Speaking Truth
During the most recent presidential debate, I felt myself squirm. Homeboy Barack was saying some things that hit me the wrong way. Things that didn’t sound like him. Or maybe they didn’t sound like me? Who is this man, anyway? With accusations hurling left and right throughout the campaign, it’s no wonder there would be question. Who is Barack Obama? Socialist? Terrorist? Christian? Peacemaking? Muslim? Elitist? Intelligent? Experienced? Fatherly? Vague? Prophetic? Lying?
As many on this blog have acknowledged, both candidates have made statements to the effect of “[the U.S.] is the greatest nation on earth. We are a force of good in the world.” In fact, Barack said that very thing during the second debate. However, upon closer review of the transcript, I’ve discovered my impressions were far more dominated by such nationalistic rhetoric than Barack’s actual speech. Additionally, I found at least a couple contrasting statements, including the following:
“[T]the reason Pakistan — the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.”
Is that a reprimand, Barack? We were doing something not-good in the world?
This entire election season, I’ve sensed a similar tension present within Obama’s speeches. On the one hand, he critiques our country’s way of being. On the other hand, he must make nationalistic appeals to win the election. I question how much of what we hear is the real Obama vs. how much is what he feels–or has been told–he has to say. With very little evidence, my gut has always told me he doesn’t really buy it. Obama thinks a lot of what he says is bull. He’s too smart, too well-traveled, too naturally critical to actually believe the U.S. is superior to other nations.
Interestingly, this week, through a friend’s blog, I ran across an article that seemed to confirm my theory. Obama, apparently, is a big fan of Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), the Yale Divinity School graduate, pastor, and ethics professor at Union Theological Seminary. According to Robert Jewett (Mission and Menace: Four Centuries of American Religious Zeal), Niebuhr “overcame the perfectionist and millennial optimism of the pacifists of his day and showed that universal sin remains a reality,” “was critical of American crusading while supporting firm measures to stop the spread of communism in Europe and Asia,” protested Vietnam, and “remained an outspoken advocate of socialistic governmental policies and of civil rights for blacks and other disadvantaged minorities” (231-233). How did he combine this many sentiments? This drive for change with this understanding of sin? He was, as Jewett calls, a prophetic realist, avoiding both naive revolutions and bitter apathy.
Based my own analysis–and, probably, a lot of my fantasies–I think Barack is too humble and intelligent to mean a lot of what he says. And I hope that if he becomes president, the pressure to be such a “good American” would subside, allowing Barack to be the prophetic realist I believe he is, as well. The resonance of Niebuhr’s, and presumably Obama’s, views with my own understanding of a biblical worldview has played a significant role in my support of Barack’s candidacy. We are not a perfect people, and we have made many mistakes. But we are obligated to become better tomorrow than we were today. This is only something we can pursue, in the words of the Episcopal baptismal covenant, “with God’s help.”
Of course during his nationalistic moments, I still wonder if he’s sold out… Who do you think he is?
This entry was posted on October 15, 2008 at 8:44 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: Barack Obama, evangelical, Identity, Mission and Menace, nationalism, Politics, prophetic realism, Reinhold Niebuhr, religion, Robert Jewett
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
October 15, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Quote: “I think Barack is too humble and intelligent to mean a lot of what he says.” I have had the same hope when I have seen him in the debates and speeches. Surely, I think, you can’t really believe the ignorant crap that just came out of your mouth. I need to distrust some of his words to believe he will be the leader I hope he can be.
While I hope he is just saying some things because the discourse forces him to, I am sure many fear that he is faking it, thinking we can’t have a president who is not truly a patriot.
October 15, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“Too humble and too intelligent to mean what he says?” Shouldn’t intelligence and humility correlate with truthfulness? I suppose not, but you can’t assume his beliefs for him. He either believes what he says, or he’s playing the game. The problem is that the game never ends. Even if he gets elected, he will never have absolute power, absolute freedom to do what he “really” thinks or wants. he will always have to persuade and please and “get votes,” whether they be from the American public or from Congress or from the world. The job description of the politician is to gain allies for leverage. Does it matter who he is? It might matter more who we are forcing him to become.
