President Obama's memorial speech in Tucson on January 12 delivered a message of consolation and hope about the terrible killings four days earlier. Don't we realize, the president asked, that we Americans are all neighbors, that we are something like the members of a family? And once we recognize that, shouldn't we agree to respect each other and talk gently to each other? A decent sympathy becomes us, even in our disagreements.
This was a reiteration of Barack Obama's Democratic National Convention Keynote Address of 2004. We are not red states and blue states, the president is saying once again. We are all one America. Like a preacher at a service in a parish church, he spoke on Wednesday emphatically, and with familiar affection, of those who had been killed. He spoke more particularly of democratic citizenship and the relation between citizens and their representatives. Yet there was a notable omission. The president's memorial address in Tucson never mentioned the rule of law.
Political speculation about the motives of the accused man, Jared Loughner, have run ahead of the evidence; but in common not legal language it seems plain that Loughner was psychotic and that he was a lover of guns: categories that overlap in American life with disturbing frequency. It is also a truth familiar to anyone who has lived close to an excitable and mentally unstable person, that, invariably, such people grow wilder in the presence of violent actions and excitable speech. The stimuli work as an incitement in an obvious sense. The proximate acts and words heat them up and bring the idea of actual violence closer. This effect of habituation is known as well to the relatively sane. Habit can make the most repulsive ideas appear normal, and the habit of entertaining violent remedies for occult harms may harden us to violence itself.
Abraham Lincoln's first great speech was delivered in 1838 when Lincoln was a state representative in Illinois. The occasion was the civil disorders of the time, and their apparent climax, a recent spate of lynchings in St. Louis and Vicksburg. The young Lincoln addressed his audience at the Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois with a feeling we are again becoming accustomed to: the surprise is that we are not surprised. The atmosphere that made those killings possible was the Panic of 1837. Speculative fever, above all speculation in the sale of lands and the inability of state banks to cover losses from the investments they sponsored, had produced a bubble and then financial collapse. Unemployment reached as high as 10%. Rage (like flood water seeking a path) spread everywhere and picked its targets with feckless velocity. Lincoln spoke of this as a disease of the "mobocratic" spirit.
President Obama, seeking to quiet the public disorders of which he took the Arizona shooting to be a symptom, spoke of the healing value of "civility" -- a general virtue whose desirability no one could fail to endorse. Lincoln, by contrast, used a phrase whose meaning was sharp and whose reference was unmistakable. He spoke of the necessity of abiding by the laws. Indeed, in his Lyceum speech of 1838 he made law-abidingness the condition of the maintenance of democracy. His subject was "the perpetuation of our political institutions" and his message was that the institutions of constitutional democracy cannot survive unless its citizens resolve to abide by the laws; to obey even, and perhaps most of all, when a law is not to our liking. Nineteen years later, he would adhere to that principle in his own reaction to the Dred Scott decision.
Lincoln addressed the future of a free people, and threats to freedom that do not come from external enemies:
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country, from New England to Louisiana; -- they are neither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former, nor the burning suns of the latter; -- they are not the creature of climate -- neither are they confined to the slaveholding, or the non-slaveholding States. Alike, they spring up among the pleasure hunting masters of Southern slaves, and the order loving citizens of the land of steady habits. Whatever, then, their cause may be, it is common to the whole country.The last sentence makes clear that Lincoln is speaking at a time when it looks as if the violence may grow worse.
He now brings up a case in which the actions of a mob obliterated the distinction between suspect and criminal:
Turn, then, to that horror-striking scene at St. Louis. A single victim was only sacrificed there. His story is very short; and is, perhaps, the most highly tragic, of any thing of its length, that has ever been witnessed in real life. A mulatto man, by the name of McIntosh, was seized in the street, dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a tree, and actually burned to death; and all within a single hour from the time he had been a freeman, attending to his own business, and at peace with the world.For Lincoln, there is something more important than the family feeling a nation may share. Greater than such domestic piety is the respect of free citizens for the laws by which they agree to be governed.Such are the effects of mob law; and such are the scenes, becoming more and more frequent in this land so lately famed for love of law and order; and the stories of which, have even now grown too familiar, to attract any thing more, than an idle remark.
Abstractly considered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg, was of but little consequence. They constitute a portion of population, that is worse than useless in any community; and their death, if no pernicious example be set by it, is never matter of reasonable regret with any one. If they were annually swept, from the stage of existence, by the plague or small pox, honest men would, perhaps, be much profited, by the operation. Similar too, is the correct reasoning, in regard to the burning of the negro at St. Louis. He had forfeited his life, by the perpetration of an outrageous murder, upon one of the most worthy and respectable citizens of the city; and had he not died as he did, he must have died by the sentence of the law, in a very short time afterwards. As to him alone, it was as well the way it was, as it could otherwise have been. But the example in either case, was fearful. When men take it in their heads to-day, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one, who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them, by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil. By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained. Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation.He adds that in such conditions, even good men may grow disgusted with their chaotic state and look for a different system to restore the public peace.
