The temperature was subzero and bitter this morning when I went to work, but it eased gradually through the day. Didn’t get as warm as the forecast promised, but tomorrow is supposed to be in the teens, and we may actually see a little melt over the weekend.

This is the point where we say to ourselves, “Maybe this will be the last hard siege of the winter. Maybe it’ll be uphill from here.”

This is pure self-delusion, but self-delusion is one of the coping devices that permit us to live in this part of the country.



Today’s subject: “Bringing us all together.” One of the presidential candidates (let’s call him, oh, Baback Orama) made a speech about wanting to bring all Americans together. Dennis Prager pounced on it and has been jumping on it off and on ever since. I thought I’d comment too, because it’s a general subject I’ve been thinking about for a long time.

I first started noticing this, if I remember correctly, while watching how the news media reported on religion. Every time a liberal was elected to the leadership of a denomination, it was treated as a straight story. “Dr. Bozo, a world-renowned expert on Syro-Phoenician gerunds, has a disarming sense of humor, plays the harmonium, and is well-liked both by supporters and opponents.” That sort of thing.

But if a conservative got elected, suddenly there were dark portents in the sun and moon, and the whirr of black helicopters was heard in the land. “Dr. Stodgy is described by many as distant and hard to deal with. His abrasive manner has alienated many in his church, and there is concern that his election will further divide the troubled denomination. Dr. Yaelou Rosa-Texas, professor of Obscure Feminist Proof-Texts at Cemetery Seminary, told reporters, “A dangerous cabal of reactionaries has seized control of our church, and is attempting to drag us back into the Twelfth Century.”

I noticed it also when I was working within the structure of The Very Large Lutheran Church Body Which Shall Remain Nameless. As a conservative, I was always facing the accusation that I and my friends were trying to “bring division to the church.” The people who wanted us to embrace universalism and homosexual ordination for the first time in the church’s history weren’t causing division, you see. No, it was we who were trying to preserve the church’s confessions and traditions who were divisive.

It was kind of like Gen. Custer saying, “You know, the west would be a nice, quiet place if these Indians hadn’t moved in and started making trouble.”

But for the Left, such questions aren’t asked. Their positions (and they truly believe this) are by definition forces for unity, no matter how much they may offend and repel any number of people. And conservative positions are divisive, even if 90% of the people agree with them.

So how does this unity that the candidate wants work? Does he mean he’s willing to compromise on gay marriage, for instance, if we’ll compromise on abortion?

Somehow I don’t think so.

In my experience, everybody who calls for unity, when you actually analyze his position, turns out to be actually calling for everybody to agree on his position.

There’s a line from one of Benny Hill’s old Fred Scuttle routines. Fred talks about some product (I forget what) that he’s offering for sale “at popular prices.”

Henry McGee asks him the price. When Fred quotes something exorbitant, Henry says, “I wouldn’t call that a popular price.”

“I like it,” says Fred.