Reflections on an American Moment

How fitting it is that as I prepare to write this, neither “Barack” nor “Obama” are recognized as legitimate words on my current Microsoft Word program. Yet as of just about an hour ago, these two new words are now officially preceded by the long awaited title of “President.” Yes, we can now finally cease stumbling over the varying titles concomitant with each step of the road that Obama has taken to arrive at this point. No longer the freshman Senator, no longer the long-shot candidate, no longer the Democratic-Nominee, and no longer the President-Elect. Ladies and gentlemen, at long last; President Barack Obama.

Part of the excitement of this moment, no doubt, is due to the arrival of a much-anticipated national break with the incompetency, obstinacy, and overall mediocrity that has been tragically exemplified by the Bush administration. To clarify, I do not in any way identify myself with the pusillanimous crowd at Move-on.org or with anyone else prone to making foolish, sweeping claims that blame Bush for all the world’s ills. I cringe when I hear people make blanket accusations against “Bush and his cronies” or when they sardonically joke about “moving to Canada” whenever anything doesn’t go their way. While I may sympathize with most of their frustrations, I continually find such rhetoric to be crass, lazy, and simply foolish.

To the best of my ability to tell, George W. Bush seems to be a well-meaning and amiable man. Yet, to be as terse as possible, he quite simply should never have been President of the United States. Even acknowledging some of his successes (AIDS treatment funding in Africa, and dare I say, the ousting of Saddam Hussein, one of the most manifestly sadistic figures of our generation) the Bush administration as a whole has been largely characterized by a continuous series of unfortunate events. We watched as a city drowned, as an economy collapsed, and as the world as a whole looked at us with increasing bewilderment, skepticism, and even distain. Clearly, none of these realities lie solely on the shoulders of George W. Bush. Yet that said, it has been a painful eight years to watch. At the same time then, we must also recognize that many of the dire problems that we now face are also due to our own failures as a people to step up and start thinking more seriously about the long-term effects of many of our short-term oriented actions.

This here inauguration day, it seems more appropriate than ever to reiterate the point that what matters now is not the failures of the past, but rather the way in which we move ourselves forward in the future. As of noon, the twentieth of January, 2009, I would like to collectively invite everyone (myself included) to spend a little less time reciting stupid Bush quotes, and to start putting a little more thought into what we can all do to rise to the challenges of this moment and start the difficult work of making this country great again. In his inaugural address, President Obama hit upon a timeless truth when he said that “Greatness is never given, it must be earned.” From this point onward, it is on us as a people to ensure that it is greatness that we are striving for.

To be honest, it is my personal opinion that Obama’s inaugural address was a bit tepid. Perhaps this is a somewhat predictable reaction, given all the dramatically high expectations and sloppy allusions to Lincoln, FDR, and JFK made by countless political analysts. After reading the aforementioned Presidents’ inaugural speeches recently, it seems to me that Obama’s did not quite match up with many of the principle elements that made these speeches memorable. First off, I can’t help but be slightly turned off to most of the Obama-Lincoln comparisons, in part due to the fact that Lincoln himself makes it manifestly clear in his first inaugural address (and in many other documented occasions) that he had neither the “intention…nor the inclination” to change the status of the Southern man’s “property” (to be read: black slaves). The idea of Lincoln as the “Great Emancipator” or the leader of a moral movement against the fundamental injustice of slavery seems to be, at best, a nieve and revisionist version of history. We can save that conversation for another day, but suffice it to say that I find the apathy that Lincoln displays towards slavery in his first inaugural address to be hardly comparable to Obama’s ongoing theme of adherence to universal virtues of fairness and justice.

Perhaps Lincoln’s notion of appealing to “our better angels” or even attempting the task of seeking to unite a “divided nation” is more of a legitimate comparison to what Obama sought to accomplish with his speech, but it still feels like a bit of a convenient stretch to me. Furthermore, I also found it challenging to draw parallels between the speeches of other watershed Presidents and that of Obama’s. At first view, it seemed that there was no single epic line that will be forever enshrined in history along with FDR’s “…Fear itself” or JFK’s “Ask not…” In my view, the strongest part of Obama’s speech was definitely in the communication of his foreign policy stances. He was firm and assertive on terrorism, but without being bellicose or showy. This may prove to be a fine-line to manage in the future. He was clear in annunciating that America will turn its back on the dubious and sometimes criminal shortcuts that have been taken in the “War on Terror.” He declared that we “see as false the choice between our security and our values.” Furthermore, Obama said that America is a “friend of each nation” and that we will be willing to “extend a hand [to historically less friendly foreign governments] if [they] are willing to unclench [their] fists.” I can only imagine the enthusiasm those lines must have engendered in much of the crowds watching the speech everywhere from Paris, to Nairobi, to Tehran.

