|
From
Sojourners…
After Tucson, the
State of the Union
In Tucson, Arizona, President Obama spoke to the state of the nation’s
soul. Next Tuesday, January 25, he will speak to the state of the
union. But these two topics are not as separate as they might seem.
Presidents often use the State of the Union as a moment to talk about
who we are, who we are not, and who we can be as a nation. Democratic
Senator Charles Schumer and Republican Senator Tom Coburn will sit next
to one another during the president’s State of the Union as a testament
to where both of these senators -- who have significant disagreements
-- hope our nation’s soul will come to rest. I share their hope for our
nation.
The speech Barack Obama gave in Tucson was a memorial to the victims of
a horrible tragedy, but the spirit of his speech could also shape
Tuesday’s State of the Union address by calling us to be worthy of each
victim’s sacrifice. The political leaders of the nation have shown
signs of wanting a more civil discourse, and there have even been signs
of reflection and re-examination in some of our media forums. The
president should continue to build on this fresh, but still frail,
desire for less rancor and a more democratic conversation.
The State of the Union could be a good time to call us to move beyond
the exaggeration, caricature, misinformation, and demonization that
occur too often in our public discourse today. Instead, President Obama
could call us to clarify honest disagreements and identify potential
points of unity.
Wouldn’t we all rather see the end of a recession defined by more jobs
on Main Street, rather than by more profit on Wall Street? Wouldn’t we
all like to create jobs using methods favored by both liberals and
conservatives?
Couldn’t now be a time to reaffirm a national commitment to care for
the widow, the orphan, and the marginalized? Couldn’t we agree that
Social Security is good for society, and discuss the best means to make
sure it is strengthened and available for today’s seniors who need it,
and for generations to come?
Can’t we agree to hold our biggest banks and corporations accountable
to simple standards of fairness and decency, without being
anti-business in ways that hurt our economy?
Wouldn’t we all like to see a broken immigration system (that both
parties are responsible for neglecting) reformed in a humane way,
rather than hear fruitless debates over extreme views on deportation
versus amnesty?
Can’t we all agree that we want more people covered by health care; the
most egregious practices of health-care industry reformed; and the
costs of health care better controlled? Can’t we work to mend the
health-care reform bill, rather than participate in the partisan,
symbolic, shrill, and inconsequential battles over repealing it?
Can we agree that the deficit is a moral issue, but so are the ways we
choose to reduce it? Can we agree not to resolve our deficit by making
our most vulnerable citizens even more vulnerable? Can we agree that
powerful special interest groups should not be allowed to keep their
interests off the table of scrutiny?
Can’t we see that the costs of the war in Afghanistan fall on too few
families; that 10 years of the same policy is enough; and that in a
time of deficit, an endless war is simply unsustainable? Instead, can
we talk about our responsibility to the people of Afghanistan, to our
own over-stretched veterans, and to our need for “nation-building” at
home?
All of this may be far too hopeful, and I certainly don’t want to be
simplistic. But in the field of conflict resolution, there is a common
and very effective technique that is often employed: You have to state
the opinion of your adversary repeatedly until they agree that you
understand their position, and that they have been heard correctly.
Continuing to exaggerate, distort, misrepresent, and attack the other’s
position or opinions will not help resolve conflicts.
I often wonder if this same discipline needs to be used in solving the
nation’s biggest problems. Until we have listened long enough,
carefully enough, and respectfully enough to the legitimate concerns of
the other side, we will never accurately understand the issues,
problems, disagreements, and ways we can find possible common ground --
or, at least, the necessary compromises. Even when there are clear
clashes of interests that must be debated, won, or lost, it is still
helpful to understand what those differences really are.
On Tuesday, the president can help call us to a new and better national
discourse. He can, and should, state his own visions, goals, and
priorities, and then invite the other side to offer their own in the
days ahead. Maybe, just maybe, Tucson will help us change the terms,
tactics, and tenor of our political battles. And the president has the
opportunity to lead the way.
Sojourners
|
|
|
|
