In a short time, President Obama will deliver the State of the Union address. In Tucson, he offered a state of the covenant address. In the face of awful violence, he explored the American community's ability to live up to the values we profess to hold dear. I'll take a look at this speech in terms of genre, structure, and theme.
Before the address, most pundits and scholars foresaw its task as that of a national eulogy. In light of murders that threatened our national identity, the president needed to define the meaning of this event in ways that consoled the nation, shaped those who died into symbols of national resilience (they were the best of us), and assured us the community could move forward in the light shone by their examples.
I believe the speech can be understood this way, but it also does something more. The deaths arrested the heedless dash of the American community; they offered a breathing space, a moment for, as the president noted, "reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actions--that, I believe, is what a tragedy like this requires." We can pause, grieve, take stock, and ask ourselves did we treat them, do we treat others, as we ourselves would wish to be treated? Do our actions reflect our values?
The president's address, then, draws also on our Puritan heritage, on the covenant renewal speeches delivered in times of anxiety. How might we become the people we wish to be? Where have we fallen short and what need we do? The action implied in the last question, of course, is answered in the lives of the slain; they offer the way to redemption.
The structure of the speech embodies this progression. As one might expect, the president begins with memorialization, turns then to reflection, and finally to application. In the first section, he mourns the dead primarily through a juxtaposition of the personal and public; each possessed marvelous personal qualities, and each chose to meet their congresswoman on a Saturday morning. In that sense, they were "what is best in us, what is best in America"--wonderful people who embodied John Dewey's belief that our public business should be done with each other. That "quintessentially American scene" (one can nearly see a Rockwell painting of it) met with Lincoln's approval--it was "just an updated version of government of and by and for the people."
For them to die in--as a result of--a "quintessentially American scene" poses the exigence for the president's address and explains why these deaths have disturbed us so much--what are we for this thing to have happened? That requires serious reflection and the president offers it, although we should know, as Job has taught us, that there are no sure answers. Job's lament (30:26) "When I looked for light, then came darkness" is an unusually harsh cry for this sort of speech. It appears in a section where Job recounts his trials and the failures of the Lord to come to his aid to 3 friends; this is, I suspect, Obama' s subtle call for us to look to each other for comfort, and not to divine intervention. We can do only what we can do as people and citizens.
Of course, we can do the natural thing for public officials--we can consider policy. But more important than the issues is the debate. We must talk about policy change "in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds." Or, in another phrase, "How can we honor the fallen? How can we be true to their memory?" Application, as it does in most sermons, concludes the speech. In the life and the way of Christina Green and the others, we can find our way.
I'll finish with that theme. Christina was our child and the president framed our community as a family. We owe one another; we are inextricably tied by the bonds of familial obligation.
On one level, he did so through direct comparison. As he moved from the reflection to the application section of the address, for instance, he urged us to "expand our moral imagination, to listen to each other more carefully" because "that's what most of us do when we lose someone in our family." Obama performs the oft-agonized questions we ask at such moments and, in a lovely line, concludes, "We recognize our own mortality, and we are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this Earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame--but rather how well we have loved--and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better."
Those "who were harmed," then and "those who were killed--they are part of our family, an American family 300 million strong." The president moves outward from the personal to the public and back again, now characterizing the slain in familial terms--brother, grandmother--in how we surely "see ourselves in them." So, too, the "heart" metaphor Obama invokes throughout the speech--torn, broken, open, full--is a trope generally used for love and family.
As he concludes, he foregrounds Christina Taylor Greene. I suspect that every time he looked at her picture, he saw his daughters. And so, with no offense to the others, he highlights the child, for a child shall lead us.
And that is the tricky part of this speech. For the familial metaphor, as many have argued, is often used to enforce patriarchy, to frustrate progress, to enshrine the Great Father. President Obama, however, has an interesting habit--he invokes traditional terms such as the American dream or the family metaphor, but always in ways that redefine them, subvert them, and open them to alternative voices and languages.
In this instance, we "imagine" (recall that he has earlier asked us to expand our moral imaginations) this young girl--by that, he clearly means that we are to see the world as her. He creates a virtual experience and uses emotional appeal (what the Greeks termed "pathos") in a way that suggests the normative power of rhetoric. Thomas Farrell notes that, when used in such a way, pathos "removes us from the immediacy of familiar appearance, thereby allowing us to formulate conditions for appreciating the needs of others." Pathos becomes a social emotion; we see ourselves in Christina and "are taken outside" of our immediate lives. We become something more (70-71).
So, Obama says that she "was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship." She saw our democracy as we should see it and, now, "I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it." The cultural logic is quite familiar; Luke 10:13: "Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it."
Equally important, the President of the United States was bound in obligation to the least of these, to a little child--we must live up to her expectations. Yes, Obama invokes the family, but he does so to bind all of us--and the most powerful among us--to the wishes of a child, to imagine a community that a child would proclaim justified. Only in that way might we make a democracy "through the eyes of a child." That--and only that--would fulfill our covenant.
Quite a speech. One that will grow as we think about it.