Obama’s Triumph in Tucson

Tonight’s event in Arizona was a somewhat strange, not always comfortable, melange of moods and messages. But it concluded as an emotional and intellectual triumph–one that showed Barack Obama at his very best.

Early on, the wild cheering of the crowd felt tone-deaf and inappropriate. It’s true that memorials can also be a celebration of life. But there’s a way to convey that spirit without making it sound like a football pep rally. Some of the wild cheering, alas, brought to mind a pregame drinking session at the local sorority house. And it was distracting to see newly-elected GOP Congressman Ben Quayle, who aired a campaign ad calling Obama “the worst president in American history,” sitting just a couple of rows behind the president (just behind, surely coincidentally but perhaps fittingly, a few beefy Secret Service guards).

During his remarks, however, Obama pushed through the awkward dissonance between his initial solemn words, and then masterfully harnessed the crowd’s energy–yes, much like at a campaign rally–for the passages that celebrated Saturday’s heroes and the thrilling news that Gabby Giffords opened her eyes in her hospital bed tonight. From there he wisely played the role of conciliator, rising above partisan politics with a call for comity and civility. “What we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another,” Obama said–a line implicitly aimed less at the right than at the left, parts of which have strained to link conservative figures like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to the Tucson massacre. Some analysts may call this more political positioning, or triangulation, from a president who’s been edging to the center and grousing about liberals of late. And perhaps it is. But this is also hardly a new theme for Obama. Read his September 2005 posting on the lefty blog Daily Kos, in which he urged combative liberals to tone it down. (“I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose,” Obama wrote. “A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.”)

Just one qualm about this portion of the speech: Did the senseless murder of several innocent people really call for a sermon on civility in public life? Does this really feel like a central element of Saturday’s cruel and seemingly meaningless tragedy? I wonder how many Americans feel that these words satisfied their yearnings of the past few days.

Which is why the speech’s final passage was its most powerful. Obama went beyond the realm of political discourse to something more elemental, an articulation of life philosophy that touches every single American. Obama used the occasion of Saturday’s tragic deaths to offer a message to us all about about how to live, how to help one another, how to begin restoring a bruised country. Two passages conveyed this message. First:

We recognize our own mortality, and 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 bettering the lives of others.

And then, reiterated through the prism of nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green’s life:

I believe we can be better.  Those who died here, those who saved lives here – they help me believe.  We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us.  I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

That’s what I believe, in part because that’s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed.  Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation’s future.  She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful.  She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model.  She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want us to live up to her expectations.  I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it.  All of us – we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations….

If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here on Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.

These calls to our better angels–directed less at the secondary issue of public discourse and more at the first principles of what we value as a society and the nobility of public service–perfectly matched the heartbreaking occasion. All the better that Obama delivered these words with both lyrical eloquence and moral authority. It was certainly the finest rhetorical moment of his presidency–and perhaps of his life.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • 53_3

    You should know better than to second guess the conduct of 14,000 people, Micheal.
    .
    They were not propagandized. They were not whipped up by any rhetoric. So leave that alone.
    .
    They may have been cheering in relief.
    .
    Also, to answer your question about whether he should bring up rhetoric;
    .
    We could take the pragmatic (low) road and say, “why bother, that’s what will always be” or, we can take the altruistic (high) road and at least allow that Obama was right in appealing for civility.
    .
    After all, immediately following the speech, the news broke that Jim McDearmott was threatened very recently by a man in CA.
    .
    His motive:
    .
    Jim was against tax cuts for the rich.
    .
    I think you need to take another look at your pragmatism and ask this question:
    .
    What country would I rather live in? The idealistic or the pragmatic America.

  • kbanginmotown

    I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose,” Obama wrote…

    …about Swampland?
    .
    Let’s stay classy, folks.
    .
    Oh, and Thursday starts in 52 minutes.

  • 53_3

    There’s a movement afoot to make Thursday last 30 days.
    .
    I’m in.

  • chupkar

    “Just one qualm about this portion of the speech: Did the senseless murder of several innocent people really call for a sermon on civility in public life? Does this really feel like a central element of Saturday’s cruel and seemingly meaningless tragedy? I wonder how many Americans feel that these words satisfied their yearnings of the past few days.”

