Sunday, July 8, 2012

Obama's America: How Progressives Talk About July 4

Article by Ian Reifowitz - cross Posted from Daily Kos

As I always do, I really enjoyed Meteor Blades' post about July 4, which centers on Frederick Douglass's iconic speech "The Meaning of July 4th for the Negro," delivered in Rochester, NY in 1852. As many of you know, the speech delineated the alienation slaves, and African Americans in general, felt from July 4 specifically but from America more broadly as well.

Although the most often quoted section is about that sense of alienation, it is also important to remember Douglass's conclusion to the speech:
Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from "the Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.
Even in this speech, Douglass remained optimistic about the future, despite the reality that the present in 1852 was so awful for blacks in this country. That's important to note as well.

President Obama gave a speech on June 30, 2008, called "The America We Love," which bears some resemblance in terms of approach to Douglass's speech. It wasn't a speech about the meaning of America for blacks as a whole, but of what America meant to him as an individual. Also, only one of the speakers was in the middle of a presidential campaign. Nevertheless, we can fruitfully compare the two speeches. In fact, Colbert I. King of the Washington Post did so just after Obama made his.
King noted that Obama, even in this speech, even while running for President and having his patriotism questioned, did not whitewash America's history by ignoring the dark chapters therein. Although as a boy he had expressed a childlike love of our country, his patriotism remained strong even as he gained more knowledge and a fuller understanding of our past:
Obama said that as he got older, that instinct, "that America is the greatest country on earth -- would survive my growing awareness of our nation's imperfections."Racial strife, poverty and the political corruption revealed by Watergate, Obama said, were outweighed by the "joys of American life and culture, its vitality and its freedom."
King then neatly summarized the differences between Douglass's and Obama's speeches:
While Douglass noted his estrangement from America's experiment with democracy, Obama claimed America as his own and the Fourth of July as a time to rejoice.
My suspicion, especially given his hopeful conclusion, is that were he alive today Douglass would speak about America in a way that resembles Obama (not only in the above cited speech but in the body of his public remarks over twenty years) in the broadest sense. (My forthcoming book, Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity, examines Obama's public rhetoric on the meaning of America.)

Neither would ignore the horrific crimes of the past, nor the way the legacy of those crimes continues to resonate for the descendants of the victims in the present. Neither would shrink from highlighting the continuing, fresh injustices being visited on African Americans and members of other groups today. But both would also present a narrative that is, while full of struggle, one of hope and of gradual progress. That's a narrative that is both accurate and far more likely to be accepted as consensus by a broad swath of Americans of all backgrounds. That matters, in political terms, and Douglass, even though not running for office, was a political figure and activist of great importance.
In terms of black Americans specifically, I believe both Obama and Douglass would characterize black Americans' relationship to their country as follows: Blacks have both dreamed of a better future in America and fought to make it happen over time.

We progressives must emphasize that our responsibility as a country is to make those very American dreams of equality and justice come true for members of every group that make up our people.
Frederick Douglass was a hero, and his speech of 1852 was heroic. It's also very appropriate in 2012 to remember that speech, especially on July 4. My comments here do not imply in the slightest that I believe we should not. What I am doing is using Meteor Blades' post about Douglass as a jumping off point for a different discussion.

MB was right, we do too much "heroification" in the U.S. And he's right to identify Frederick Douglass as a hero, maybe even the greatest hero in American history. I'll only add that sometimes, we on the left have to be wary of focusing too much collectively on feelings of alienation from this country. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should feel, no one can or should do that. I'm talking about what we publish, our public rhetoric, and it's strategic value. What we cannot do, what Douglass himself did not do as seen in the conclusion to his 1852 speech, is cede patriotism and an embrace of America to the right wing.

Even in writing this, I feel reluctant because I know how these comments can be construed. I'm emphatically NOT saying that Meteor Blades or anyone else should tone down criticizing this country's flaws or injustices, whether in the present or the past. To be more specific, I am NOT saying that black or brown or red or gay people or anyone should keep their thoughts to themselves because they might scare the straight white folks. I'm saying that there has to be a way we can shine a light on the problems in our country that need attention while still publicly embracing a commitment to the whole country, the whole community. We have to do both of those things at the same time, over and over again, in order to get our point across successfully.

As politically engaged progressives, we know that this country can and must do better on a whole host of different fronts, and in order to do so we need to understand our history in full. A history that emphasizes only our crimes and ignores the progress is but the mirror image of one that does the opposite, one that presents our history as one solely bathed in glory and righteousness. And if those are the only two options, many middle of the road Americans are likely to be more attracted to the former simply because it sounds more familiar and feels better.

