One thing about Barrack Obama’s presidency is certain: he is here to bring about a change. This can be witnessed through the way he acts, speaks, and approaches issues. The most recent example that he’s approaching his presidency differently than any of the past presidents is evident in the variety of non-traditional people who will be involved in his inauguration.
In her article “Inclusiveness defines Obama’s inauguration,” Cathleen Falsani, a writer for the Chicago Sun-Times claims that the diversity in the committee of people who will be taking part in Obama’s inauguration sends a message about Obama’s willingness to bring the country together as one nation. She claims that if the religious voices celebrating Obama’s inauguration are any sign of his style, then “Obama’s administration will be one marked by collaboration and cooperation, not coercion or mandate.” Falsani believes that Obama’s methods of inclusion will form ties between bitter parties and move towards a “more perfect union” of the people.
I agree with Falsani that this is a step in the right direction. By bringing in all different types of parties for his inauguration, Obama shows his willingness and desire to assimilate everyone and bring the people together. In his book Hellfire Nation, James Morone claims that one of the biggest issues with the coordination of religion and politics is the “us vs. them” problem, where one party is always alienated and thus is not supportive of the administration. Obama, by attempting to have all groups represented in his inauguration, has done his best to overcome these “us vs. them” divisions so everyone has a face in his administration that represents their beliefs.
However I think this strategy could backfire if Obama isn’t careful, because by bringing all these people in for his inauguration, he has shown that he’s willing to spreading his loyalties throughout many groups. If he turns his back on them after the inauguration, the consequences could be greater than if he had just chosen one side. However if handled correctly, this decision to have such a diverse assortment of religious voices involved in his inauguration will indeed help unite the people of America.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Although I agree with Neal and Cathleen Falsani that Obama’s decision to include representatives of many religions at his inauguration will put his desire to be inclusive on the world stage, I disagree with Neal’s point that the choice to do so might “backfire” on Obama. Neal makes the valid observation that “by bringing all these people in for his inauguration, [Obama] has shown that he’s willing to spreading his loyalties throughout many groups. If he turns his back on them after the inauguration, the consequences could be greater than if he had just chosen one side.” However, I disagree with this assessment. The repercussions of America’s “everybody’s man” choosing to favor one particular religion (let’s say, for discussion purposes, that he stuck to his own faith) would no doubt cause members of the nation’s minority religions to feel slighted and ostracized. And it’s not just religious Americans who have a stake in who gets an invite to pray at the inauguration: Obama has invited the first openly homosexual Episcopal bishop to join in the event (a wise move considering the outrage sparked in the LGBT community when accused homophobe Rick Warren was asked to give the invocation). In his first public appearance as President, it would be foolish for Obama to appear to be anything less than inclusive.
I agree with Neil's assessment that Obama is trying to move beyond the partisan ideologies and the "us vs. them" mentality that has characterized politics for so long. However, Neil ends his post with the argument that President-elect Obama's attempt to bring people together could backfire because he now owes so many groups that each group will inevitably be disappointed. While I agree that Obama's decision might backfire, I don't think it will be for the reason Neil states.
I believe that there is such a thing as being TOO inclusive, that trying to bring too many groups together will result in deadlock. Sometimes a president, or any leader, must abandon his or her admirable decision to work together in order to simply get things done. I am not arguing that Barack Obama will necessarily end up in this situation. He seems to have an amazing ability to bring people together and to cause people to hope. But an effective leader must have the ability to make hard decisions, and the strength to take responsibility for them. While it is admirable that Obama wants to move beyond partisan ideology, he must recognize that simply having many opposing viewpoints surrounding him does not make him an effective leader.
The ability to listen to all sides of an argument and then take responsibility for the final decision is the mark of a good leader, and while groups may ultimately be disappointed in the outcome, as Neil warns, the alternative is far worse. An America that is unable to move in any direction on any issue is an America that will lose its prominence quickly, and that is the danger Obama risks by bringing too many viewpoints to the table.
The inauguration of a president is all about symbols. The president-elect promises to uphold the constitution, but he says nothing binding contractually. He makes an address to the nation, in which he states his plan of action for his first term—but four years is too long and too unpredictable a period of time for him to go into any specifics. Likewise, the people he invites are symbolic and highly political. Rick Warren is no more indicative of Obama’s personal faith or ideas about homosexually than Colin Powell’s endorsement is of the president-elect’s views on the war.
Neal writes, “By bringing in all different types of parties for his inauguration, Obama shows his willingness and desire to assimilate everyone and bring the people together.” The people Obama is bringing in to the inauguration, however, represent hardly more than symbolic and political choices. Far more significant is his fairly homogenous cabinet: the stars of the Democratic party, led by the man often characterized as sharp-elbowed, pugnacious, and abrasive, Rahm Emanuel.
Inclusiveness is laudable, but so is Hannah P’s philosophical observation that “there is such a thing as being TOO inclusive.” I firmly believe that virtue cannot exercise itself without accumulating enemies. The president-elect has very few enemies. I will not say that this is because he has very few virtues, but I do think it is because he has not exercised his virtue—he has not yet had to deny his many political allies any significant favors. There is a danger, in the words of Churchill, in not being able “to pronounce the word ‘No’.” One cannot please all the people all the time.
Post a Comment