    I’ll say it again. The speech made me feel better. I imagine it made many Arizonans and Tusconites feel better. Was that not the point? So he addressed the elephant in the room. I suspect there would be as much criticism if it were not there.

  • deathbypapers

    As someone who was both deeply shaken by the shootings and at the memorial, I am fairly confident in saying that majority of the cheering came from one source: relief.
    This city, which, as the dean said, still considers itself a small university town, has been re-living this tragedy over and over again for the past 5 days. We needed a reason to hope. A reason to cheer. A reason to believe. We found those reasons by celebrating the lives of those we have lost, valuing those who remain, and thanking for those who saved them. Was it sometimes a bit boisterous and a bit raucous? Yes, but please don’t judge us if we needed some catharsis.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “Just one qualm about this portion of the speech: Did the senseless murder of several innocent people really call for a sermon on civility in public life?”

    Strange question to ask considering you just called the speech (during a memorial for the “murder of several innocent people”) a f@cking “triumph” for the president!? As in “the joy or exultation of victory or success.”

  • 53_3

    Hey, kbanger:
    .
    I wasn’t being funny. Look at the oldest of the last four posts.
    .
    If this keeps up, you might be the happiest individual on these here blogs…

  • stuartzechman

    And yet another theater critic pens his best effort of a review.

  • 53_3

    I think he was a bit too pragmatic in his comment about Obama’s call for civility.
    .
    Personally, I really like it. I’m not holding my breath, but I am sneaking very shallow breaths on this one.
    .
    It would be the first time in my memory that we have civil discourse, something you have very much wanted…

  • stuartzechman

    I practice civility in my discourse, I’d like to think. That’s how much I want it.
    .
    Somehow I don’t think that this sort of political theater actually has very much to do with real life, though.
    .
    Then again, I don’t think that the main problem with our country is a lack of civil discourse.

  • elwaitactu8

    Then again, I don’t think that the main problem with our country is a lack of civil discourse.
    .
    Stuart, that might not be the main problem but it’s probably the first step to solving any problem.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    SZ, can I just say that comes across as an insult to theatre critics?

  • stuartzechman

    If I have insulted the profession of luminaries like Frank Rich in any way, I do not apologize.

  • stuartzechman

    that might not be the main problem but it’s probably the first step to solving any problem.
    .
    What makes you think that?
    .
    Why wouldn’t it be at least equally likely that the first step to solving any problem is getting angry enough to say “f*ck civility,” and to do something about it?
    .
    I don’t think that civil discourse is the fist step to solving any problem. I think that it really depends on what one’s definition of the problem is. If one’s problem is that the house is on fire, civil discourse about who will douse the flames with what may not be the first step to a solution.
    .
    In elite political circles, they seem to have decided that the problem is one whose solution lies in civility. That decision seems to have pre-dated the AZ tragedy by many years.
    .
    That’s probably why there’s been a lot of political theater involving the idea that civil discourse is the key to solving our problems as a nation, and not, say, withholding money from rich people who f*ck things up for everybody else.

  • crosmt

    Michael, I agree with you. This was one of President Obama’s finest hours. One of the GREATEST Eulogies. The right President for the right time in this country.

  • elwaitactu8

    I’ll grant you that you are correct in situations where one can act unilaterally. Our government is not set up in such a manner and for good cause.
    .
    I know you feel strongly about certain topics. I know you’ve thought through all the options and logically arrived at your conclusion. I’ve read enough of your dialogues to recognize that you’re rational and well-reasoned. Is it not possible though for someone just as rational and well reasoned to come to a different conclusion than you either through looking at different evidence or beginning with different assumptions.
    .
    If either of you are allowed to act unilaterally as you suggest above one of you will not be represented. I know this leads to half-measures and watered-down legislation. Sometimes this allows the problem to continue (recent health-care legislation come to mind) but other times these half steps can show us in a timely manner that a whole step would have been injudicious.
    .
    The problem with unilateralism is eventually “the decider” is going to be wrong or be right with unexpected side-effects. Our system is set up to prevent that. Unfortunately, recently our system has instead been used to force a stalemate between extremes. I believe civil discourse would break this stalemate and allow our government to get back to work.

