By Isaac Yetiv, Ph.D.
LA JOLLA, California –On the Great Seal of the United States, on coins and currency,the motto “E pluribus, unum” has guided the nation since 1782. Its meaning, “Out of Many, One,” was intended by the Founders tocreate “a cohesive single nation.” Now, more than two centuries have elapsed , and the U.S. has changed enormously in size and demography.
The number of states rose gradually from the original thirteen to fifty, and the homogeneous white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant gave way to a conglomerate of races, religions ,cultures, languages and ethnicities.
In time of elections, the cement that holds the pieces together seems to be cracking at the seams. The dissensions and antagonism of the parts are exploited by unscrupulous politicians who see nothing else but their election or re-election. They thrive in “fishing in troubled waters,” inciting one group against another and sowing division and hatred among the people. The motto seems to have been inverted to “E unus, pluribum” (Out of one, many). That’s the “balkanization” of America.
This dangerous trend has never been so acute and toxic as in these 2012 presidential elections because the president himself plunged head first into the melee in what is patently a diminishing of the office of the presidency, better to be left to the party propaganda machine, the army of “strategists” and the political hacks
Here are a few disturbing examples of undue presidential interventions in matters of race, ethnicity, gender, and class.
Race: Remember the African-American Prof. Gates who had a misunderstanding with a policeman on a trivial matter that nobody should have heard of. It became a national cause celebre when the President unduly interfered by declaring that “the police acted stupidly,” even after admitting that he was not aware of the details. Later, he invited both disputants to have a beer with him, which made him appear as an honest broker and a peace maker.
The case of Trayvon was, of course, more serious because the young black man lost his life. Obama’s involvement was more personal ; “if I had a son…”, he said, “he [Trayvon] looks like my son…” It was a very inflammatory presidential pronouncement in a case that is still sub judice. Nobody should interject the inflammatory “race factor,” a fortiori not the President Great black leaders like Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King preached and fought for “a color-blind society,” which should be the slogan of a black president, and not its opposite.
Ethnicity: I wrote elsewhere about the president “amending” the immigration law by executive fiat, circumventing the Congress–which I, and many others, saw as a violation of the Constitution , and which will certainly reach the Supreme Court. The “amendment” exempts a certain category of illegal aliens, those who came to the US at a young age with their parents, from the threat of deportation and puts them on a path to citizenship. The idea may have some merit, but only the Congress may change the law.
In his frequent appearances before Hispanic crowds, Obama constantly incites them against his political opponents whom he accuses of hating Latinos simply because they oppose illegal immigration. Again, inflammatory, and false, accusations such as ” Your son will be arrested buying ice-cream…” [if he is suspected of being illegal.
Gender:The army of czars and advisers that populate the Obama re-election campaign are notorious for their creation of formulas and expressions to camouflage their real intent.Thomas Sowell called it “verbal virtuosity” to twist and distort, like the silly euphemisms of “overseas contingency operations” ( instead of “war on terror,” which is taboo in this administration), or “man-made disaster” (act of terrorism), or the unbelievable “workplace violence” for the “Fort Hood massacre,” that bloody terrorist act of Major Hassan who killed 13 soldiers and wounded 35 after he intoned the jihadist call of “Allahu Akbar” — he has not yet been judged and convicted after three and a half years !
Now, the Democratic political machine , and the servile media, trumpet day and night their new mantra , accusing their political opponents of waging a “war on women.” Really? How can anyone wage a “war on women” without harming his grandma, mother, wife, sister, daughter…? This is the dumbest accusation of the whole campaign, illustrated by some inane examples like the poor Miss Fluke who cynically wanted her pleasure of safe sex to be subsidized by others.
Class: The Obama administration has had two full years of absolute Democratic power, President, House,and Senate, and could have done for the “poor” whatever they wished. But poverty has increased; now one of six Americans is poor, in an economy with 23 million unemployed, more than 16 trillion of national debt with an annual deficit of more than 1 trillion. It is convenient, but dishonest, to blame the wealthy , the “one percent” as they call them, rather than Obama’s bad policies. And how hypocritical for a president to encourage the Occupy Wall Street riots by saying ” I understand your frustrations” as if he were not the one “in charge.”
History has shown that, in America, the poor do not begrudge the rich but want to emulate them and become rich themselves ,fulfilling, as so many have done, the American dream.
There is also a practical economic downside in “soaking the rich.” It reduces the capacity of job creation that helps the poor to escape poverty. With deafening noise and demagoguery Obama accuses the wealthy of not paying their “fair share.” Today, the top 5% pay 58% of the federal taxes, and 47% pay zero. Isn’t that fair enough? Even if the federal government confiscates all the income of those 1%, it won’t put a dent in the deficits and national debt. Growing the economy by freeing it, and reducing wasteful spending will.
When Obama was running for election in 2008, he spoke of “hope and change,” and promised to unite the people, “no red states and blue states, but Americans…” But because of the disappointing failure of his first term, he deplorably resorted to the opposite strategy of ” divide and conquer” to attempt re-election. By words and by deeds, in his ubiquitous public pronouncements and in his actions, he segregate dAmericans by color, national origin, sex, and income, thus fomenting envy, resentment, and hatred .
In his how-to book, Rules of Radicals, Obama’s mentor, Saul Alinsky , advised Leftist politicians seeking office “to rub the raw sores of discontent.” As his good disciple, Obama followed the prescription to the letter. This may help him politically or may prove to be counterproductive, but one thing is certain: it deepens the divisions among the American people at a time when more cohesion and unity are needed to face the common dangers menacing the Republic.
*
Yetiv is a freelance writer based in La Jolla, California. He may be contacted at isaac.yetiv@sdjewishworld.com