Seven year itch

“The Seven year itch” was the name of a play, produced in 1952, discussing the idea that men become unfaithful after seven years of marriage. However, before that, the “seven-year itch,” based on an
irritating skin condition, was used to describe any situation that was annoying and prolonged — “worse than a seven-year-itch.”

Today is the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on our country. It would be great if I could say that, in the ensuing years, our country has been united like never before. I could speak of the “seven
year itch,” wondering if, seven years later, people might be complacent and, like the characters in the 1952 play, would consider a “divorce” from each other. Would we figure that, without another terror
attack, we just didn’t need to work together for the common good anymore?

But of course, the country never really did “come together” after the 9/11 attacks. Sure, for a couple of weeks while we were in shock, the nation lived a common catharsis. Maybe we were mostly united
when we decided somebody had to pay, and launched our assault on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

But the cracks in our “unity” were showing well before the first shot, and by the end of 2001 we were well on our way to going back to our partisan selves. Iraq just cemented our divisions.

What about the idea that the last seven years since 9/11 have been a prolonged annoyance? We had to launch one major war. We added a second war that many think was less necessary. The
economic impacts were painful. The war on terror strained our foreign relationships, and the world became a much less settled place to live. And I can’t imagine any but the most partisan have taken joy
in our politics.

In either case, who could blame voters looking for change? Why not try to find a candidate who might break through the rank partisanship that has infected our politics and seeped into our daily lives? Or
why not find a candidate who will change the direction of the country, and cure the “itch” from the past seven years?

In the first case, you might well choose John McCain and Sarah Palin. Both have a solid record of “post-partisanship.” McCain is known as the “Maverick” for his willingness to reach across the aisle.
Palin earned a reputation in Alaska for going after corruption even in her own political party.

While Obama speaks of coming together, his record is solidly liberal, voting in lockstep with the Democratic leadership. His pick of Biden cements his ticket as purely partisan. Neither Obama nor Biden
shows any inclination to stand up to their own party or reach across the aisle to Republicans. The left doesn’t support Obama because he reaches out to Republicans — but because they seem him
opposed to everything the Republicans do.

And if you think the last seven years have been like an itch that no amount of scratching can satisfy, Obama could look appealing. He has at times spoken eloquently about his opposition to everything
Bush has done. Even where Bush has succeeded, as with the surge in Iraq, Obama still would vote against him. McCain wasn’t a lock-step conservative, but there is no doubt that, on many of the Bush
accomplishments, McCain was on his side while Obama stood opposed.

The problem is that neither of these “itch” analogies defines a rational approach to choosing our next president. Unity for the sake of unity is useless (for all McCain’s “bipartisanship” his opponents now
attack him as if he is the second coming of the great Satan Bush). And change for the sake of change can be disastrous (just look at how our economy has tanked since 2006).

The next president’s job will not be to “change everything” or to “unify the country.” There are wars to be won, foes to be stared down and crises to be averted. Whoever is president will change things —
but hopefully to solve problems, not just to be different.

Meanwhile, some unity may come, but only if we stop demonizing each other — and the president cannot do that for us. Obama is not evil and McCain is not the devil. But for too many people, that’s
what this campaign is about. Maybe next time will be different. Hopefully it won’t take another 9/11 before we can recognize the real enemies.

Charles Reichley has been a Prince William County resident since 1981. He can be reached at critically thinking@msn.com.