  • elwaitactu8

    In the third paragraph the “this” in the second sentence refers to compromise through civil discourse not unilateralism.

  • http://mpsssewell.wordpress.com mpsewell

    I was utterly appalled while watching the leadup to the President speaking. These people acted like they were at a UofA pep rally, not a memorial service. Did any of them care in the least what had happened?

    By the end I was surprised no one had shouted “GO WILDCATS!”

    The President should have given a somber, sober address from the Oval Office on Sunday or Monday. This venue was awful, and completely off-putting. Is it any wonder that if you treat something like this like a rock concert (handing out t-shirts with the “logo” of the memorial for God’s sake) that a bunch of idiot college students will treat it as such?

    Janet Napoletano screaming “THANK YOU TUSCON!” put the nail in the entire thing for me. I was ready to vomit. 6 people are dead, and we get a political/college pep rally. Fantastic.

  • stuartzechman

    I believe that you’re saying that reasonable and informed people can conclude differently, and of course I think that’s true.
    .
    When you mention “extremes,” I hope that you’re referring not just to left or right, but to the extreme center, as well.
    .
    I don’t immediately share your view of a number of points you’ve just made about our political situation, but I will consider your arguments, and, schedule permitting, respond tomorrow morning, probably with some questions.
    .
    Thanks for your thoughts.

  • chupkar

    Well, if you had actually listened to what people *said* you might feel differently. The *crowd* (composed of a lot of young people from the University, I think, too) was cheering a lot. The *speakers* were all quite eloquent, persuasive, inspiring and soothing. From the Blessing Way, to the Student President, to Daniel Hernandez, to the President…..all, quite inspiring.

  • http://mpsssewell.wordpress.com mpsewell

    The speakers were mostly fine (with the exception of Janet Napoletano and her idiotic “THANK YOU TUSCON!” opening).

    This entire venue was inappropriate. The President should have done this from the Oval Office. Handing out t-shirts with logos? What is that even supposed to be? Wow, 6 people were massacred, let’s make up t-shirts, whee. I have no idea who was responsible for organizing this or setting the tone, the President obviously went in expecting something somber but didn’t get it.

    This was like a campaign rally or something. I was baffled from the moment I turned the channel. I was really hoping for something beautiful and elegant.

    Instead we had a bunch of idiots chanting “WE LOVE YOU!” and cheering and applauding at 6 people’s deaths.

  • trhunnicutt

    THIS WAS A UNITY RALLY

    It was consciously described and marketed to the attendees as a “UNITY RALLY”.

    And the T-Shirts “Together We Thrive: Arizona and America” were put together by the University of Arizona. Not Obama. Nor Plouffe.

    It wasn’t supposed to be a wake, or a memorial service.

    This explains why the audience were cheering and not sitting “quiet like in church”.

    Expectations. People are trying to spin this as some form of “pep” rally, or political event, and not sober enough.

    Unity.
    Rally.

    not

    Memorial.
    Service.

    Big difference at how you would react and behave if you thought you were going to one versus the other.

    Same with the shirts. It was done by the University, for the community.

    [From the U of A website]

    “Thousands of people are expected on the University of Arizona campus today to hear President Barack Obama speak during an event honoring Saturday’s shooting victims.

    “Together We Thrive: Tucson and America” will begin at 6 p.m.

    … [snip] …

    “We wanted to represent that every person has their own individual concerns and is grieving in their own way, but we’re all comng together and joining in unity and this is the physical representation of that,” said ASUA President Emily Fritze, a senior majoring in political science.

    Of Obama’s visit, Fritze said: “This is an opportunity for us, borne from very very unfortunate circumstances.”

    “Students are excited and comforted to have the president come and deliver a message to the campus community,” she said.”

  • http://mpsssewell.wordpress.com mpsewell

    Actually, it was specifically called a Memorial in the leadup, and it was the first time the President spoke on the matter.

    It was a disgusting, childish display by the people in the audience who were more eager to see the President than they were to hear about 6 people’s deaths.

