Obama’s Attempt Sound Memorial-Day-ish
May 27th, 2008 by Micah Tillman | 7 Comments |
It’s a decent attempt — but he has the same air as those who’ve given up on their (”naive”/”antiquated”) notions of biblical inerrancy have when they try to talk stirringly about stories they now consider (false, but noble or helpful) myths.
Some quotations:
This sense of service is what America is all about. It is what leads Americans to enter the military. It is what sustains them in the most difficult hours. And it is the safeguard of our security.
Really? Service is what America is all about? Charity is about service. Religion might be about service. But a country?
(Also, isn’t there a fun little logical problem here? America “is about” “service.” Which seems to imply that being American means serving. But serving doesn’t make you American, otherwise Jeeves would have been America.
(So it must be serving America that makes you American. But how did the first Americans become Americans, then? Without Americans, there is no America. But without serving America, you can’t be American.
(But I think I’m missing something, so enough of my being silly.)
Obama continues:
Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked that “To fight out a war, you must believe something and want something with all your might.” The Americans we honor today believed. Sergeant Ryan Jopek believed. Ryan was just weeks away from coming home when he volunteered for a mission to Mosul from which he would never return.
Ironic. Obama doesn’t believe in the mission (e.g., “we waged a war that didn’t need to be fought,” “it’s time to turn the page on a failed ideology and a fundamentally flawed political strategy”). He’s said he’d change it.
But those Bible stories are so important because so many people “believe” in them. Wait. Did I say “Bible stories”? I meant “the War Against Terror in Iraq.”
It is a living reminder of our obligation as Americans to serve Ryan as well as he served us; as well as the wounded warriors I’ve had the honor of meeting at Walter Reed have served us; as well as the soldiers at Fort Bliss and the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world are serving us.
How have troops fighting in a war in Iraq that’s only made things worse and “less safe” “served us”? This is the same Barack Obama who said:
And where are we for all of this sacrifice? We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained. The threats of a new century have roiled the waters of peace and stability, and yet America remains anchored in Iraq.
He goes on yesterday:
But it [i.e., serving American troops] also means something more. It means understanding that what Ryan and so many Americans fought and died for is not a place on a map or a certain kind of people. What they sacrificed for - what they gave all for - is a larger idea - the idea that a nation can be governed by laws, not men; that we can be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we can be free to say what we want, write what we want, and worship as we please; that we can have the right to pursue our own dreams, but the obligation to help our fellow Americans pursue theirs.
And there you have a good example of progressive patriotism (see my articles here and here). Instead of becoming nihilists about the value of America, progressives tend to locate the value of America in its potential, rather than its actuality. Here Obama uses the word “idea.”
Also notice once again the (potential?) confusion of country and charity/religion in Obama’s inclusion of an “obligation to help our fellow Americans pursue [their dreams]” in the “idea” of America. Interesting.
Obama continues:
So on this day, of all days, let’s memorialize our fallen heroes by honoring all who wear our country’s uniform; and by completing their work to make America more secure and our world more free.
Wait. Is this the same Obama who said . . .
And where are we for all of this sacrifice? We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained. The threats of a new century have roiled the waters of peace and stability, and yet America remains anchored in Iraq.
. . . ?
It is. So how can we “complet[e] their [e.g., the soldiers' in Iraq] work to make America more secure and our world more free?” I smell a contradiction.
Then Obama comes right out with the progressive view of patriotism:
But let’s also do our part - service-member and civilian alike - to live up to the idea that so many of our fellow citizens have consecrated - the idea of America. That is the essence of patriotism.
And it’s a good view, I think. A chastened view (”We no longer believe in the myths of old, or rather, we do, but only as myths,”) but still positive.
That is the lesson of this solemn day. And that is the task that lies ahead.
Perhaps so.
Again, other than contradicting himself and sounding like the guy who has to give the Christmas or Easter sermon even though he doesn’t think either happened the way the Gospels say they did, Obama’s Memorial Day speech was pretty good.
_______________________
UPDATED to clarify the sense in which I meant “naive.” It was meant to be a quotation, not a position-taking on my part.
Interesting, indeed.
