Open Letter to Dave Matthews

Dear Mr. Matthews,

In the Barack Obama endorsement letter you wrote to us, the loyal fans of the Dave Matthews Band, you asked: "Why is our country divided? Why has this division been growing?"

Mr. Matthews, I know that you're a smart man. Your intelligence is obvious and can be seen by way of your thoughtful lyrics and infectious music. Where your creativity and entertainment skills are concerned, you have my utmost admiration. However, the idea that we, as a country, are somehow more divided now than we have been in the past belies your intelligence, thoughtfulness and creativity. I wouldn't know, of course, what kind of people you interact with, but in all areas of my life and in the lives of those I observe, whether at work, among friends or acquaintances or neighbors, we all amicably and respectfully co-exist and work side-by-side, despite our many differences in opinions and myriad conflicting worldviews and persuasions. These people range from passionate liberals to hardcore conservatives, from unflinching socialists to diehard capitalists. There is no growing "division" as you've characterized it. Points of view differ between me and my friends, neighbors and colleagues, and although our ideas about how to solve the ills of society vary widely, but we still function together just fine. We may have disagreements and friendly debates, but this is not a "growing division." Nor are our opinions or ideas much different now than they were a decade ago. We are no more hostile or combative toward each other now than we were during former administrations. The notion that there is a "growing division" does not come from looking at our immediate experience, but rather from heeding what the media would have us believe.

While it's true that Washington D.C. is divided, that's really nothing new, is it? The phrase "across the aisle" was not just recently invented. The aisle is a "division" in Congress that has existed for centuries. History shows, and a quick Google search would corroborate, that division is the defining characteristic of politicians. It's not growing, except perhaps in decibel level, and that's only because it happens to be a presidential election year.

You write: "Can we not all agree that we are a country that supports its families, that protects its citizens and respects its neighbors? A country that educates its children? ..."

Mr. Matthews, I agree with you, and so do most people. But this has little to do with who is sitting in the Oval Office, and more to do with the attitudes of everyday people.

You write: "… Are we not a country that can lead by example, rather than by force?"

No, we can't. The reason is that the people who need to be led do not get to see our example. They are prevented from seeing or hearing anything except what their dictatorial governments and totalitarian rulers allow them to see or hear.

You write: "Is ours a government of the people, by the people, for the people?"

It used to be, but it's not any longer. Now it's a government of the judiciary, by the judiciary, and imposed upon the people, regardless of the will of the people. Consider the recent California ruling that allows gays to marry. Regardless of one's opinion of gay marriage, it should be a cause for concern to all "the people" that the judiciary in that state overruled the will of the people, who voted against it. That for which politicians cannot persuade the people to vote, they can fall back on the judiciary to impose.

You write: "I would like to think so. But I believe that corporate greed and its involvement in policymaking, along with political cronyism, have made it nearly impossible for the people to govern."

Corporations are made up of people. That's what "corporate" means. Everyone who has makes contributions to a 401k, a pension, an IRA or a mutual fund wants the companies they've invested in to do well. You call this corporate greed. I call this being optimistic about my retirement. Everyone who complains about corporate greed is actually complaining about their neighbors, friends and co-workers.

You write: "So, we fight amongst ourselves over the spin of political slogans and half truths. And so, we are divided. It is time for a change, and that is why I support Barack Obama for President."

I realize you wrote this a while ago, and that the things we now know about Obama were not known at that time. But if I understand politics and political loyalties, I'm guessing that the discoveries about Obama's radical socialism and disturbing associations, as well as the increase in verbal slips and distortions, will have done little to sway your opinion about him. But the fact is, he is just as guilty of spinning "political slogans and half truths" as any politician out there.

In summary, let me say two things. Thing One: Barack Obama is a politician. And as long as politicians run for president, there will be no change. The same is true of Clinton and McCain. Change has to come from the people, not the politicians. Thing Two: I love your music. But I don't love your politics. So far, you've been able to make music that does not alienate those of us who disagree with your politics. Is it too much to ask that you perform your music in the same spirit in which you wrote it? Please, Dave, for the sake of us who love your music enough to buy concert tickets in spite of your political views, please don't turn tomorrow night's concert into an Obama-For-President rally. If you do, you're going to make some of us feel very uncomfortable and awkward, and depending on how far you push it, we might end up not having a very good time, which would be counterproductive to the reason you perform, right?

Sincerely,
James