Thoughts on Obama’s Tucson Speech

By all accounts, Barack Obama delivered a capable, if not very capable, speech at the memorial service for the victims of the violent attack in Tucson. But I was pretty uncomfortable with its emphasis on ideals. To me, it seemed a bit too easy, decidedly counterproductive and, yes, even somewhat dishonest. 

First, I should give credit to the good parts’ of Obama’s speech — which were those that I found very practical and anti-idealistic. Obama is calm, clear-minded and appropriately authoritative in regards to the assailant: 

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations - to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless… Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding.  In the words of Job, “when I looked for light, then came darkness.”  Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack.  None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.

So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy.  We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.

While I strongly disagree with the word choice of “evil” — I think that word in itself evokes a “simple explanation” — his larger message which warns against these simple explanations is a very good one, and one that is well-put. Acknowledging the complexity of something like this, while not backing down from the challenge it presents strikes me exactly right. Predictably, my favorite line is the first from the excerpt, where he warns about how our brains’ (or our “natures” ‘s) initial reactions don’t always produce the most effective reaction. 

This is what a political speech should be in this type of situation. Calm, measured, reserved and, yes, skeptical. Obama then skillfully pivots to a discussion about America’s reactions and the debates that the shooting raised. All of it was on the mark. 

But this section was just an interlude in the middle of a very idealistic speech. While Obama addresses the victims, he reduces them to little archetypes of goodness and patriotism. Here is all that Obama has to say about one of the victims:

New Jersey native, Phyllis Schneck retired to Tucson to beat the snow. But in the summer, she would return East, where her world revolved around her 3 children, 7 grandchildren, and 2 year-old great-granddaughter.  A gifted quilter, she’d often work under her favorite tree, or sometimes sew aprons with the logos of the Jets and the Giants to give out at the church where she volunteered.  A Republican, she took a liking to Gabby, and wanted to get to know her better.

I don’t think I need to do a deeper analysis of it, though I should add that every single retelling of the victims’ lives highlighted that individual’s community service or their civic engagement. This aspect of the mini-eulogies was what I thought was the most dishonest and most egregious, because Obama did seem to bend all of the stories of these peoples’ real lives to make a larger political — though not partisan — point. 

So I will say that I was glad to see that other people were troubled by this practice. Here is Ezra Klein pivoting off a quote from a New York Times “Vows” column about Congresswoman Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly: 

Gabrielle Giffords is a real person. She’s been on bad dates. She’s wondered why men didn’t call her back. She has slightly old-fashioned ideas about courtship. She isn’t just a symbol of democracy or civility or senseless violence

I would add that this symbolization process — and much of the speech itself — was clearly an attempt to assauge the fears and insecurities of the American people in the wake of this event. In that way, it was less about the real tragedy and those directly effected than it was about a nation’s need for a communal hug.

But the impact of this symbolization process is not just in its slight offense to these very real individuals and their very real families,* it’s counterproductive. The more we eschew rational views of complex problems for rose-tinted ideals, the harder it is to successfully address these complex problems in a balanced and nuanced manner. 

And address complex problems in a balanced and nuanced manner is what Obama has wanted us to do — for good reason! — on so many occasions, such as national security and healthcare… and in this speech. 

Either 1. Obama is not aware of this dichotomy, and there is a battle within him between these two views, or at least a tendency to forgo the route of rationality and complexity when he gain from idealism, or 2. Obama is aware of this and tries to find a balance. I very much think it’s the latter. 

Obama is an odd figure because he straddles both of these worlds: he’s both an academic and a community organizer. Reading both of his memoirs and watching him closely for the last couple of years makes me think that he feels more comfortable as an academic, where this questioning, introspective and rational viewpoint is more at home. But you can also tell that he knows that he would be a lot less effective without the emotionalism — and the requisite imagery and over-the-top style — necessary to lead large groups of people. I think this can be best seen in the campaign — where Obama would give firebrand speeches and use simplistic but powerful imagery — and Obama’s change in style once he was elected — where he, somewhat suddenly, told people not to get their hopes up/place too much of their hopes squarely on his shoulders and mentioned that there was going to be a lot of hard work to do.**

This is why I always think there is something dark or a little cynical about “leaders of men.” I think Obama knows there is something dishonest about his speech in Tucson, but I always think he believes that it was necessary - that people needed him to do it. I say it’s dark or cynical because I think he knows how manipulative he is being. That term is a little taboo — at least in contemporary America — but it would be nice if it wasn’t so taboo so there could be a dialogue about it. (I.e. When are leaders being manipulative? Can you be manipulative out of good intentions? Or does manipulation corrupt those good intentions? Etc. etc.). 

When I think about this, I think it would be better if rationality always ruled the day over emotionalism. though, when I get very reflective about, I can tell that I buy into emotionalism — not always consciously — in many occasions. One of the reasons I’m so hard on Obama is because I was one of those people who was moved by the three words “Yes, We Can,” but now is very critical of many of Obama’s policies and see that emotional symbol as an invitation to project many of your views and hopes onto this slightly more progressive/refreshing than most, political campaign and political figure. 

Was I naive to do this? Definitely. Was Obama taking advantage of that/being manipulative about that? Another yes. 

So I look to Obama — and this speech — partially with skepticism or even cynicism as someone who has already been fooled once. But I also do seem him as making progress. It’s important to remember that he has been a force for calmness, skepticism and rationality — my first excerpt from his speech in Tucson proves that. Maybe these proportions are not at the balance point that I would like to see, but, with what little historical perspective I do have, it does seem like he is making progress. 

* I know some might have not found this process offensive, and that many people do this all the time. But for me it is offensive. I always found it odd that people don’t mention the faults of a person at their funeral — as if the very mention of a shortcoming will prevent us from seeing the larger good. I would argue that this definition by contrast is integral to seeing a larger good. For what it’s worth, I would be very disappointed if people brushed over my faults (whatever they might be… ) at my funeral. 

** I think a good case could be made for Obama evading responsibility for getting people’s hopes up during the campaign.