I think probably all politicians (and I guess people in general for that matter!) do stuff like this, but it’s still annoying when it’s so blatant. I would hope most people would see right through this. :D
I think you’re right about it being typical of politicians in general. And I can appreciate (if that’s the right word) a well-done propaganda campaign when I think the goal thereof is noble (kind of like everyone loves The Sting, even though it’s about con-men).
But it’s still confusing and annoying. On one hand I’m happy that Obama’s trying to respect the troops; but on the other hand I’m saddened (and even offended, for some reason) that he has to treat them like children (who still believe in Santa Claus) to do so.
but on the other hand I’m saddened (and even offended, for some reason) that he has to treat them like children (who still believe in Santa Claus) to do so.
Yeah, I think that’s what was bothering me about it. Because I’ve lost family members in active combat, his sort of fake “yea to the troops” rhetoric seems callous and uncaring.
Anyhoooooo. :)
Can I beg to differ in here?
I’d like to establish a general point or category, which I think Obama fits into.
I think we’d all agree that
#1) A functional military is a requirement of a modern nation state.
Most of would probably agree:
#2) A military wouldn’t be functional if its members got to debate the pros and cons of entering into a war.
In some sense, a solider when he’s behaving as solider has to sign up to go to on the mission regardless of how foolish or ill advised the mission itself is. It’s a bit like the willing suspension of disbelief that a reader undergoes when he begins a book.
Of course, the troops will have opinions. But part of their act of heroism is to recognize that there individual and personal opinion is not particularly important.
Presumably, a person would only join the military if they believed in the over-all decision making capacity that will determine whether or not we have to go to war. There would be hope for a robus dialogue, checks and balances, people who would talk sense when others are talking nonsense.
I guess my point is that it’s an act of patriotism to join the armed forces. In a democracy, it’s an act of patriotism to speak out against a war that is unjust… Partiuclarly if one is in an elected position where the voice is inherently powerful.
My first conclusion is this:
A) It’s an act of patriotism not condescension to both praise the troops and criticize the war.
My second conclusion is this:
A comparison between whether biblical accounts actually occured and whether or not a war is a just war is not a very accurate comparison.
The Question “Should we be in Iraq?” is quite a different question than whether or not Noah was a real human being who was actually born. There is definitely either a right or wrong answer to the question of Noah. Presumably, if we all had access to enough pertinent evidence, we would all come to an agreement around whether or not the Noah stores are mythic or literal.
I’m not sure that the same could be said for the question of Iraq. For us to disagree about this question, then, is I think, quite a different disagreement. It’s no more condescending for me to say we shouldn’t be there than it is for you to say we should be there.
No. No you can’t.
Not if you’re one of my pacifist progressive Christian friends. They also tend to not be very big fans of the modern nation state.
I personally think that any society depends on physical force, though, so I’ll grant you the point.
Yep. And yet such “resisters” are celebrated by some progressives (e.g., here, here, here).
Cf. what I said in a recent post about loyalty and duty.
Indeed. And it’s Obama’s celebrating soldiers for believing in missions he himself believes to be foolish and ill-advised that is what I find bothersome.
Even in matters of right and wrong, life and death? Isn’t that why we have consciences?
If you’re doing it out of love for your country (philopatria) or pride in your country (doksopatria), then we agree.
If you’re doing it out of love for your country (philopatria) or pride in your country (doksopatria), then we agree.
Not if, as Obama does, you praise them for doing what you think is foolish: believing that the war is worth fighting.
The issue is leaving behind the childish naivety of your youth, in which you believe that the Bible is always right/America is always right. Obama has “grown up” and realized that you can’t always believe in the stories that The Man feeds you over why you should fight a war, or why “your country” has fought the wars “it” has fought. Many Christians have “grown up” and realized that you can’t always believe the stories you were told in Sunday School.
Those whom Obama refers to as believing haven’t grown up yet; they still buy the Myth of American Exceptionalism. Just like those who still believe the Bible stories they were told in their youth, or still believe in Santa Claus despite what they’ve learned about “how things are/work.”
The issue in both cases is whether you buy a myth which was sold to you in youth (or in a youthful state of mind).
[...] randomly picked a link on your blogroll and found this. (Incidentally, the link in your blogroll needs to be updated.) Take a look at his item titled [...]
[...] Micah Tillman » Blog Archive » Obama’s Attempt Sound M.. [...]