competition, cooperation, and the prisoner's dilemna

There is a time for unity, and there is a time for conflict.

The time for unity is when you are trying to work together to achieve something.

The time for conflict is when you are trying to decide what to do. Conflict is appropriate whenever there are two or more things (ideas, candidates, lawnmowers) to choose between. This sort of appropriate conflict is usually called competition. (May the best lawnmower win.)

Obama's "unity" theme sounds great, and appeals to a real desire (a positive desire), because we all want to get out there and get things done. But it's got a hidden negative, because it appeals to us to unite to get something done - while skipping the step that involves everyone deciding what needs doing. We are presented with "electing Obama" as the thing that needs doing, as if we'd already decided. Linguistically and psychologically, Obama's campaign rhetoric has been suggesting there's something wrong with having an election before crowning the winner of that election.

To borrow from the game "prisoner's dilemna", you can see that the only time unity (cooperation) is appropriate is when both prisoners would win if they both cooperated.

When it's time to compete, what matters is not "unity" (that is, whether what Clinton says does or does not help achieve the "common goal" of seeing Obama win).

What matters is whether the playing field is set up according to the rules of the game.