously by the greatest number possible... And, God willing, I will be there for you... Cause we're buds right... Not.. Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Nov 6, 2008 5:29 PM
Re: Scot Penslar;....Sir, what are we fighting for??? So often it is goals... Was that not clearly stated in the constitution??? If we need to reconstitute ourselves, then that would be a good time to re-consider goals... If the problem is a single goal, like justice; then that is something government should be facing in D.C. so the mess does not spill over into every facet of our lives... Government does not do the basics, and cannot govern let alone inspire... People know this, and cannot avoid the fact that much is missing from their lives, and that they are working harder and harder for less and less...We need consensus to have power as a nation... We need to be consulted by the government if government will know our needs, and respond for our benefit... Instead, people with grand ideas are driven by their ideals, but have no way of seeing when their ideals are not working... The fact is, that we are torn apart because none of our needs are being met, and we are divided, and we blame others for their intransigence... It is not their problem that they are hanging on for dear life, and digging in their heels... Again, it is the job of government to find our points of union, and to face down our differences, and work out some agreement that is lasting...They do not... With the help of their special interest pimps in the press, they dump the problem in all in our laps and say: What a mess you have... They make hay on our division... And I know there are huge differences in the expectations the religious rights, compared to the egalitarian lefts; but we have no other place where these difference of expectation can be resolved, and government is first of all denying communication by the people with limits on the house, but is also limiting the total number of brains it can put on the problem... And money only makes the situation worse because it buys a meaningless peace in government that is not shared by the people... Why should they have peace if we have no peace??? Let them war....Let them have knockdown drag out fights....They could all be replaced by a troop of monkeys for the good they do; but we need our peace and unity as a people... We fight because they fail... We fight because they are civil, but unrepresentative... We fight because we do not see how trapped we are by the form of government, and the ideal that none better can be formed... Fire them all if they don't work... And they don't... So we don't...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Nov 7, 2008 2:51 PM
Ah, yes, yes. All 65 million Obama voters are so simple and childish, in fact, that one can easily read all of their minds collectively. Okay, so there's one interesting opinion with no apparent empirical evidence to support it. But here's my anecdotal observation: In 2004, when I asked my 20 college freshmen how many of them had registered to vote, three of them raised their hands and they appeared to be embarrassed to admit it. Being registered to vote apparently wasn't cool back then. However, when I asked this year's freshmen, 18 of 19 enthusiastically raised their hands. Amazingly when they wrote to me about the impending elections in their journals, not a single one of them wrote about unity, childishly or otherwise. Coming from the puerile masses, of course, I do not have the wisdom to speak for all 19 of my students the way that Mr. Shapiro can speak so confidently for the other 65 million puerile Obama supporters. Nevertheless, the overwhelming consensus among my freshmen was that it had become apparent to them that our generations have been screwing things up long enough, and now it was their turn to have their say in some of these matters before things got even further out of hand. From the numbers it looks as though their generation had something to do with the Obama success. Most likely all of the other 18-29 year olds who voted for Obama were just groping about ever so childishly for unity with all of the other Obama supporters. Just not my freshmen, I guess. However, here is one childish reaction that they might have to Mr. Shapiro's editorial: WAAAAH!
Comment: #5
Posted by: William Kimok
Sat Nov 8, 2008 10:10 AM
Re: William Kimok;... Sir, union is a goal of our constitution, and our founders bought their unity with slavery for the black man, and a civil war a life time later... Who can say if it was a good deal??? The fact is, that without unity we would have soon been over run, or been ourselves made our common enemy... Our unity has been sold for a price, and sold by traitors because we endured injustice for it, and shamed ourselves for it, and we have given many lives for unity in our revolution, and in the ciivl war, and unity was juat as soon snatched from us for a gain... But we see how difficult it is to fight a war in the midst of division, and how perilous it is to pursue war without consensus, and yet we see people time and again count on the very unity they have so gladly pissed away. You cannot rob rights from one man if there is unity in your society... You cannot defraud the first man of his property if there is unity in your society... Division is as essential to wealth as it is to poverty, and we should look for any excuse to unite, but also recognize that unity always reflects a shared morality, and there again, people expect it while destroying it... IF no one is really coming to terms with what is morality, and what is our shared morality, and whether our shared morality is actually moral compared to an abstract absolute of morality, then how will we even have the words to discuss the subject??? I would say that what our shared morality should be, is: liberty and justice for all, with the all, meaning equality, and seeing liberty and justice as resting upon equality... And then, -we should find the limits of equality, and there we will see all that divides us as a people, divides us upon qualities extraneous to our humanity... When the rich man has more honor than the poor man when his wealth did not grow out of honor, then equality is done along with liberty and justice...Our differences are not based upon who we are, but upon what we own; and that difference has been allowed to steer the political process to the point where unity seems beyond the possible... Unity is not impossible unless we give up on it as a goal, and this, the expectation of, and acceptance of disunity endangers the whole of society... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #6
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Nov 8, 2008 3:40 PM
You, Ben, are a child, and your article is an adult, educated, manipulative, and vindictive childis hissy fit. Your previous articles had us all as Jew haters if we voted for Barak Obama. Now, we're childish. Better watch the finger pointing son. You've got four pointing back at you.
Comment: #7
Posted by: liz
Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:26 AM
I, too, would have liked to hear debate rather than unity about several matters of policy. For instance, should we continue to donate without any conditions $50 million a week to the only democracy which has caused us no end of trouble for the last 40 years?
Comment: #8
Posted by: Peter Ungar
Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:23 PM
I, too, would have liked to hear debate rather than unity about several matters of policy. For instance, should we continue to donate without any conditions $50 million a week to the only democracy which has caused us no end of trouble for the last 40 years?
Comment: #9
Posted by: Peter Ungar
Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:24 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Ben Shapiro
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

26 Nov 2008 Unions Fight to End American Capitalism

25 Jan 2012 The Euphemisms of ‘Pro-Choice' Evil

28 Jan 2009 The Day America Lost the War on Terror