To be sure, aside from its foreign policy implications, it already looks like the speech is being billed as one introducing the theme of an “era of responsibility.” Yet perhaps my biggest disappointment with Obama’s speech was not the lack of a sound-bite to be immortalized, but that, for whatever reason, he failed to fully capitalize on the opportunity to ask the American people to stand with him in this new era, and to make some of the individual choices and sacrifices that will be absolutely crucial to the restoration of the renewed generation of American prowess that we all seek. He did speak vaguely of responsibility and hard choices, but I was honestly waiting for a more direct line to the effect of, “America, the challenges that we face are great, but I need you to be with me in this. I need you to start spending a little more of your free time volunteering to better your communities. I need you to turn your lights off when you’re not using them. I need you to start making smarter choices about your health. Parents, I need you make sure your children are reading some books at night, and not just plugging themselves into the TV. And children I need you to work hard at school and to never stop dreaming big dreams.”

Despite being slightly underwhelmed with the inaugural speech as a whole, I still find myself caught up in the spirit of the moment. We truly seem to, at very least, have the potential to be on the verge of a new era in which the national zeitgeist is one of mutual respect and responsibility, rather than of asinine partisan rancor and unbounded individualism. I was living in Washington DC during the climactic final weeks of the election, and was there the night of November 4th when the victory of Barack Obama was announced. Walking through the streets and over to the White House at about midnight that night will certainly remain as one of the most memorable experiences of my life. There was a certain unguarded and long-suppressed enthusiasm on people’s faces that I have simply never seen before. Cars honked incessantly, celebratory chants erupted, and perfect strangers exchanged high-fives and hugs.

I’m not one much for blind adulation or mindless cult following. We must remember that Barack Obama is in fact a sentient human being, and only one at that. He will not save the economy, health care, energy, or education over night. Nor is he realistically likely to do so in the “first hundred days,” the first year or possibly even the first term. Yet I see this not as cause for cynicism. Barack Obama, though merely mortal, has now become the voice and symbol of a nation and a larger global community which has long been awaiting the unique combination of confidence, vision, equanimity and leadership that he has come to embody. Today he has become our President, and it is my hope that as a nation we will collectively understand both the extraordinary burdens and enormous opportunities that now await us. Let us capitalize on this intersection of both daunting and exciting challenges, and move forward with grace from this great American moment.

Masked Bigotry

Freedom of speech is a privilege that we, as Americans, should hold in high regard. Despite the fact that we all have differing opinions on a variety of topics, the right to express our opinions (even the offensive ones), however we wish, is one of the founding principles of our nation. It is one of the things that makes our country great. I find it bothering though when people want to express offensive viewpoints and not take credit for those views, or mask those viewpoints as those of others. It is cowardly to express a view but refuse to take responsibility for and stand by that view. There are a few particular instances of such cowardice that relate to Senator Barack Obama and his presidential candidacy.

