Still More Barone: Why the Debates Are "Divisive"

Once again we draw our gentle readers' attention to the latest column from political almanacker Michael Barone, nearly our only source of current-events commentary lately.

Even Barone is largely repeating himself in this entry, noting that the much-heralded demise of Bush and the Rs is not taking shape. But we link this one to point out this key bit of analysis:

Senate and House Republicans last week staged debates over whether to pull out of Iraq now or stay on. Democrats complained that these were meaningless debates aimed (as they said the debates on the constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages were) at dividing voters. But on these issues it is the Democrats -- their officeholders and their voters -- who are divided, while the Republicans, with a few exceptions, are all on one side.

We will take that marvelously significant point a couple of steps further:

• Insofar as Ds are united on such issues, they are united against the majority of opinion among the electorate. Yet they cannot abandon their positions, as those who bankroll their campaigns care only about these issues. What Ds resent is the public exposure that these debates bring to their unpopular positions.
• More widely, and more obviously, it's absurd to complain that a "debate" is "divisive." The very point of holding a debate is to decide a point on which people are divided. The effect of the Ds "don't ask, don't tell" stance on all "divisive" issues is to leave the republic in a dysfunctional condition of never acknowledging any differences of opinion in the body politic. And since there need be no debate on points of agreement, what the Ds call for is really the end of political discourse altogether.
• The Ds might insist that they declare debates on such issues "divisive" because such debates do not at present lead to the passing of legislation on these issues. Hence, they are just for political "show." But the rejoinder is clear enough: political "show" is important. Voters need to know exactly where each party stands so that they can elect legislators who will resolve these issues as the voters want. Lincoln and Douglas staged debates, not a show of national unity. This, of course, is what the Ds fear: that in November they will be electorally defeated into an even smaller minority because voters want something other than their positions on these "divisive" issues.

But don't worry, gentle readers. Even if the Ds prevail in their quixotic quest to silence all who dispute their unpopular, ill-informed and illogical positions, this blogger will remain on duty. At least as long as Michael Barone keeps writing columns that are Seldom Wrong.