For Lincoln, the heart of democracy is the idea of self-government. And it is the most complex of ideas. Self-government is not the same as the unrestrained pursuit of self-interest -- a word he treated as synonymous with selfishness -- and it does not imply obedience to a government whose laws are inaccessible to and unacknowledged by the people. Strangely, Lincoln observes, the establishment of freedom by the war of independence was a work less intricate than the maintenance of self-government once the threat from external enemies had passed. The danger to orderly freedom remains but now it has a different source:
The question recurs "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others...So Lincoln recommends that obedience to the laws be the civil religion of Americans. I will obey the laws that are now in force (each citizen is asked to think) in order to prove myself worthy of self-government; by that pledge and by that act, I also prove myself fit to participate in the making of different or better laws.When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.
Why should the heroic work of establishing a system of self-government turn out to be easier than the daily work of maintaining that system? The reason, Lincoln says, comes from the charm and availability of the passion for victory, the allure of immortal fame, the excitement of heroic self-sacrifice. Those feelings supported the men and women of 1776 in their battle against the British Empire; but they cannot support us in our arguments with each other:
Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defense. Let those materials be molded into general intelligence, sound morality and, in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws.Of course, "a reverence for the constitution and laws" presumes an understanding of the constitution and concern with the principles of justice that the laws are meant to embody.
All this is a harder truth to convey than the cultivation of "civility," an idea whose limits so often shift in accordance with self-interest. Suppose a national leader calls for the persecution a man who has not yet been charged with any crime -- as for example Vice President Biden did when he described Julian Assange as a "high-tech terrorist" -- and suppose the leader does so in a pleasant voice and using commonplace words. Such a leader surely commits a trespass against reverence for the constitution and laws. Yet no one will say that his manners are uncivil. The severity of Lincoln's simple words about the constitution brings out the evasiveness of President Obama's fluent words about civility.
For a people that lives by self-government, care for the spirit of the laws is a higher virtue than neighborliness. It was not neighborly virtue in any case but political expedience that made President Obama in his first days in office assert that he would "look forward as opposed to looking backwards" at the possible crimes committed by government officers in the years 2002-08. The new president spoke with indifference about certain laws and their application to the acts of public officials. In doing so, he violated Lincoln's pledge. In Tucson, however, the president offered a stricter standard for private life. He said that "sudden loss causes us to look backward -- but it also forces us to look forward." Why should private loss cause us to look both backward and forward, while public calamity requires a public official to look only forward?
In his words of consolation and exhortation in Tucson, President Obama sought to achieve an effect that many Americans were looking for. He comforted. Yet he did not instruct. To say it civilly: the loss to the integrity of the United States from official defiance of the laws, is a loss to all Americans as surely as the killings in Tucson were. The Arizona killer will be prosecuted. To give assurance as President Obama did, that men who broke laws in the nation's capital would not be prosecuted because to do so might appear uncivil, was a defection from the duty of reverence for the constitution and laws. It is beyond anyone's competence to estimate the power of such an example in a national leader.
President Obama on Wednesday strove most of all to be seen as a moral leader, a coach of the morale of the American people. It is an interesting job, but a job without boundaries, unlike the office of chief magistrate. In a manner reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's speech on the Challenger disaster of January 28, 1986, Obama on Wednesday spoke of feelings not laws. His choice was partly suited to the occasion, and yet talk of feelings, sentiments, goals, so broadly stated that they are impossible not to share, really marks a general preference by this president on all occasions. His resemblance to Reagan in that respect is telling. It is a remarkable fact that at a time of constitutional crisis, Barack Obama, who taught constitutional law for many years, has never chosen to speak with vivid and concrete illustrations about his own understanding of the American constitution.
In the ordinary work of abiding by the laws and knowing their meaning, it can seem that we are leaderless. Yet if self-government implies as much as Lincoln believed, it suggests a constancy and presence of mind in the people themselves. We are living at a time when the people must show themselves better than those we have elected to lead us. We have the constitution, and we have some representatives, if not at the highest level, who care for the constitution and laws as representatives in our system ought to care. (One of them is Gabrielle Giffords.) We have, too, organizations as diverse as the Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union that act with considerable attention to principle. "Dare to think" and abide by the laws that exist. And do not imagine that thinking is either civil or uncivil.
