Obama's Speech

In light of recent events, Senator Barack Obama has given a speech explaining his views on racial issues, specifically as they relate to his firebrand of a pastor, Jeremiah Wright. As far as I'm concerned, he hit all of the right notes on Wright, condemning what Wright said without throwing him under the bus, and offering a human, if not exactly logically coherent, explanation for some of the things said and done by Wright. As long as Obama told the truth about his relationship with Wright and what he did and didn't hear Wright say. the issue is settled for me.

Obama then goes on to expand on what he thinks has to be done to bring about racial reconciliation, including making some points that conservatives have been making for years, such as blacks "taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to
despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny." But this is also where Obama's speech starts to get worrisome. Just prior to this he had stated that

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.

He immediately goes on to say that "embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change." Assuming for a minute that this is true (it isn't), is simply believing society can change enough, or does someone actually have to do something to bring this change about? If so, who is that someone? Because the speech is political above all else, the most reasonable conclusion would be that the responsibility for changing society falls to the state, particularly the federal government. And what ought the federal government do to bring about this momentous change in society? Obama sets down the outlines of his program to bring about racial reconciliation, and it looks remarkable like embracing the typical progressive slate of programs.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

Obama continues

In this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas
for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

So, according to Obama, racial reconciliation must be grounded in massive increases in federal education spending; economic protectionism (leaving the whole NAFTA issue aside for the moment); government-provided health care; and fighting the perennial bogeyman, Washington special interests. So, apparently the key to reconciliation is recognizing that our social problems stem from the fact that the government isn't taking good enough care of us. Implicit in Obama's narrative is the idea that all social tension stems from economic hardship. More to the point, Obama seems to believe that national unity requires that the nation rally around a program of massive government action for the common good, defined in strictly economic terms and grounded in socialist principles.

Never mind the question of whether Obama's policy proposals would be efficacious if enacted, this is yet another example of how Obama's soaring rhetoric is at odds with his politics. He proclaims himself a transcendent figure capable of bridging the divisions in American society, but for large segments of the population, embracing his politics on social, economic, and national security issues means abandoning their own principles. Obama is not coming to meet them by offering some new political synthesis that eliminates the contradictions between the principles of the left and right, he is demanding that they bridge the divide by sacrificing their principles in the name of unity. Obama's nods to conservatism are in areas where no policy implications can be drawn, while an examination of the actual positions he has taken in the Senate show him to be to the left of all other Senators.

Obama's politics can be summed up by this line from his speech:

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

Simply put, Obama seems to be preaching statolatry, the worship of the state and the belief in its salvific powers. I say seems because it is possible to read just about any position you want into what he's saying, including libertarianism, but a perusal of his policy proposals gives the impression that the libertarian reading of Obama's speech is unlikely to be correct. Instead, he believes in the power of government to alleviate the human condition and bring about a peaceful and harmonious society. The problem with this is not that government has no role to play, but that the role Obama would assign it would have an infantilizing effect on the population. When people become dependent upon the government for their well-being, especially in the realm of providing for their material needs, they cease to view themselves as moral actors because they lose sight of what was their major obligation: providing for themselves and their families. Obama recognizes this when he speaks of "A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and
frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family,
contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare
policies for many years may have worsened." But he misses the point. When the state guarantees you a certain standard of living, you have no incentive to work for it. You only have incentive to work if you want your standard of living to be higher than the one provided by the government and want it badly enough that you're willing to go out and work for it. If the government is paying you enough to get by, a life of leisure looks pretty good, and idle hands do the devil's work.

But instead of getting government out of the way, Obama wants more of it, and this is largely anathema to conservatives (which is one reason why Mike Huckabee didn't gain much traction outside his evangelical base and John McCain has work to do to shore up his base). It is still the height of naivete to assume conservatives will abandon their principles for the sake of political unity when their raisson d'etre is to stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!"