Alexandra Petri take note
.jpg){kind=link}
The Ink this morning one-ups Washington Post satirist Alexandra Petri in reflecting on the “Unity Statement.” You know the ones, the pro forma statements Democratic politicians make in response to mass shootings or, in today’s news, an attempted assassination. Certain stylistic conventions must be followed:
First, the statement maker’s spouse’s name should be included prominently somewhere: “Becky and I were sad to hear…” “Corey and I were deeply shaken by the news…” “Charlie and I join together…” The inclusion of the spouse is important here because it signals that this is a special kind of statement. More Christmas card vibes than political statement vibes. The normal rules are suspended. There will be no jabs here, no stridency, maybe not even any truth.
Second, the Unity Statement must deplore effects without naming or shaming their causes. Now is not the time for blaming someone for their role in contributing to what has finally now come around to imperil them, too. The Unity Statement thereby defies physics with its conception of uncaused effects; it defies botany in its vision of reaping with no connection whatever to sowing.
Third, a Democratic Unity Statement must mention temperature. Specifically, it should suggest that the temperature has risen too high. Though it may be Republicans who are overwhelmingly responsible for raising the temperature, planetarily and politically, in a respectable Unity Statement, this cannot be said. Instead, it should be argued that the temperature be lowered. Who knows how it got raised, and who really cares? And the Democratic statement maker must immediately volunteer to participate in the lowering of what they may have had no part in raising.
Fourth, the Unity Statement must, duh!, call for unity. Oh, and it must be unilateral unity. “Unity,” unmodified, is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the quality or state of not being multiple,” even “a condition of harmony.” The issuer of the Unity Statement knows that this ain’t gonna happen nationally. What the well-meaning Democratic leader means when they call for unity is that they want you, their followers, the people who would actually listen to a Democrat’s words, to engage in some unity making all by yourself. Reach out to an uncle you cut out of your life just because he made the honest mistake of degrading your very being at Thanksgiving; bake brownies for a neighbor whose only sin is flying a Trump flag — plus the Aryan Nations tattoos. Go do some unity — and don’t wait for anyone else to join you. Dance like no one’s watching, they say. Do unity like the other side isn’t ever going to do it also.
Is it any wonder the public perceives Democrats as measly-mouthed while the bomb-throwers are seen as strong leaders? And how does the unity statement reinforce that?
For one, because these events, as a Kamala Harris meme reflects, have context, context which Unity Statements elide. They offer a salve without relieving ongoing injury. They soothe symptoms without addressing root causes.
It is possible to believe that shooting leaders we don’t like is absolutely, incontrovertibly out of bounds and — and — that this event has a history and a context. It didn’t just fall out of a coconut tree. It is possible to wish a man a speedy recovery and to insist on the urgency of doing every peaceful thing humanly possible to prevent him from driving the country even further down this road to where what happened to him — even though it never should have — becomes unexceptional.
Newton realized that apples don’t fall to Earth by themselves. Actions have causes.