Barack Obama on the U.S. Constitution

Voters of many persuasions have viewed Barack Obama as coming from the left. Yet in his March 18 speech, addressing both his relationship to the black activist preacher Jeremiah Wright and the history of slavery and race oppression in the United States, Obama hymned the creation of the U.S. Constitution in terms that gave off no whiff of radicalism. By describing the founders as having "traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution," crediting delegates to the Constitutional Convention with "finally" making "their real declaration of independence," and calling the Constitution itself an "improbable experiment in democracy," Obama presented the document in exactly the terms in which it is presented at the National Constitution Center, where he made his speech.

In that reading, the Constitution transformed into national law certain quintessentially American affinities for freedom, equality, and democracy that went back to the first English settlements in the New World. (Obama's mistaking, probably out of haste, the men of Independence Hall for people who had fled across an ocean only enhances the feeling.) Even as they finally fulfilled those impulses, the founders were also engaging in an awful moral and logical contradiction, the "stain," as Obama puts it, of fostering the ultimate violation of freedom and equality: African slavery. Yet according to the reading that Obama invoked, at the core of the document itself lay potential for redeeming the original sin: through a process the framers both predicted and, because they were only human, failed to understand fully, the Constitution continuously unfolds -- under pressure, and at great sacrifice -- to correct founding errors and complete itself.

Obama's speech thus opened with a particularly jaunty rendering of what historians call the "consensus" interpretation of the founding. It has its points. Nobody expects anyone running for president to explore less happy interpretations of our constitution's history: the "strict constructionism," say, that turns a cold eye on amendments and judicial decisions crucial to Obama's faith in progress. Or readings that emphasize another stark omission made by the framers, enfranchising women (especially relevant to the current moment and all but absent from Obama's speech). Or arguments made for a century by progressive historians that the constitutional convention by no means meant to enable an "experiment in democracy," as Obama has it, but the very opposite: to repair what Edmund Randolph of Virginia, in the convention's opening speech, called "insufficient checks against the democracy" that had been unleashed by events leading up to the Declaration.

That kind of troublesome historical complexity has never been the stuff of campaign speeches. Until now. That's the irony. Obama's March 18 speech didn't seek merely to contrast the glories of the Constitution with the deeply scarring effects of racism in America. It sought to relate that contrast to the candidate's inability to disavow Wright, whose scabrous reading of American history (which does have a few points too), is as simplistic as the certified version it so heatedly opposes.

Hence the oddball and, in the end, probably insupportable position in which Obama has placed himself intellectually. He wants to deploy the most chewed-over clichés of fulsome founding-father adoration to arouse understanding of someone who sees nothing but criminality in the entire American project. Those irreconcilably opposed distortions of our shared history must cancel each other out. When they do, where is Obama?

Not only in the March 18 speech but also in earlier speeches, Obama has set well-worn historical references to goosebump-raising rhythms. In a 2006 speech on the need to face up to big national challenges, he said: "This was true for those who went to Lexington and Concord. It was true for those who lie buried at Gettysburg. It was true for those who built democracy's arsenal to vanquish fascism, and who then built a series of alliances and a world order that would ultimately defeat communism." From the minutemen to George H.W. Bush in fifty words or less: many have trod this ground before, but nobody -- not Peggy Noonan, not even Aaron Sorkin -- has done the muffled drumbeat more efficiently.

The March 18 speech has been praised for not talking down to its audience. That would mean Obama genuinely believes that our settling, founding, and progress through the centuries add up only to a string of moral triumphs that can't be described in terms elevated enough to do them justice -- marred, horribly, only by slavery and racial oppression. If he does believe that, he's got plenty of company. It's the view routinely dramatized in museum exhibits, documentaries, and other manifestations of well-funded public history, offered to large audiences who can't tolerate -- so our curators, as well as our politicians, seem to be certain -- even a hint of complication.

But maybe Obama believes something else about our country and about the Constitution he hopes to be sworn to protect, something more textured, thoughtful, thorny, and wide-ranging -- something more in keeping with the new and difficult position he has insisted on taking, and would need us to take with him, a position not only on race but, even more profoundly, on the possible benefits of understanding, even tolerating, attractions to the most extreme criticisms of our government's behavior, even criticisms of our very nature. That would be interesting, and possibly useful, for us and for Obama, to know.

Comments

[Inaru]

Please, Hogeland, Obama's speech was more complex than any soundbyte delivered in any campaign in the past two decades, at least. On one hand, Obama's "followers" are only the academic elite; on the other, they aren't elite enough to understand all these historical nuances? Make up your minds, armchair critics, you can't have it both ways!

I challenge you to write anything near as motivating, unifying and nuanced as to reverse a backlash in the polls from exactly these one-sided fixations on only one candidate's preacher that you espouse. It breaks the hearts of the 51-49 strategists, but the real Unifier Obama succeeded, with a speech, based on the truth as he sees it. Want the full lecture? Should've signed up for his class; he taught it for a decade.

