James Fallows' new coverstory for The Atlantic is a must-read:
The second, related argument is that Obama’s passive, even withdrawn-seeming stance as “the only adult in the room” has positioned him better for reelection—and thus for his best chance to lock in the gains he has made—than a more directly combative approach would have. Not until Obama writes his post-presidential sequel to Dreams From My Father, and perhaps not even then, will we know all the sources of his seeming horror of partisan conflict. His above-the-fray pose was certainly the key to his rise in the first place. I was in the arena in Boston when he declared in his 2004 convention speech, “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.” The house erupted in cheers, and America’s first black president could not have gone on to win had he struck a more strident or divisive tone.While it's undeniably difficult not to be charmed beyond reason by Obama's sonorous rhetoric on the topic, I've never found the idea of 'unification' to be compelling. While it might sound perfectly charming in theory, there's more than an undertone of oxymoron to the whole shtick. Conflict is intrinsic to human history, and to human development, yet anyone who speaks of unity is almost certain to invite rapturous applause at its mere mention. This is particularly true of a pre-presidential senator who has not yet had to deal with the strains of trying to have it both ways, or keeping two sets of books. People talk of the so-called politics of division. Well, yes of course, dear: politics is divisive by definition.
(Video: "Fallows talks to Atlantic Senior Editor Corby Kummer (who edited this story) about Obama’s chances for reelection and why he might actually have something to learn from George W. Bush." Via The Altantic.)