A divisive disaster

We live in fascinating times.

Seven years ago we were told that the attacks of Sept. 11 would define a generation. It was our Peal Harbor. Our Kennedy assassination. We would remember exactly where we were and what we were doing on that morning for the rest of our lives.

Within hours of the attacks, Democrats and Republicans spoke with one voice. It became evident that for the first time in our lifetime, and perhaps the only time since, we were in the midst of something that could unite a people and allay the conflicts of its leaders.

Seven years later we stand at an equally precarious juncture. Less than a month ago the chairman of the Federal Reserve was predicting the non-existence of the economy within five days. Despite the passage of the historically unprecedented bailout bill, America’s financial condition is ailing as stocks continue to plummet.  
To make matters worse, there’s the election.

The collision between substantive problems and political competition has spawned a divisiveness which, if sustained, can only prove fatal to America’s best interests. 

Moments before the first bailout vote on Sept. 29, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., launched into a diatribe against conservatism.

“They claim to be free-market advocates when it’s really an anything-goes mentality: no regulation, no supervision, no discipline,” she said.

Pelosi’s speech might or might not have been the first vote’s deal-breaker. But its content illustrates the extent to which certain individuals are willing to sacrifice progress for vindication.

Perhaps the greatest malefactor in this regard has been the McCain campaign – Sarah Palin in particular. Trailing in the polls, the McCain campaign has intensified criticism of Barack Obama’s acquaintance with ’60s radical Bill Ayers.

Speaking to a group of donors last week, Palin said, “our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

Just for the record: Obama is not a Muslim. He is not a terrorist. And if elected, he will not overthrow the United States government and enslave whites.

Political races are for winning. But even in times of great peril – especially in times of great peril – when economies are in turmoil and conflicts are brewing abroad, would-be leaders are not exempt from more professional standards of political behavior. The questions facing Americans demand thoughtful, direct, meaningful answers. Enough with the low-blows and inane pandering.

Debate and dissent must thrive in times like these. Abdicating one’s convictions with the hope of cultivating unity is not patriotism, but treason. And yet how can leaders and potential leaders replace passionate, civilized debate with base, divisive political assaults at such a critical hour?

Desperate times do not call for desperate measures.

Let us hope that it will not take a catastrophe of Sept. 11 magnitude to jar American leaders and politicians into civility, statesmanship and a supreme devotion to America’s interests.