We have to make sure that we present a balanced picture. That way we can get those people who sometimes forget about the crimes to remember them and to commit to reversing their effects, rather than dismiss us as "anti-American" or some other such nonsense because we talk only about the negatives in America. We have to present our case as representing the true American values, and contrast those to the values of those whom we oppose.

This is the way Barack Obama speaks about America's past, present, and future, and connects his vision of America to policies he is proposing going forward. We can see it in his remarks of July 4, 2012:
On that July day, our Founders declared their independence. But they only declared it; it would take another seven years to win the war. Fifteen years to forge a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Nearly 90 years, and a great Civil War, to abolish slavery. Nearly 150 years for women to win the right to vote. Nearly 190 years to enshrine voting rights. And even now, we’re still perfecting our union, still extending the promise of America.That includes making sure the American dream endures for all those -- like these men and women -- who are willing to work hard, play by the rules and meet their responsibilities. For just as we remain a nation of laws, we have to remain a nation of immigrants. And that’s why, as another step forward, we’re lifting the shadow of deportation from serving -- from deserving young people who were brought to this country as children. It’s why we still need a DREAM Act -- to keep talented young people who want to contribute to our society and serve our country. It’s why we need -- why America’s success demands -- comprehensive immigration reform.

Because the lesson of these 236 years is clear -- immigration makes America stronger. Immigration makes us more prosperous. And immigration positions America to lead in the 21st century. And these young men and women are testaments to that. No other nation in the world welcomes so many new arrivals. No other nation constantly renews itself, refreshes itself with the hopes, and the drive, and the optimism, and the dynamism of each new generation of immigrants. You are all one of the reasons that America is exceptional. You’re one of the reasons why, even after two centuries, America is always young, always looking to the future, always confident that our greatest days are still to come.
And of course that's what successful progressives have long done. Frederick Douglass did it, even in the speech discussed above. So did Martin Luther King in his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," where he predicted that the Civil Rights Movement would succeed because "the goal of America is freedom," and in his "I Have A Dream" speech, where he proclaimed the dream of which he spoke that day was "deeply rooted in the American dream." So did Harvey Milk, when he said, "All men are created equal. Now matter how hard they try, they can never erase those words. That is what America is about.” So did Barbara Jordan, who noted, "What the people want is simple. They want an America as good as its promise."

Progressives must criticize, that is crucial. But we also need to inspire, because inspiration is how we motivate action.

3 comments:

  1. Excellent commentary Ian... This is the dilemna of progressives in the U.S. and even in our own Jewish community.

    How do we criticize while also making clear our committment to America (and in the case of Jewish Americans criticizing Israel our committment to her survival as a nation)?

    Of course it is possible and that language is strongly emerging in Liberal and Jewish circles. However, the counter critical argument has to be a strong one or Right Wing forces (both here and in our (Jewish) community) are quick to question "patriotism / loyalty".

    Now, we understand that this criticsm is merely "white noise" however, it does present challenges to the uninformed or intellectually lazy.

    Anyway, Ian - I appreciate your allowing me to cross post your material. As usual this one is a winner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That does seem to be the central question, doesn't it? How can we criticize anything without our critique being judged as opposition?

      The fact of the matter is that we live in a time when nuance just doesn't exist. "You're either with us or against us" might as well be the mantra -- as a society, and particularly when it comes to political issues, we treat anyone who isn't 110% in agreement with us as if they were al-Qaeda. But there's a qualitative difference between constructive criticism and criticism for the sake of tearing something or someone down.

      Bottom line, friends tell each other when they're wrong. A real friend doesn't stand idly by while you make an ass of yourself. And your closest friends and family, while they may love you unconditionally, will get in your face and tell you the harshest truths about yourself when you screw up. Doing so does not make them "unpatriotic" or "disloyal" -- quite the contrary, that's what differentiates them from the people whose care for you is only superficial.

      That's not to say that all criticism is honest. Much of it isn't, and we need look no farther than the absolute silence toward actual, empirically observed crimes against humanity in Syria from some of the most vocal critics of Israel among the political class and the bloggers. (Personally, I'm still waiting for all those people who claimed Israel massacred Palestinian civilians in Jenin 10 years ago to produce a single shred of evidence in support of their whiny allegations, but they can't be bothered to eke out the tiniest whisper of protest against actual massacres in Syria today.) But it's also not that hard to pick out the critics whose "concern" isn't for doing the right thing but rather for other things like scoring cheap political points or a book deal.

      Delete
    2. EXCELLENT! - That is right on the mark.

      Seeing the "deafening silence" towards the situation in Syria is simply that. We see who the real so-called "human rights activists" are and who those who simply want to do away with Israel are. It's pretty clear in this case.

      Delete