Some thoughts on words

In one of the many pseudo controversies of this exciting primary season, Barack Obama was criticized for borrowing words to defend his use of words that were argued to be just that: words. In his speech, borrowing from Governor Deval Patrick, Obama referenced a few influential grouping of words: those spoken by Martin Luther King Jr., those inscribed in our Declaration of Independence, and those offering hope to Americans in the wake of the Great Depression. What is tellingly lacking in Obama's appropriation is an additional phrase, coined in JFK's inaugural address: "Ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country." Patrick relied on this in his response to accusations of him providing words without substance. Obama did not. And I think this to be indicative of a subtle shift in the trajectory of contemporary American liberalism.

Contrast JFK's inaugural address to a typical refrain in a recent Obama speech: "I believe it's time for Washington to work for your hopes, for your dreams." JFK's speech was a call to arms from an avowed Cold Warrior to a public that was not so evidently committed to the perceived requirements of America's clash with international Communism. It called for the people to "pay any price," to "bear any burden," in order to contain and combat the spread of Communism throughout the globe. What became clear through the course of the decade was the lack of unanimous support for such sacrifice. One might argue that a great deal of Americans were more interested in their own hopes, their own dreams. If the rise of the 1960's counter culture tells us anything, it is that the quest for self-fulfillment often took priority over the call for national solidarity. While intellectuals and politicians from William F. Buckley Jr. to Ronald Reagan capitalized on this rupture in American consciousness to usher in the rise of modern conservatism, Obama's platform is indicative of liberalism striving towards the rational conclusion of the premises implicit in the counter culture. By their lights, it would seem that the role of government is to provide an environment amenable to individualism and private self-realization rather than to promote communalism and public solidarity.

It might be argued that Obama's popularity results from his ability to speak the the collective narcissism of our age. That a generation crying "Me, me, me!" responds well to a politician so disposed. And this might be right. But I'm not convinced that this is the most significant conclusion to be drawn. If one looks at the policies of a government committed to granting individual liberty, then one finds a break from a country's monarchical colonial government; the emancipation of slaves; the slow process of extending the borders of citizenship regardless of sex and race. To be sure, these efforts were not without flaws--the Revolutionary War granted freedom only to landed white men; emancipation was followed by Jim Crow; the expansion of citizenship is not without its exclusions--but it is clear that we are a better place because of these developments, and it is not clear that we would be as well-off if the government had not been proactive in extending the benefits of liberty to more and more people. Furthermore, I have trouble imagining a plausible alternative.

The current understanding of a nation tends to focus on what Benedict Anderson calls an "imagined community," a collective imaginary of bonds that tie different people from different places into a singular whole. The problem in imposing such a conception of a nation on the United States is the conflicting narratives that construct individuals' sense of national identity. Over the centuries and across the land no essential element exists to found an immutable, immortal sense of national identity. But we do have some evidence that an environment amenable to individual flourishing so long as it does not impinge on that of another tends towards more peaceful and tolerant societies. Is this individualistic? Is this narcissistic? Perhaps, but perhaps it is also pragmatic. Perhaps we must ask our country to do for us so that we may do for it. All of this is to beg the bigger question: Which candidate is likely to move towards what I take to be the desirable end? That, I suppose, is for each of us to decide.

[Editor's note: The above political commentary is admittedly idealistic and perhaps leaning towards utopian, but it's the best this humble author can muster before noon on Memorial Day. Do read with a charitable heart.]