The first instance happened back in the first week of June when a controversial artist, Yazmany Arboleda, opened two new exhibits in New York city entitled "The Assassination of Barack Obama" and "The Assassination of Hillary Clinton." Personally, I think these are rather stupid titles for exhibits about presidential candidates who, at the time, were both in a heated and historic battle for the Democratic Party nomination, and who both have aroused their fair shares of hatred simply by virtue of their genetics. It should come as no surprise that within thirty minutes of the opening of the exhibits the Secret Service had detained Arboleda for questioning. The exhibits themselves are very offensive, to say the least. I have no problem with Arboleda creating such offensive art work, or giving his work the titles that he did, as silly as I think it was. He has the right to do so. What I do have a problem with is his explanation for the exhibit. Arboleda claims that the exhibits were meant to display the "character assassination" of the two candidates. He goes on to defend the exhibit saying that his work "is about words and how the media has torn them (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) apart." Arboleda's explanation is either a clever way of alleviating some of the backlash he's received or a genuine reflection of his interpretation of the way the media has portrayed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I initially struggled with trying to understand Arboleda's motives, but after taking a closer look as the exhibits and all of the hoopla surrounding them, I think the "character assassination" argument was a way to get himself out of hot water. Coming from someone who has followed the Democratic and Republican races extensively, what stood out to me most about Arboleda's exhibits is that some of the offensive things thay he displays were never the topics of serious discussion by national media outlets (nor local media, I would suspect). If Arboleda's exhibits were truly about "character assassination," don't you think it would have been a bit more clear that those were his intentions? Don't you think the reasons behind the exhibit have been more explicit, instead of surfacing only after questioning from federal authorities and the downpouring of outrage by New York citizens? Arboleda clearly conjured up an explanation because of the negative attention his exhibits received. If he is bold enough to create such controversial and offensive exhibits, he should be bold enough to stand by them amid the negative attention and outrage, instead of passing the blame on to the media and the American people.

The second and more recent instance, which happened just this week, is still a part of cable new's daily cycle and, frankly, is more disturbing than the first. You've probably heard something about the most recent cover of The New Yorker (see above). The issue, entitled "The Politics of Fear" depicts Barack Obama dressed in traditional Muslim garb, fist-bumping his wife Michelle who is dressed as a Black militant, with an assault rifle slung over her back. In the background of the Oval Office there is a picture of Osama Bin-Laden hanging over the mantel, and an American flag burning in the fireplace. Wow. This surprises me moreso than Yazmany Arboleda's stunt because The New Yorker is actually a widely read and respected publication. The explanations that The New Yorker offered sounded much like the one that Arbodela offered, namely that the magazine cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are." Another statement, issued to the Obama campaign states: "...satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover." Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman issued a statement calling the image "tasteless and offensive." I agree. Furthermore, I think it represents bad journalism. I struggled a bit trying to gauge whether the statement offered by The New Yorker was simply an explanation of genuine motives, or, like Arboleda's statement, a way alleviating the unexpected backlash coming from all sides. My hunch is that it's the latter moreso than the former. Although The New Yorker rightly points out that satire is a part of what they do, it's not very often that the magazine produces content that is this offensive. The only other time The New Yorker generated this much controvery was in 1996 when the magazine published a cover depicting two men sailors kissing, meant to parody Alfred Eisenstaedt's "Times Square Kiss" photograph and highlight issues surrounding gays in the military. The New Yorker, which has been satirizing for over 75 years, knows how to get its point across. I don't think it's a mere accident that The New Yorker published such a controversial image without knowing how offensive it really is, and I don't think their intentions were all genuine. A more plausible explanation, in my humble opinion, is that The New Yorker saw an opportunity, much like Arboleda did, to be very extreme offensive, generate much attention (and consequently revenue), and have a nice sounding, canned explanation ready to be released.

There is no doubt that there have been some outrageous claims and attacks on Barack Obama's (and Hillary Clinton's) character, but I find it hard to believe that Arboleda and The New Yorker were so moved by the way the candidate(s) have been treated by the media and the American people that they just had to speak out and put the "character assassination" on display. Rather, I believe both knew that they could paint almost any picture they wanted, no matter how offensive, and rely on the fact that somewhere out there, some media outlet or some person has uttered something that relates to that painted picture, in other words, this is one of the rare instances where a decent sounding excuse is inherently built in. Again, I don't have a problem with Arboleda or The New Yorker displaying offensive content, although I do believe both examples are tasteless, to say the least. What I do have a problem with is Arboleda and The New Yorker using the media and the American people as a scapegoat for creating such offensive content. When people start to become outraged and the realization comes that your content is a bit too offensive, don't insult my intelligence by issuing a statement that uses others as the reason you created such content. If that were true it would have been more obvious from the beginning, especially in the case of The New Yorker.

Offend to your heart's desire, but don't try to hide the fact that your intention is to offend. The eloquently worded statements, conveniently released after you've generated a boatload of money and over a million internet hits, are just a way of masking bigotry.