The single most abused, misused and misused word in American politics is “unity.”
All presidential candidates vow to unite America. Almost every expert and public intellectual complains about the lack of unity.
“When it comes to the United States, America is unstoppable,” Donald Trump said in his inaugural address. “With unity, we can do great things. That’s what matters,” Joe Biden said. Kamala Harris stated in her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention that “in unity, there is strength.”
This statement becomes the first problem with the cult of unity: It is an attraction. There is strength in unity, of course, but strength is an entirely amoral concept. Power to do what?
Lynch’s mobs are united, that’s why they’re scary. Namesake of fascism, the facesthere is a bundle of rods representing the idea of strength in numbers.
I’m not saying unity is necessarily bad, but its goodness depends entirely on what to do with it. If politicians regularly use the term “strength” instead of “unity”, more people will understand that skepticism is warranted when politicians claim or claim their agenda.
Second, our fascination with unity goes against the grain of the Constitution. The president often talks as if he is going to be the prime minister in a parliamentary system. He promised to do things on “Day One” of his administration that the president himself could not do in our system.
Trump oath became a “dictator” on Day One of the second administration (with a special focus on immigration and oil drilling). In 2019, Harris promise if elected president, he would repeal Trump’s tax cuts on “Day One.” Presidents can issue (often hesitant) executive orders on Sunday, but they cannot pass or repeal laws. That is the job of Congress.
And Congress was not elected to obey the president’s orders. The cockamamie idea of a presidential election mandate is irrelevant. Legislators are accountable to their own voters and constituents.
If Trump wins the election, Democrats will no longer feel obligated to implement his agenda. And if Harris wins, Republicans won’t reflexively suspend him. The president can tell his senators or representatives, “Look, I was elected to do X” all he likes, but at least someone can say, “Yes, and I was elected to stop you.”
This is a constitutional feature, not a bug. My American Enterprise Institute colleague Yuval Levin underscored this point in “American Covenant,” the best book on the Constitution I have ever read. The Constitution was designed to foster political competition — between the executive and legislative branches, between and within the states, and between the federal and state governments. The separation of powers, the structure of Congress and elections are constantly aimed at creating conflict and tension — “productive tension,” says Levin.
This competition is supposed to produce better and democratic policies that are legitimate through votes disagree. The purpose of the Constitution is disagreement, not superficial agreement forced by populist appeals for unity.
The most beneficial form of unity is consensus reached through fierce but good arguments. The only other form of unity to be expected or demanded from America is fidelity to the rules of the Constitution as to how the arguments are conducted and how officials use the powers given to them. No president can be a dictator at any time as long as the Constitution remains in force.
I dislike the asininity and polarizing demagoguery it produces as much as anyone. But the problem is not disagreement so much as the inability to disagree more. Indeed, much of the cause of our acid divisions is the partisan desire to oust political opponents with unity and power that the Constitution does not provide.
The frequent claim by politicians that “the time for debate is over” is the undemocratic insistence that “my critics should shut up and join my program.” Sometimes the critic also advises to keep quiet, but only if he has lost the argument. And even then, our system protects dissent because the founders recognize that free speech is indispensable for a free society and that the majority sometimes gets it wrong.
When that happens, those who disagree should be able to say, “We told you so.” I hope to live long enough to say that when we return to the system of productive political dissent that exists in the Constitution.
