A house divided

“If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.” -Abraham Lincoln

While it seems that the press and many politicians are frustrated with the ongoing political vetting between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I enjoy watching these Democratic Party candidates vie for the most delegates. I have often wondered about the process of electing the president of the United states, including the selection process of the electoral college, the importance of the National Convention, and the seeming disparity that can occur between election and the amassing of the popular vote.

For my own part, I was eager for Hillary to enter the race a few years back, fascinated by the seeming meteoric rise of Barack Obama, and bewildered at my own inability to decide which was the candidate that best matched my own political convictions. The similarities and differences so confounded me that I literally found myself standing in front of the booth at the polling place thinking to myself, “oh yeah, I have to make a decision now.”

Others do not take such an open view of the situation. Many have viewed Senator Clinton’s determination as a type of weakness, that she should have given up long ago and bowed to the stream of primary wins by Senator Obama. Which is another fascinating occurrence in the process. What ever happened to “it ain’t over till it’s over,” or “until the fat lady sings” or “until the race is run”. There is nothing that says anyone has to quit until every voice has been heard, and that is the strength upon which our country is built. The house is not divided against itself because a party cannot come to terms with who is the best candidate, the house is divided against itself when one or the other of the candidates is denied their voice in the process. For, decisions made by a majority under any system that places majority's interests so far above a minority's interest that the minority is ultimately silenced is as to be comparable in cruelty to slavery of the minority.

It is interesting how polarized this country has become; the last few presidential elections in this country have been very close. Divided, if you will, narrowly along party lines. These divisions seem to run very deep, and yet it sickened me how, for example during the onset of the Iraq war, many supporting the Bush cabinet's position including Falwell and other neo-cons argued that, if you aren’t for the war, or rather, if you question the war... you aren’t for America. At the time, in 2003, polls showed the vast majority of Americans in favor of some sort of conflict with Iraq. Thus the sentiment “if you aren’t for the war, you aren’t for America” is nothing short of the tyranny of the majority. The notion of equality under the law was supposed to prevent majority tyranny, it is one of the founding principles upon which our constitution was based, and it is the reason why, despite any misgivings about the division of the Democratic camp, it is important that Hillary and Obama be given their chance, till the last vote has been counted and the last lady has sung.