October 15, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Interesting discussion. I agree – I doubt that Obama genuinely believes rhetoric along those lines. But, really, are we naive enough to suggest that any candidate genuinely believes such crowd pleasing speech? McCain, no doubt, has been “around the block” enough times that he cannot possibly think his remarks about our nation’s superiority are justified. I don’t know that Obama’s decision to “play the game” is so much a reflection upon his character as it is a reflection upon the challenges of the democratic process. A candidate who speaks the truth about our nation and refuses to use hyperbole will come across as bland, pessimistic, and “unpatriotic” when standing next to all the rest. The use of ingenuous speech is simply one of the inherent dangers of democracy. The bigger question, I think, that we must ask is: is that a price we are willing to pay? I ask the question not cynically, but genuinely. If we consider the alternatives to a democratic system, do we think its inherent failings are big enough to steer us elsewhere?
October 15, 2008 at 9:23 pm
This is an interesting post. On the one hand, Obama does seem to support some exciting and necessary changes that would (hopefully) make America better tomorrow than it is today. However, during his “nationalistic moments” as you say, he definitely seems to have sold out…
But then again, has he actually sold out, or does he really believe the things he says during these moments? If he means these things, that’s a problem. If he doesn’t mean them, then it’s also a problem that we want to vote for someone who will say whatever he feels he needs to in order to get what he wants. So either way there are warning flags.
October 16, 2008 at 4:50 am
Andre– I hope to goodness our hopes are right!
Fullerstudent– I don’t think intelligence, humility, and truthfulness always go together. Intelligence and humility say something about how Obama approaches things himself, not necessarily how he presents them to others.
I don’t know that this has to be a game that doesn’t end. On the one hand, it’s true that Obama may never get to fully live out his ideals in such a position–after all, politics requires compromise. Just as in the Senate he has voted on many a bill he hasn’t thought was perfect because he thought it was necessary, he will be unable to do everything he might once after taking office–or even feel he has the opportunity to try. But I don’t think that has to be considered a “game.” And in some ways, he may become somewhat more free to voice his true opinions–not all of them. But some.
Andrea- To me it’s less important what Obama says–and more important what he will try to get done. If he will try to achieve positive goals even while he says some negative things (from my perspective), that’s much better in my mind than saying he will do all kinds of wonders and then doing the opposite. I’d rather have him preaching a bit of crap and doing good than pretty good (and therefore being unelectable) or preaching and doing bad. What do you think?
October 22, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Perhaps I’m projecting own issues onto Barack, but I’ve always identified with him—in (most of) what he says, in the struggles he documented in Dreams from my Father, and the vision he proposes in The Audacity of Hope. Maybe it’s in the multicultural, multiethnic and international background of our upbringing that I find our similarities. Having grown up in Hong Kong, lived in England for eight years, and now in America, I’ve learned that the best way to build relationships with people is not as an ‘outsider.’ I’ve picked up the ability to fit in quickly, whether by adopting the language or the mannerisms; and I’ve seen how it’s more effective to meet people where they are. So, as an inane example, when I talk to my friends in England, I sound more English. I like to call it contextualization. (And I suppose many analogies regarding the gospel could be drawn.)
Anyway, I think Barack knows what he’s doing. I think he knows who he is and where he wants to lead the country. I think he’s ‘playing along’ a little bit, because it’ll get things done. (In fact, he’s mentioned a few times about how politics is a game.) For some people, this might be considered disingenuous, wishy-washy or politicking. But from my perspective as a third-culture kid, I think it’s a way of fitting in and trying to get things done from the inside.
Here’s an interesting article to go along with this.
October 23, 2008 at 1:58 am
Justin, I could definitely see that as the case. I was very impressed by the way he tried to explain the philosophy of his tax program to Joe the Plumber. It seemed he we actually saying things that for the U.S. were revolutionary but trying to frame them with talk of hard work, etc. and all the other language we would expect from an American political candidate. He seemed to be trying to frame things as much as possible in the conventional terms:
“The only thing that changes, is I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”
All of this, remember, is initially coming from a question about the American Dream. We may criticize Barack’s use of the phrase to begin with, but as I see it, his vision of the American Dream is a much different vision that what has traditionally been promoted. I don’t believe Barack actually believes in bootstraps–he knows some people don’t have them. But he’s willing to, yes, in some ways, essentially frame something that moves in the direction of Europe’s social democrats, in American Dream language to help it make sense to those that understand that vision of opportunity.
Some days I wish he’d say his stuff differently… but other days, like you, I can really admire his way of trying to work the system to make the change he believes is necessary.
October 23, 2008 at 1:59 am
Sorry, follow-up, typo-correcting comment:
“It seemed he we actually”–> “It seemed he was actually”
There are probably more, but that’s the only one I caught.