This seems to be a "rhetoric versus reality" problem. Obama does seem to be a clear, articulate, hopeful, inclusive, forward oriented person and candidate. He does seem to want to be perceived as the kind of person who includes everyone in the discussion, the process of crafting policy. Yet his history as a legislator and his pronouncement about specific policy choices alienate him from many voters. It is unclear to me why the grammar of hope with its infinite possibilities, which he seems to do well, is preferable to the grammar of fear with its much more restricted set of possibilities. It may be that our grammar ought to match our reality, and it may be that our possibilities are not infinite, that our choices do have consequences over which we have no control, and that we do have much to fear in this world from those who have bad ideas, even if their motives are good.
I do not see how a person such as Obama, whose policy positions are opposed by so many, can possibly unite the country. I do not even know what it means to unite the country or if that is possible or even desirable. There are deep divisions in philosophy and policy in our nation, and these will not go away. Being invited to the table, being consulted, being asked, while certainly desirable, are not substitutes for having one's ideas put into effect. Personally, I vote for political leaders with whom I agree on the key issues that matter the most to me. Historically, presidential candidates who look to the future are more successful than those who look to the past--Obama has learned this lesson--but it seems at best counterintuitive to vote for a candidate with whom one disagrees violently on nearly every issue in the hope that somehow having a place at the table will make up for not having the kinds of policies one desires.
Scott Woods
Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Assembly Members,
I have sent the following letter in response to an L.A. TIMES editorial. If language shapes our thinking, grammar shapes the framework in which our thinking takes place. We are at a crossroads where narrative meets process, where past, present, and future meet the eternal present, surrounded by infinite possibilities. I send this to you in hopes that it resonates with your thinking.
I look forward to reading your responses.
Sincerely,
Gregg Heacock
Dear Editor,
Jonah Goldberg in “Obama’s rhetoric, American realities” is right to raise the issue of whether a diverse community with a history of individual grievances could come to the same table to plan together for their common future. Quoting Robert Putnam, author of “Bowling Alone,” he says, “In the presence of diversity, we hunker down,” and he interprets this lack of “social trust” as possibly being a form of “realism.” As a teacher of English, I respect our realistic inclination to challenge other people’s thinking by saying, “Yes, but . . . ,” “So what!,” and “Oh, yeah? What makes you think so? How do you know?” These challenges, based on logical conditions of sufficient grounds, relevance, and acceptability, are filters that protect us from intellectual pollution. The question is whether our filtration system gets so clogged with lack of basic trust that it never lets any new information get through. Do our histories and personal grievances get in the way of
being realistic? What makes Obama such an agent of change is that he has found a way to move us beyond ourselves.
Grammar provides us with two frames through which we view our lives. Scientific, or process, paragraphs are written in the eternal present: We do this, then do that to bring about a desired result. Historic, or narrative, paragraphs are written in the past tense, exploring how the past affects the present and could repeat itself in the future. Most of us a pleased to imagine ourselves in the eternal present for we are never lost in the here and now and the possibilities before us are infinite. Our decisions, therefore, are guided by hope. When we think of the harm we have suffered in the past and contemplate how we might continue to be harmed in the future, our decisions in the present are guided by fear.
Because Obama is a pluralist, honoring all groups and all proposals and setting criteria for discerning which ideas are presently acceptable, he is about process, not about grievance. People who come to the table may carry resentments, but, relevant though they may be to evaluating the worth of a plan, they are subsumed by the criteria agreed upon by all. Obama has already shown us how this process works. In the pre-Nevada caucus debate, John Edwards challenged him on his willingness to include the nuclear power industry in negotiating our energy policy. He said the history of the nuclear industry showed it could not be trusted. Obama countered by saying that one of the conditions for any energy plan is that it must be safe. So far, the nuclear industry has not shown itself to be able to dispose nuclear waste safely. Edwards agreed, then, that their positions were essentially the same. Excluding the nuclear power industry from the table would not be fair.
Telling the nuclear industry that it must meet certain safety criteria is straight-forward and honest.
Politics of the past has been based on excluding people and proposals from the table. Obama’s way of thinking is new on the American and international scene. Its newness makes it hard for us to understand. But, it is inherent in the very language we use that shapes our thinking. It is what makes Obama a uniter, not a divider. That’s why we trust him to serve as our agent of change.
Respectfully,
Gregg Heacock To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/