John Backman: Can Religion Make Us More Civil?
His civility is nothing but hypocrisy which advises the powerless to submit to massive criminality , as long as it is done by someone dressed in a suit.
Bromwhich hits the nail squarely on its head. Nothing can be more important or more necessary to the longevity of the American idea than our reverence for, insistence on and adherence to "the rule of law". Everything this republic is supposed to stand for is built on that basic concept.
Barack Obama understands that. Indeed, his promise to return the country to the rule of law was the most important of his campaign promises. Now, Obama's abject failure to respect and insist on the rule of law is the most egregious on thae growing list of his failures of the American people, and is no less dangerous (perhaps, more so) than the criminality tolerated and, ultimately, further encouraged. The reason for President Obama's failure to insist on and fight for the rule of law is not clear. What is clear is that he has no intention to do so, at least with regard to the privileged class.
We have two different sets of laws depending on one's net worth.
If one has enough money, one can break the law with impunity, openly and brazenly, and get away with it.
In fact, the more arrogant and brazen one is while breaking the law only serves to reinforce the helplessness of the situation to average Americans.
So sorry may be Americans do not have health care got therapy for free from the pres, I saw just words,a band aid, and no action in sight
"I disagree with many of the president'Âs policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause," McCain said. "I reject accusationÂs that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals. And I reject accusationÂs that Americans who vigorously oppose his policies are less intelligenÂt, compassionÂate or just than those who support them."
And : "It probably asks too much of human nature to expect any of us to be restrained at all times by persistent modesty and empathy from committing rhetorical excesses that exaggerate our differenceÂs and ignore our similaritiÂes. But I do not think it is beyond our ability and virtue to refrain from substitutiÂng character assassinatÂion for spirited and respectful debate."there was alot more along that line. I gotta give credit where its due and McCain deserves credit for integrity here.
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
Somehow, an insistence on the constitution and laws didn't seem very appropriate then either, but civility did.
He said that the Founding Fathers were those pillars, and Lincoln's generation and subsequent generations had to replace those pillars with other ones because with each new generation the first one fades or the pillars weaken.
Lincoln suggests the pillars be "hewn" from the quarry of sober reason.
If the pillars are shaped from logic or reason, then the rock used for the building of the pillars must be from truth or integrity.
Lincoln's generation was the first generation removed from the process of "dueling".
Recall one of the most famous duels was between Hamilton and Burr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel
The men who founded the nation practiced dueling when one's integrity or honor had been questioned.
Honor or integrity is the rock that is crumbling.
Men and women in public life state OBVIOUS falsehoods, with a straight face, and the nation's media allow this with a false dichotomy between balance of left and right.
As if you could cut the difference between the truth and a lie and come down in the middle and be fair to both sides.
The nation's social mores have been lowered to allow people who are liars and decievers to have a "respectable" voice.
The nation's military leaders were allowed to act as analysts, who were being paid by military corporations, on tv and allowed to sell their deadly product as though they were objective.
Society has failed.
A dictionary definition of civility includes not only politeness (not necessarily common words either), but also right conduct. The contrast of the Vice President yet again mis-speaking about a self-important misogynist is irrelevant, as is the question of investigations into alleged misconduct during the Bush Administration. These are out of place in the context of the events in Tucson.
Besides, Lincoln also said "with malice toward none and with charity for all ... "
Obama should be using the power of the bully pulpit, and the opportunity of the *shock&awe* of last Saturday, and his poll numbers to call for the dramatic expansion of mental health services across the nation (how about now for reintroducing the public option?) and for gun control laws.
If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. If you keep at it, escalate your attacks, don't take 'no' for an answer, never back away, you will wear the opposition down. And if not during this term in office, then in concert or in relay with the next or a future presidential administration.
Bush-Cheney-R0ve weren't geniuses, they didn't invent the strategy, nor was it something that political operatives didn't know or that political science students don't learn in poli sci 101 (or business majors at the Wharton school, or MBAs from Harvard). Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politicians and the political parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans, been more subtle about.
What Bush-Cheney-Rove showed Democrats, though, was that there was no need to be subtle. It doesn't matter how you get the rhetoric, the spin, on the table, just get it on the table. You don't have to go to great lengths to set up a logical or legitimate premise for it. The shock&awe tactics of having surrogates fan out all over the air waves, with other diversionary news stories competing for air time, will prevent opponents challenging you with logical analyses getting any air time, much less any traction.
What Bush-Cheney-Rove also showed us was that when one party has control over both Houses of Congress and the Judiciary, there's no need to be subtle. You don't even have to hide your intentions. You just do it, and ignore anyone who objects. Obama knows this, and does it regularly to the Democratic base.