I will not read another word on Wright without adding "The Family", Hillary's neocon fundamentalist anti-abortion, anti-poor, elitist and actually influential and powerful and secretive group that believes God only rewards the worthy; she's part of a sect that believes the poor deserve all the misery they get.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/80248/

[Hogeland]

"Want the full lecture? Should've signed up for his class; he taught it for a decade."
That shred of the comment bears on what I wrote in my post, and it gets at the important issue. What the speech said about the founding wasn't an abridgement. It was false, in the familiar way that might be considered benign at a testimonial dinner or on a reviewing stand, but when used to anchor a demand for nuanced responses to what are presented as the hardest kinds of realities, indicates what I see as a compelling contradiction in Obama's thinking, with resonance for exploring issues that run far deeper than poll backlashes, "51-49 strategists," etc. Others of course may not find the contradiction compelling.

[uscitizen]

I didn't have any trouble understanding Obama's speech. It was pretty clear. It's amazing to me how many people feel they need to explain what he meant or didn't mean. I'd rather take it straight from the source.

[UnknownSoldier]

The Name of the speech, was " A More Perfect Union" not the March 18th. Totally disrespectful.

[Ono4Hoopono]

I always get uncomfortable when I read or hear someone telling me what someone else means, and this reads like another attempt to make his speech into something it is not. If I have any questions about Obama's views on the Constitution or any other issue, I'll ask Obama. You're putting a whole lot of words in his mouth, and quite frankly, your torturing of his speech reads like Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist's tortured logic in his majority opinion on the case that curtailed our Miranda rights, whereas Obama's reasoning and thoughtfulness read more like Justice Brennan's eloquent and clear minority opinion on the same case. As I read your bending and twisting of Obama's meaning and words, it reminded me of Bill Clinton's famous line, "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is." It's really not that complicated, unless you're trying to contort it into something it is not.

[austinobserver]

Does Hoagland recognize that historical analyses and constitutional analyses are open-ended? There are no limits to the possible depth and complexity. Obama, as a politician, must pick some level of depth and complexity at which he can talk to the public and secure their support. He chose a level much deeper and complex than what has been common for politicians going back to WWII. That does not mean he cannot choose a deeper or more nuanced level or that he should (when he taught law, he most likely did, but that was a far different audience), or even that no politicians in history have sought to communicate at a more advanced level.

I was not impressed so much by the sophistication of the speech (it was not that sophisticated or on that deep of a level), but by how it was crafted to connect to a wide audience on a non-trivial level.

[DQuinn]

As a teacher of the constitutional law, Senator Obama will at least know what he is pledging to protect. After watching our current president's actions for 7 years, I can say that he didn't and doesn't have a clue. Since he cannot run for re-election any of the other three would be an improvement, but I feel that Obama would be the one to consider the constitution when making decisions.

[Unsui]

Hear, hear, D. Especially the role of the President as provided by our Constitution. So long David Addington...

[Kyuzo]

The point of Obama's speech was not to "arouse understanding" of what Wright said. Obama CLEARLY said he disagreed with Wright's comments, but he refused to throw his longtime friend under the bus just to benefit a political campaign.

[SpencerCat]

How many times does Obama have to say he disagrees with what Rev. Wright said? He doesn't agree with what Wright said. He disavowed it. He rejected it. He denounced it.

[kash79]

Please don't use parts of his speech to presume we all, but him, somehow we are on the moral high ground. This is just the rightwing way to do things- highlight the guy in the worst possible light and make us believe those moments define his entire morality and charecter.

[cybersense]

I guess if I could women activism is not as important as Race, even when it women of all races. I guess, HRC did not address all colors, or nations?

[vippy]

I am white and I have the same opinion as Mr. Wright. However, separate church from politics,

[PTTY]

DO AS THE REST OF THE WORLD IS DOING GO TO YOUTUBE yourself and Educated yourself.

[Phaedrus21]

"...someone who sees nothing but criminality in the entire American project"

[ME08]

I love the way the alleged "left" fall all over themselves excusing and apologizing for ridiculous speech. This speech was one he was to deliver down the road and was employed for this occasion by accident, and was NOT written exclusively to respond to Rev. Wright...you people are just so gullible, it is laughable, and also damn sad...why don't you wake up and see how another politician is taking you for a ride? Cynical? Maybe. Right? You bet.

[Unsui]

Yes the Left is soooo dewy eyed and impractical. Oh, wait: Republicans (and especially Right Wing religious fanatic Republicans) just gave the nation the most corrupt bunch of treasonous thugs since the founding of this country. What a joke to make this argument after having the wool pulled over your eyes all this time...realist "Right" yeah, right.

[cyndeewi]

You are so wrong. You people are so judgemental and jealous! No one in this world would be able to make a speech like that but Barack Obama. You are the sad and cynical one becvause you do not want to see a black man as President. I hope Hillary gets it so I can watch you people squirm.

[JacobSinger]

Well, a sane human being realizes that Obama is indeed a politician--but I think you need to stop projecting and deal with your own sense of betrayal [if indeed it can be characterized that way]. Form your comment it is obvious that you are now or have in the past been associated with the GOP, so I think it's fair to assume that this projection comes from your own sense of betrayal by the most criminal administration in US history.

[Squirtapotamus]

Wrong. And a bigot to boot.

[MickleVonTickle]

"improbable experiment in democracy"

[Dushan29]

Can his guy speak about Bush when he said, the US Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."