The Problem with "Strength" & "Unity" as Values

Yesterday U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood (Dem, IL-14)  tweeted:


The idea that what USians need is political "unity" is a hustle. It's simply untrue, a lie. And "strength" is a problematic value for Democrats to espouse too.


Politics is supposed to be a debate of ideas. And when one wins the debate, one uses the power of government to implement the ideas, over the opposition of the losing side.

Democrats aspiring to "unity" are simply full of shit. U.S. society is quite divisive and always has been. And the divisiveness in the United States has connections to divisiveness in the West and in societies around the world.

"Unity" is code for a comfortable middle where liberals can implement their hustle of getting paid by the oppressors and getting voted in by the oppressed.

Rather than "unity", politicians and elected officials should be offering theories about how to use the power of government to improve people's lives. Pouring tens of millions of dollars into a Right-leaning Democratic Party establishment professional propagandist with roots in the #NationalSecurityState who has never won an election ain't it.

As for "strength", people in U.S. political discourse default to "strength" being the ability to oppress. (There are other ways to use the word "strength" but there needs to be context to support those usages.)

Underwood sees Ossoff as strong because he's been part of Congress secretly scheming how to use the power of the National Security State and he's helped produce propaganda that supports continuing to use U.S. power against Muslims in Iraq and the region. I haven't seen Ossoff's work, but I would be shocked if it wasn't heavy on Islamophobia. 

Ossoff is the candidate of establishment Democrats who want to move the party to the Right. Underwood endorsed Ossoff early because her base is the same faction of the party.



Carl Nyberg, blogger/columnist