Barack Obama's Divided House

This is commentary about ancient (by which I mean two week old) news, but given that Obama-rama has been going since at least late 2006 and shows no signs of stopping anytime soon, I think it's commentary worth my time.

Back on February 10, Barack Obama announced his campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Press reports detailing his announcement made it sounds like his speech was delivered in a "can't we all get along?" style with promises Obama would unite the country, overcoming divisive politics.

Frankly, in my first viewing of it, I came away with that take too. I mean, he has gems like this in there:

In the face of a politics that's shut you out, that's told you to settle, that's divided us for too long, you believe we can be one people, reaching for what's possible, building that more perfect union.

But that take got me thinking about the fact he decided to invoke Lincoln's A House Divided speech in his own. Maybe public opinion thinks A House Divided is a speech Lincoln gave to try to unite the country, but that's flatly not the case.

Lincoln begins it saying "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and spells out the consequence of that truth: that the United States must inevitably become all-slave or all-free:

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

The only unity Lincoln speaks of in that speech is a unity that will be imposed. And although many media reports talked about "Abraham Lincoln's ability to unite a nation," Lincoln did no such thing. He impose the "no slavery" stance on the country, causing it to divide - not unite.

Looking closer though, I think Obama's speech actually is in the same style as Lincoln's — although it's a style of "unite; and by unite I mean impose my position."

Obama's speech is full of policy positions, but they aren't policy positions that fit the non-dividing politics he pays lip service to in his introduction. Rather his policy positions include:

• Universal Health Care ("Let's be the generation that says right here, right now, that we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president's first term.")
  
• Mandated Living Wage ("Every single person willing to work should be able to ... earn a living wage that can pay the bills, and afford child care so their kids have a safe place to go when they work.")
  
• Rapid Withdrawal from Iraq ("But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake ... That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008")
  
• More Restrictive Environmental Regulations ("We can set up a system for capping greenhouse gases.")
  
• Increased Political Clout for Unions ("let's allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country's middle class again")
  

Those positions might unite the Democratic party, but they aren't things the entirety ... or perhaps even a majority of Americans can get behind. They are, in fact, devicive positions.

Perhaps Obama could deliver a modern day A House Divided speech:

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half conservative and half progressive.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.