    But hey, why not, print up t-shirts and milk their deaths for all the UofA student body can, why not, right? At least they were entertained! (Even if it was at 6 people’s expense)

    As an aside: I thought the President’s speech was fantastic. The people in the audience were monsters.

  • apr2563

    sz and jc, can you give it a rest just one night? The cynicism and sense of superiority, no matter how often I agree with your views, becomes wearisome.

  • imaryma

    Born on 9/11, you were
    A reminder that birth anew
    Gives hope when evil does occur,
    That humankind has good to do.
    Nine years later, evil did come
    And you were in its deathtrap caught.
    A killer’s bullet took you from
    Your life. You will be missed a lot.
    But though you’re gone, you do remind
    A weary world that children be
    The hopes and dreams of humankind.
    You taught us good humanity.

    You are an angel now serene.
    Bless you Christina Taylor Green.

  • liberalmeltdown

    Isn’t that a second call April? Actually, I find JC’s comment’s refreshing. I am so freakin’ cynical.

  • ricardo4max

    Wellstone Memorial.
    Crass hypocrites.

  • kbanginmotown

    My comment wasn’t directed at you, Fitty. Three points:
    .
    1) I agree with you that more attention should be paid to “low profile” threats and acts of violence (such as the one you describe against Jim McDearmott). In this way, we Americans can better gage when to turn down the heat to keep from boiling over. (For example, not everyone has the means to fly a plane into an IRS building and get on the front page.)
    .
    2) The comments to the last 4 “Obama Speech” posts by Joe, Michael C., Alex+Katy, and Amy have been remarkably civil. Especially when you contrast it to the kitteh-pocalyps that preceded it.
    .
    3) It has always been my hope that Thursdays would catch on…*sigh*

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Oh what a speech, B.O at his best.
    .
    Pfft!
    .
    He’s always at his best in an arena full of his young brainwashed faithful.
    .
    In total agreement with you mpsewell. Should have been done in a more sombre setting, but would it have been as “great” a speech? Without the raccous cheers from the hypnotised Obamabots always found in our universities, would this have been much more than a footnote?
    .
    And is anybody stupid enough out there to believe that our nation is a better place today than yesterday, that the families of these victims are healing now because of arguably one of the easiest speeches a president can make? Especially in a room full of adoring fanatics?

  • michaelfury

    If the President wants to live up to Christina Taylor Green’s expectations he can start by telling the truth about the day she was born that she did not live to hear.

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/fool-me-twice

  • newfreedomblog

    I usually ignore you crap for exactly what it is, crap. But, just one question. Did Van Jones resign the 9/11 Truther petition again? Just curious.

  • newfreedomblog

    I usually ignore your crap for exactly what it is, crap. But, just one question. Did Van Jones resign the 9/11 Truther petition again? Just curious.

  • stuartzechman

    elwaitactu8:
    .
    So, I’m thinking about this exchange, and I’m wondering if you wouldn’t mind helping me understand a few things about where you’re coming from.
    .
    I notice you’ve used the term “unilateral” a bit here, but rather than parse or argue whether that term really describes or doesn’t describe our situation with respect to the current government (were the PPACA or Recovery act “unilateral”, since one passed through a majority vote in reconciliation, and the other with 3 GOP votes in the Senate) , I’d like to focus on your meaning when you use the terms “half-measures and watered-down legislation.”
    .
    In what sense do you mean that the PPACA was “half-measures and watered-down legislation,” if I understand you correctly?
    .
    And one more thing:
    .
    You’ve described yourself as “center-left” in another thread, and I’m wondering if you can elaborate on that. Do you consider yourself a movement liberal? If you are not a movement liberal, then to which named set of ideological tenets do you subscribe? Remember, saying that one is dedicated to “pragmatism” or that one’s philosophy is “pragmatic” is itself an ideological declaration in its implicit denunciation of current ideological formulae.
    .
    So, what does “center-left” mean, and to what ideology do you adhere, if you are not a movement liberal, elwaitactu8?
    .
    Thanks so much in advance for helping me better understand your thinking.

blog comments powered by Disqus