The fourth night of the Democratic national convention was a profoundly historic day for the United States. But as one of the two major political parties officially nominated an African-American to be its presidential candidate, on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial, hardly a word was said to acknowledge it. Here, there or anywhere it seemed.
In fact, a political novice may never have realized the historical significance of the week simply from watching the major speeches on television. In many ways, it's as though those in the know made a collective judgment, taking their cues from the Obama campaign, to only allude to the convergence of history and history in the making. And in fact, it very well may be that words really weren't needed for most Americans--that in the end, we actually all know all too well the long trajectory that got us to this moment, even if many never want to acknowledge it.
Maybe, or maybe not. It's highly possible the speakers were bursting at the seams to talk about Martin Luther King Jr., but were held hostage to the Obama message through a dependence on teleprompters.
Because one thing is clear--the Democrats were on point, with prominent themes weaving their way through the major speeches over the course of the four nights of the Democratic National Convention. As the convention began on Monday night they began to emerge, with each speaker picking up the thread and weaving the message a little tighter. And when Barack Obama accepted the nomination on Thursday night he drove the central message home:
The "American dream" has been imperiled by the Bush administration's gross mismanagement, and John McCain will simply be a continuance of the highly destructive Bush years.
In the narrative of this convention, it was class, not race, that received the attention. Beginning with Michelle Obama Monday night, time and again speakers told their personal stories of growing up in working class or poor households, describing the hard work and sacrifice that their parents made so that they could go to college and become middle class.
This should be every American's birthright, the Democrats said, but it's sadly out of reach these days under the auspices of a government that doesn't bother to offer a hand. In the Democratic Party's version of the American Dream, opportunity is ensured when a society works together to make it happen. Speakers contrasted this with the "trickle down economics" of the Republicans, with Obama putting it most bluntly in his closing speech:
For over two decades, he's [McCain] subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.
In this way, Obama turned the bootstraps mythology upside down: yes, individual initiative is what it's all about it, but you gotta have boots before you can fiddle with those bootstraps.
Not that the challenges of a broken economy, a nation at war, a threatened "American promise" is "all of government's making," Obama said, "but the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush."
Time and again, Obama returned to the theme of "American promise," and its dependence on responsibility, both individual and mutual.
That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
Next to "American promise," the fact that McCain had voted for George Bush 90 percent of the time may have been the next most often repeated statement.
While John McCain is a "good man" who served his country with enormous distinction, Democrats repeatedly affirmed, he offers only more of the failed Bush years, proven by the fact that he's voted with Bush 90 percent of the time.
The "Bush-McCain foreign policy" had "squandered" the American legacy, Obama said. And Obama had strong words for McCain on national security, contrasting his own early disagreement with the Iraq war to what he characterizes as McCain's continued belief in it. The terrorists are in Afghanistan, Obama said, not Iraq. One of his catchiest lines was that while McCain says he'll chase bin Laden to the gates of hell, in fact he won't even chase him to his cave.
Plus, Democrats say, McCain's a wealthy man who is out of touch with what it means to be middle class in America, much less the working class. It's not that he doesn't care, Obama said, it's that he doesn't get it. McCain was squarely painted as someone who would continue the Bush legacy, as Democrats rolled out a litany of issues near and dear to Democratic hearts.
One of those issues was climate change. The problem of climate change received prominent attention, but despite Al Gore's highlighted speech Thursday night was mostly talked about in the context of the "new energy economy," which surfaced time and again as the days wore on.
In this narrative, three major ills share the same solution: the greening of America will solve climate change, provide good paying jobs, and solve our energy woes. It's almost a utopian vision--at the very least a very hopeful and aspiring one. Obama wrapped this analysis up by intertwining the promise of jobs with the saving of the environment:
As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.
As Obama closed out his speech last night, he finally acknowledged the historic nature of the day and his own difference--“I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don’t fit the typical pedigree," he said--without ever actually saying Martin Luther King's name.
Rather, he connected the dots with his central message. It's the American promise, he said, that brought all those Americans to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington 45 years ago to hear "a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream."
All in all, the week was grand political theater, as a friend couldn't help but point out. And the theater doesn't stop--the Republicans pick it up Monday.
Comments:
Posted 08/29/2008 09:04 with
“Time and again, Obama returned to the theme of “American promise,” and its dependence on responsibility, both individual and mutual.”
Wow, did I miss something – when did the left wing of the Democratic party start pushing individual responsibility (“we are responsible for ourselves”). Their message has always been one of governmental responsibility in the past (welfare, government-run healthcare, etc.).
And since when does Obama use Genesis as the foundation for public policy (“the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper”, see Genesis 4:9)? Last I heard, he was ridiculing the Old Testament and cherry-picking parts of verses to demonstrate that the Bible could not be used to guide our public policy (http://www.youtube.com/v/4FCNKwHRCQM).
Posted 08/29/2008 10:46 with
mark.
it’s about blending shared values in the service of progressive policies. i would have used “shared responsibility” rather than “mutual responsibility.”
It’s each of our individual responsibilities to work to make sure our shared promise is realized through a sense of shared responsibility to our communities, the future and our children.
Posted 08/29/2008 11:58 with
Mark, I appreciate your comment, but as a seminary graduate I am always amused when someone accuses another individual of cherry picking biblical verses. From my experience, people on all sides of political debates, right and left, religious, atheist, often cherry pick biblical verses ad nauseum to bolster their positions. Using the Bible as a resource for your public policy toolkit is dangerous. The second you adopt an approach, there always are verses to undermine your position. Case in point: yes, the Bible does prohibit a man lying down with a man (Leviticus) but it also has God punishing King Saul for not putting King Agag of the Amelakites to the sword, which the prophet Samuel then does, which is basically the equivalent of finishing off the last member of a tribe. So is God advocating the extermination of a tribe but prohibiting acting on same-sex attractions? That’s a question a serious reader of the Bible must ask himself or herself. I’l leave that up to much smarter people to decide the answer. Just so you know, I am a big fan of the Bible. I just get sick and tired from a lot of people spouting biblical verses without acknowledging the complexity inherent in the text.
As for mutual responsibility, that’s a very biblical theme. I am sure you know the Bible makes many more references to taking care of the widow and the orphan than it does to prohibiting action on same-sex attractions. The debate, of course, in American political debate is how to execute that very human action—taking care of the least of these—through government intervention or through the bonds that we as human beings feel toward one another and the community. One could argue that the debate is complicated by America’s emphasis on individualism throughout its history. But again I will leave that to much smarter people to find the answer to striking a balance.
Posted 08/30/2008 14:09 with
The reaction to The Speech has been most interesting. I don’t know if anyone caught Tavis Smiley the last couple of nights, but there’s somewhat of a racial gulf since. meaning, for some Aftican Americans, The Speech did not do much. I experienced the same talking with some folks who had watched it under a huge tent in the Five Points area of Denver, the AA community there.
Whatever your feelings of Cornell West, he made a very strong case (as an Obama supporter, btw) that the narrative to date on Obama and race has been in essence a white narrative, or POV, if you will. Meaning, the barometer of success (or not) in speaking to this issue has wildly swamped the narrative from African Americans.
The clearest example is this notion of a white narrative driving his angle on race is that Obama cannot risk talking straight at AA issues lest he spook off white fence sitters. This is now accepted as fact.
We’ll see how this plays out. What I do know is there will be very little reporting on how this narrative is working in the AA community, which is much more nuanced than one might think on first blush, considering the 90 plus percent of support he is receiving in the AA community.