I think we have to consider what "unity" means.

In the most foundational sense, unity exists whether we want it to or not. Our fortunes are tied together. We all impact each other. That form of unity carries risks, benefits, and, mostly, responsibilities. /1

The trouble with calling for "unity" after you, say, abused a procedure to jeopardize and break trust and invite violence in the foundation of representative government, is that it sounds like a shield, not a shared responsibility. /2
It sounds like "we are all one, so there can be no critique of each other." But then saying, "and actually THOSE PEOPLE are the REAL problem" which turns it into "we are all one, but I am the best, so there can be no critique of me." /3
Living into our unity means that we absolutely have to look at each other sometimes and say "you are sorely wrong about this, and you must accept responsibility for your wrongness for the sake of all of us." /4
That does not equal "you should no longer exist and we hate you forever." If you are a United States Senator (for example) and you translate "there must be accountability" to "I've been banished along with 70+ million others," you're being immature and purposely disingenuous. /5
Unity means "I love you as fellow human being, but you cannot be a United States Senator anymore, and you cannot have a show on cable news. We need you to learn a new, quiet skill, and we need you to quietly reflect on how you have impacted the whole." /6
And that call for accountability and reflection does not have to come from a place of perfection in order to be legitimate. Unity means that we sit here together as equals, and we look to our behaviors as guides for when someone needs to lead and sometimes else needs to follow./7
Unity often means "get your own people" for the sake of the whole. I read a beautiful piece about how birds in a murmuration pay attention just 7 other birds. This is how the whole works--by care in parts. https://t.co/z78xZGuIcN /8
So if Republicans in leadership want unity in a meaningful way right now, I suggest looking inward--finding their seven relationships and figuring out what responsibility to the whole means right now. /End -b

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like