Obama’s Lost Opportunity.

I’ve been critical of conservative Republicans on this blog for their rigid approach to taxation, the deficit, and related issues. It’s time to turn the spotlight squarely on President Obama, whose second inaugural address yesterday was anything but conciliatory to his opponents. As the New York Times agreed in its online headlines, the speech was that of a president who is “unapologetic” and “less willing to start negotiations by moving to the center.” And as James Fallows wrote for the Atlantic, “This was the most sustainedly “progressive” statement Barack Obama has made in his decade on the national stage.”

In the Washington Post, Dana Milbank, no conservative, gets it about right:

President Obama began his second inaugural address with a reminder that this ceremony, like the 56 inaugurations before it in U.S. history, was a unifying symbol.

“Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution … We affirm the promise of our democracy.”

Thus ended the warm-courage-of-national-unity portion of the proceedings.

What followed was less an inaugural address for the ages than a leftover campaign speech combined with an early draft of the State of the Union address.

Noting the liberal make-up of the crowd, as well as the noteworthy absence of the two living former Republican presidents, Milbank adds,

Obama’s main event was full of crowd-pleasing lines about equal pay, same-sex marriage, poll access, immigration, gun control and health care. Although it tied together the various elements of his agenda, it failed to rise to the moment….

However, the emphasis was unusually political for an inaugural address…. Obama teased the crowd with a theme of unity: “Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.” But his “we the people” theme turned out to be more of a campaign retread.

Obama’s rhetoric was particularly wishful when he proclaimed the end of a decade of war (faltering Afghan reconstruction, Iraq in serious danger of civil war, Syria in brutal civil war, drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, chaos in Libya, violent conflict with terrorists in Algeria, new war in Mali, imminent confrontation with Iran – hello Mr. President?). It was similarly lofty when he appealed to a consensus on global warming and suggested it dictates some sort of obvious “action” (I’m not sure what that obvious action would be …). It pandered to the same old deceptions we Americans regularly tell ourselves when it affirmed the commitment that “Our journey is not complete until all our children … know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.”

But perhaps the lowest point for many conservatives was the president’s rhetoric on gay marriage (unprecedented at the inaugural stage), which he smugly identified as part of the civil rights journey begun by those pioneers at Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall, and embodied by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well.

I may be mistaken, but I am not aware of any laws in this country that treat gay men and women any differently than “anyone else under the law.” If regulations or queries refer to “sexual orientation” it is usually to protect or assist those who identify themselves as gay rather than anything else. But all that aside, is it really true that “if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well”? I get the power of the rhetoric, but what in the world does it mean? Is the love that my wife and I commit to one another equal to the love between my son and my daughter, between my wife and her girlfriends, or between me and the brothers and sisters at my church? I don’t think so. Ignoring the vital social implications of matters of sexuality and marriage by smothering it with the rhetoric of love and affirmation does no one – including our friends and fellow citizens who are gay – any favors.

I understand that the president is a liberal and a Democrat. That’s fine. We need such people, and we want them to advance the policies they believe to be best for our country. But it’s too bad President Obama didn’t take this opportunity to unify the country, to alleviate the fear and bitterness of conservatives, and to actually point us to a way forward. Opportunity lost.

About these ads

About Matthew Tuininga

Matthew Tuininga is a student of political theology and a doctoral candidate in Ethics at Emory University. He is a licensed preacher in the United Reformed Churches of North America.

Posted on January 22, 2013, in Barack Obama and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. I always appreciate the thoughtful approach Matthew!

  2. I didn’t watch the speech (watching Obama nodding his head like Mussolini causes me to throw up a little in my mouth) but I read the transcripts. What do you make of these two lines?

    “Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all societies ills can be cured through government alone.”

    “Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness Progress does not compel us to settle century’s long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time.”

  3. Richard Iserman

    “I may be mistaken, but I am not aware of any laws in this country that treat gay men and women any differently than ‘anyone else under the law.’”

    I think you may be. What is DOMA? Or the state constitutional amendments that target gay marriage? Or state laws forbidding gays from adoption?

  4. Matthew Tuininga

    Hey Rich! Hope you are doing well!

    What state laws forbidding gays from adoption are you thinking of? I am not aware of them. As for DOMA and constitutional amendments targeting gay marriage, they do not treat gays any differently than other people. Gays can marry just like anyone else, but they have to actually marry, i.e., they can’t simply call whatever they want to marriage, just like anyone else.

  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States

    Beyond the United States, some other countries have even harsher across-the-board policies. I heard a story when I first moved to Ukraine that Elton John came to visit my town here once, and met a poor boy at an orphanage. Sir Elton was moved by the kid’s story, and tried to adopt him, until he was stopped by Ukrainian laws disallowing adoption by those who are openly gay. More recently, Ukraine and Russia passed broadly worded laws, under pressure from the church, making it illegal to even _talk_ about homosexuality in a posiitive way. They did this, of course, to protect the kids. But I’ve worked in schools and have seen firsthand the kind of brutality it encourages against those who are different, and can’t escape their own identity. The culture of brutality then continues then into adulthood, as we saw from this terrible episode that happened last year in Kyiv: http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/05/25482/

    But you were only talking about America. The history of legislative discrimination against gays has a long history. Remember Lawrence vs. Texas? That law was ruled unconstitutional, of course, but there are still plenty of other laws like it that are just as discriminatory. Just take a look at the cases the Lambda Legal Fund is currently litigating (http://www.lambdalegal.org/issues/government-misconduct-and-support-for-discrimination). Or if you’re genuinely interested, maybe read some of the books Andrew Sullivan (a fellow conservative) has written on the subject.

    I agree that marriage equality is more complex than other forms of discrimination, but only insofar as it would require one to first acknowledge that same-sex relationships are based on the same conditions of human love and mutual caring that heterosexuals experience. If you haven’t seen examples of this in your own life yet, or otherwise simply can’t accept it, then we would be at an impasse. Which is a shame.

    In any case, hope you are well too! It’s been ages and ages and ages. You have an impressive and intriguing site. I’m looking forward to reading more of what you have to say.

  6. Matt, what do you consider the best scholarly legal and moral defense of traditional marriage, one that has the highest likelihood of convincing someone, say, who works in ethics? More than one recommendation is welcome.

  7. Matthew Tuininga

    pba, by far the best, concise argument is that of Girgis, Anderson, and George, “What is Marriage?”, published late last year, only about one hundred pages. There is plenty of other good material on marriage, of course, and this book touches less on the important material in sociology and history, but I think this book gets best at the heart of the matter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,007 other followers

%d bloggers like this: