Despite the conventional wisdom among media commentators that Obama’s inaugural address wasn’t as inspirational as expected, I thought it was a great speech. Sure, it didn’t build up to a big emotional climax, but a good piece of oratory doesn’t necessarily need that. Unlike our former president, this man can form sentences that are not only complete and grammatical, but also that express intriguing and compelling ideas in an innovative way that makes us rethink the way we’ve thought something before. I love it.
The ideals and values that Obama expresses in this speech are ideals I want to consider my own, they are ideals that push towards the universal, ideals that inspire me:
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
What especially amazes me throughout the whole speech is Obama’s ability to skillfully link the universal with the particularly American. In the passage above, the God-given promise is phrased as a universal (“all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness”), yet it is also a particularly American concept: it is our nation’s enduring spirit, with phrasing echoing the Declaration of Independence. America’s values are humanity’s values; humanity’s values are America’s values.
But this connection is not just on a level of ideas and ideals: Obama’s America will be the enactor of those ideals to the world:
And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.
This sounds great on paper, but growing up with eight years of Bush has left me permanently skeptical of governments claiming to be acting on the basis of ideals. Obama makes clear, however, that his approach is not one of ideals for ideals sake but rather that “our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”
Yet we still must ask: is it possible in reality for the US to be a friend to everyone everywhere, assuming for the moment that they truly want to be? Could any nation do this, be an example and leader of universal ideals in the world? What about that nation’s particular interests? And what about differences in perception about who is and who is not seeking peace and dignity?
Obama’s answer to such questions is that the barriers that divide us are surmountable, and that it is America’s job to lead the world to that end:
And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
Although I desperately want to join Obama in believing that the old hatreds shall indeed someday pass, recent events have got me feeling that this is not very likely any time soon. Evidence for the extreme difficulty of shifting our allegiance from the interests of tribe to the interests of humanity can be found within Obama’s speech itself. Look at the sentence that refers to terror:
I commend Obama for trying to use the word terror in the “lower-case t” sense rather than the “upper-case T” senses of the word, since it offers the possibility of escaping Bush’s mastery of our language of threat. Yet that word still triggers all sorts of associations and it is clear exactly who he means.
But if we step back from the associations that the passage arouses in us, Obama has given us a pretty solid definition of terrorism: inducing terror and slaughtering innocents as a means to advance aims. Whether or not we leave behind the word terrorism, with all its vagueness and Bush-era associations, we can agree that what Obama describes is a bad thing.
Looking at the Gaza conflict, Hamas’s rockets are certainly killing of innocents as a means to advance aims, but what about Israel’s airstrikes that killed, wounded and displaced so many thousands? As a reference I’ll use a New York Times “news analysis” about the post-conflict outlook in Gaza, since it cannot be written off as a source that is sympathetic to Palestinians. (If you’re not convinced of that, look at the first paragraph of this article: it mentions only destroyed buildings and fails to mention any destroyed lives.) The article asks,
Have three weeks of overpowering war by Israel here weakened Hamas as Israel had hoped, or simply caused acute human suffering?
The author notes that Israel’s stated aim was deterrence of further Hamas rocket attacks, and it is certainly fair to ask whether this succeeded. Yet the question as stated above, contrasting “weakening Hamas” with “human suffering,” falsely represents Israel’s strategy as the author outlines it later in the article:
Hamas wants to keep ruling in Gaza, not return to its previous role as a pure resistance movement. Therefore, Israeli officials say, an offensive that caused average people to suffer put pressure on Hamas in real and specific ways.
In this telling of Israel’s reasoning, the human suffering is not an unfortunate side effect of the weakening of Hamas but rather it is the tool to weaken Hamas. While the author acknowledges that most Gazans will only feel more antagonism towards Israel in response to this, he is mildly optimistic that maybe this strategy was successful:
There are, however, limited indications that the people of Gaza felt such pain from this war that they will seek to rein in Hamas.
So this understanding of Israel’s strategy is that it is to make “average people” “suffer” and “feel pain” to such a degree that they will “put pressure on” and “seek to rein in Hamas.” Sound familiar? Obama’s phrasing, “advancing aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents,” seems to fit perfectly.
Yet we know, from Obama’s statements of support for Israel’s right to defend itself that he would not dare to categorize the actions of its army as terroristic. Rather, we hear the same refrain: they have a right to defend themselves; Hamas rockets against Israel are intolerable. Yes, but if we’re talking about rights to self-defense and innocent civilians, what about what just happened in Gaza?
Obama is now offering rhetoric about the conflict that is more sympathetic to the Palestinians than his predecessor, but still without offering a word of criticism for Israel. At his announcement of a Middle East Envoy a few days ago he said, “Just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians.” We can be relieved that he’s acknowledging deprivation on the Palestinian side, but why can’t bombs aimed at innocent Palestinians, be just as intolerable as rockets aimed at innocent Israelis? Why is that never mentioned?
The inconsistency in Obama’s rhetoric about the Gaza conflict is just one example of how hard it will be to realize his vision of America leading the world in acknowledging our common humanity. Invocation of universal values rings hollow when they are not applied universally – this is true in Obama’s speech and also true among partisans on either side of the conflict who trumpet human rights and the Geneva conventions, but only for the good guys (us) and not for the bad guys (them). The lines of tribe are still very strong indeed.
What Obama does so remarkably is to link the values of universal rights and goals with the values and history of America, a nation which is, in the end, another sort of tribe. In his speech he honored those who “traveled across oceans in search of a new life,” and those who “settled the West” – without mentioning those who were displaced and killed for these newcomers, our predecessors. I am not accusing Obama of simplifying or idealizing America’s often brutal history, for he would not be one to do that. Yet for all his calling upon universal values, he still speaks from a profoundly particular, local standpoint – a fact that is easy to notice with Gaza on the mind.
I have not, however, written off Obama as just a more glamorous and more convincing advocate for the same old US interests and policies in this region. I was very impressed by Obama’s comments during an interview on Al-Arabiyya today. He showed some real understanding and empathy for people in the Muslim world, making me more optimistic than I was when I started writing this post. I especially liked his comment that he would make sure to listen to everyone involved, not just dictate. And he said it best during the interview: “But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration’s actions.” We will have to wait and see whether Obama’s rhetoric about Israel and Palestine will ever catch up with his rhetoric about universal ideals, and whether any of all this talk will have results.
The reality of Obama’s term will probably be inconsistent, and it will be difficult to judge his words and actions. With Bush it was so easy to say, “Oh, he’s just stupid and he doesn’t care about anyone, let alone the rest of the world, so no wonder he is inconsistent.” Obama has made it much more complicated for those of us who are very impressed by so much of what he says, yet not willing to embrace him fully as the politician who can do no wrong.
أكتب تعليق