Secession

I just read a vitriolic post on Steve Gilliard's blog essentially calling those who voted for Bush counter to their own interests stupid. He went on to describe a plan for giving them what they asked for by eliminating all federal taxes in favor of local taxes. This would, in his view, punish the largely rural states that Bush won and favor the states with large, liberal metropoles. The idea is that the return on federal taxes per capita is much smaller in blue states than red states, so eliminating federal taxes would hurt the red states more. He described this plan as secession.
Whether or not it is truly secession, it certainly shares one thing in common with that word--it is the opposite of unity. To quote Martin Luther King, Jr., "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." I believe that the solution is not promoting a new brand of hate to counteract existing brands of hate, but rather providing more opporutunities for love. People supported Bush either because they trusted him or people that they trusted trusted him. I do not believe it is hatred they responded to, but rather trust. I believe that if some liberal provided a community of support and love in a largely conservative area, he or she would earn that community's trust regardless of politics.
In that same post, Mr. Gilliard quotes a comment on another blog, dailykos, which gave examples of people who voted for Bush. One example included a woman who was struggling financially and, while not religious, turned to the local churches for some support. Those church communities offered her food and assistance in exchange for her attendance at Bible study. She diligently attended the meetings, and ultimately voted for Bush on values even though her financial problems could arguably be traced to Bush policies.
People want love and support, and when they get it, they overlook differences. Anyone who has ever fallen madly in love with the someone completely wrong for them knows this. We just watched Angels in America this weekend, and one of the main characters is a Mormon attorney named Joseph, devoted to Roy Cohn, a major player in the McCarthy hearings. Roy has done many things to advance Joseph's career, and Joseph adores Roy, overlooking the incredibly immoral behavior Roy has exhibited throughout his career.
So it is understandable that those who suffer and find solace in conservative circles will support those who promote conservative values. While I would not suggest that these conservative circles are seeking unity with their ideological rivals, they are seeking unity with their fellow Americans by reaching out to help them. Some might see this more cynically not as unity, but as bribing people to listen (like those vacation home marketing ploys). I see no problem with churches using their assistance as a opportunity for evangelism. I see this reaching out as recognition that we are all people with basic needs that should not go unfulfilled. Those needs include sustenance, shelter, and clothing, but also community.

Working For Unity

Working for unity has more to do with attitude than content. Of course, there will always be points of disagrement, even major ones. A husband and wife may face not just theoretical discussions about the legality of abortion, but an actual unwanted pregnancy and not agree about what to do. Presuming the couple does not want to divorce, they have to work toward
unity. Ultimately a decision will be made, whether they agree or not. Ideally they will both accept the consequences of that decision regardless of whether they were in favor of it originally. This is what I mean by attitude--recognizing differences but not letting them interfere with your efforts to find common ground.
Can you work for unity with people not interested in being united with you? I would say that's almost always the case because usually the greatest impediment to unity is the desire to achieve it. If two parties want unity, it will likely come easily.
Any two people will seem like opposites in isolation because there is no one else to compare to. By temporarily setting aside areas of disagreement and focussing on larger, arguably more important areas of agreement, you rebuild bonds long since forgotten.
I have often taken a cynical attitude toward the national unity people talk about after 9/11. I think there was definitely an element of militant nationalism afterward, but first there was a spirit of shared pain and a desire to help each other. That was a great moment in our history still fresh enough to return to given enough effort.
So enough theory, how do I take action? I would say the first step is to get outside your immediate community,your safe circle. I live in a city with a lot of like-minded people surrounded by rural areas who largely disagree with the city dwellers. It seems to me that volunteering for something you believe but outside of your safe circle creates great opportunities. I also plan to look in to starting a meetup for discussions across party lines.
The discussions may or may not be political, but they would be to see people with different points of view in a positive light.

What is national unity?

What does it mean to have unity or be unified? We certainly don't expect to agree on everything. Even expecting an increase in agreement on issues is unreasonable. In fact wide-spread agreement causes its own problems because it leads to complacency and shutting out new ideas.
So what is unity all about? In a marriage, people talk about presenting a unified front, which usually means hiding differences. I don't think this is the right model either.
National unity is about believing in your country's citizens and leaders, believing that despite differences in opinion, we are all looking out for the good of the country. It is about maintaining a perpetually open mind and an honest interest in what others think.
World leaders learned long ago that just because you don't agree on all issues does not mean you can't form treaties on others. Similarly, some values are often cited as American values, among them freedom. These are our common ground from which we can create unity.

Prayer for Unity, Prayer for President

While not everyone is religious, I believe that most people can benefit from prayer as a means of self expression and even fueling positive outcomes to problems. I have been very impressed with the presidential prayer team's non-sectarian, non-partisan messages. I believe this is potentially a good starting place for unity. I think all Americans want our president to act according to his or her moral compass, even if there is plenty of disagreement about which way the compass should point. Prayer is a personal act that can be practiced collectively. Even if the person sitting or standing or kneeling next to me is praying for something completely different than I am, praying together builds mutual trust and respect.

Welcome to the National Unity Blog

This is my first blog, but in the aftermath of a painful presidential election, I felt compelled to start something positive. This blog is about unity. It is not about policy, divisiveness, anger, hatred, Democrats or Republicans. I feel a lot of frustration right now, but I don't think those feelings are productive. In order to make this country work again, we as a society need to regain each other's trust. I don't know if we are as divided as this election has made it seem, but regardless, our first effort needs to be working together on something simple. If everyone could agree to smile for a moment as a cheesy example. Once we work together a bit, hopefully we'll discover each other's humanity and gain a little bit of trust. With that trust, we can have a guarded conversation about something of consequence, like the value of sharing. And only after we have had a number of positive-oriented conversations about our points of agreement should we venture into our more complex differences because without a foundation of trust and respect we'll never communicate. It's hard enough for me to trust my wife when we're in an argument, and I know she loves me. The chances of me trusting a stranger in an argument is much more remote.