That Inaugural Poem

I'll admit that during the inauguration yesterday I wasn't overwhelmed by Elizabeth Alexander's poem. Moments of it stuck out, for sure. I kept thinking, though, that I'd have to read it to evaluate it. It wasn't sinking in. It was too hard for the ear.

I was really curious to look it up, though, since my class is in the midst of our poetry unit, and when does poetry have such a stage? They'd all watched the inauguration yesterday. I looked it up, and read "Praise Song for the Day" again.

And it's really good. It's a tremendously concrete poem. She seems to mean it to be. That makes it difficult to read aloud, oddly enough. Abstractions about love and hope without the anything tying them down would have been much easier to hear, much easier to remember. It certainly is a hopeful poem. But it's a hope located in the day-to-day, where it's usually more difficult to find.

As such, it couldn't have been a better companion to Obama's sober speech yesterday.

We discussed the poem today in class, and things went surprisingly well. That line about enacting a "love with no need to pre-empt grievance" especially intrigued the students. That's a good sign. Maybe some change is coming.


Praise Song for the Day - Elizabeth Alexander

Each day we go about our business,
walking past each other, catching each other's
eyes or not, about to speak or speaking.

All about us is noise. All about us is
noise and bramble, thorn and din, each
one of our ancestors on our tongues.

Someone is stitching up a hem, darning
a hole in a uniform, patching a tire,
repairing the things in need of repair.

Someone is trying to make music somewhere,
with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum,
with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice.

A woman and her son wait for the bus.
A farmer considers the changing sky.
A teacher says, Take out your pencils. Begin.

We encounter each other in words, words
spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed,
words to consider, reconsider.

We cross dirt roads and highways that mark
the will of some one and then others, who said
I need to see what's on the other side.

I know there's something better down the road.
We need to find a place where we are safe.
We walk into that which we cannot yet see.


Say it plain: that many have died for this day.
Sing the names of the dead who brought us here,
who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges,

picked the cotton and the lettuce, built
brick by brick the glittering edifices
they would then keep clean and work inside of.

Praise song for struggle, praise song for the day.
Praise song for every hand-lettered sign,
the figuring-it-out at kitchen tables.

Some live by love thy neighbor as thyself,
others by first do no harm or take no more
than you need. What if the mightiest word is love?

Love beyond marital, filial, national,
love that casts a widening pool of light,
love with no need to pre-empt grievance.

In today's sharp sparkle, this winter air,
any thing can be made, any sentence begun.
On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp,

praise song for walking forward in that light.

Needs Editing. The Longest Post I've Ever Written.

I hate to do another political post, but I guess I’m about to.

The Republican Convention has really bothered me this time.

I should say some things before I go on. I’m much more a Democrat than a Republican. But I don’t think the normal demarcations between the two parties make much sense. I hold a number of viewpoints that fit with each party and a number that fit with neither. I think I’m more consistent than either of them, and I’m probably going to spend part of the weekend writing a post or two that articulates what I think, just for myself. Still, I find the Democratic Party to be more acceptable, and especially this year’s candidate, Obama. So, I fully recognize, as I’ve watched this convention, that I’m biased against it. But, I’m also a person who’s not unlikely to hear a Republican speak and agree with a lot and respect, too, much of what I hear that I think is wrong. I think the Republican ideas and Republicans themselves have something immeasurable to add to the country.

That said, I’ve found the Republican convention to be dis-heartening. I realized during the first full night, during Fred Thompson’s speech, that my reaction to what he was saying wasn’t anger. Instead, after watching that first night, I felt really sad. The reason was the meanness.

I don’t think I’m blinded by bias when I say that the Republican attacks on the Democrats have been of a different nature than the Democrats on the Republicans at their convention. Disagreeing with somebody can be respectful. Honest disagreement recognizes the validity of human differences. Honest disagreement respects the humanness, the value and meaning, of opposing views, and then, it continues to disagree because it is a view worthy of being disagreed with.

I think that a lot of liberals fail to respect the humanness of conservatives (especially of George Bush), but I don’t think the Democrats at the Convention, by and large, were so guilty. Consider Obama’s speech. He applauded John McCain, and called him a good man, and the crowd gave McCain what seemed like a sincere ovation. Obama further called McCain a man of strength and character, with his heart in the right place, and I think he meant it. His argument continued to state that McCain was wrong though. In Obama’s view, McCain represented viewpoints that looked like Bush’s, and that wasn’t the right way to go. The rest of his speech continued to attack McCain, strongly, but it did so on the basis of McCain’s positions.
That’s a valid, and respectful, way to make an argument. I don’t think, by and large, that the Democrats treated McCain much differently.

But the Republican convention has, thus far, not acted with even a hint of respectfulness. Over and over, I’ve heard belittlement. I’ve heard mockery. I’ve heart blatant attempts to otherize Democrats. We’re elitist. We’re immoral. We’re un-American. We’re selfish. Etc. You’ve heard it before.

Consider the slogans for the two conventions. The Democrats was “The Change We Need.” The Republicans is “Country First.” I think it’s telling to look at the inverse of those two statements. If Obama represents “the change we need,” then McCain represents either “the change we don’t need” or “the same.” That seems ok to me; it doesn’t demean McCain but suggests policy differences. The inverse of “we put country first,” however, is “you do not put country first.” That’s an insult. There’s no respect there.

Or compare Fred Thompson’s treatment of Obama: “This year, the Democrats have presented us with a historic candidate, historic in that he’s the most liberal and experienced candidate ever for the presidency.” It’s patently false, but worse, was there ever a moment in the speech or in the evening that recognize the actual significance of Obama’s candidacy? There just wasn’t. Here was a chance, and he instead pointedly sidesteps it and mocks the historicity of Obama.

Lieberman was more subtle. Here was an early line in the speech: “Being a Republican or a Democrat is important. But it is nowhere near as important as being an American.” That seems ok. It could be seen as saying that there are values and dreams that transcend politic parties, and it’s important to realize the things that Democrats and Republicans hold in common. But Lieberman then goes on to make a partisan argument that McCain is the only one of the candidates willing to work with politicians on the other side (which is verifiably false, too, as Obama’s ethics legislation and nuclear proliferation work would show). It’s pretty easy to then complete Lieberman’s equation. Obama doesn’t work across party lines as McCain does; therefore, Obama’s not American. That’s a meme that’s been prevalent in McCain’s campaign since the opening ad: “McCain: An American President for America.”

It only got uglier. I finally couldn’t stomach Giuliani, especially after he called Obama too “cosmopolitan.” Palin offered a good political speech that was almost entirely lacking in policy (even David Brooks said that, even as he was complementing the speech) but that was again mocking and demeaning. For instance, consider that famous line that a small town mayor was just like a community organizer, except with actual responsibility (Giuliani made fun of the community organizer role, too). How do you mock a social work position, especially one from twenty years ago?

I could really go on. The meanness has been the story of the convention. Every prominent speaker has been noted for it so far. I think everyone thinks it’s been a political success, but it’s been an awfully cynical success.

That’s why I’m sad when I watch this convention. It’s demeaning to watch. I get the feeling, watching this, that the people in that room and on that stage actively hate me. I wish they didn’t.

----------------------------------------------

One more thing, in this way-too-long post.

I’m teaching a Bible class this semester. On the second day of class, after all of the introductions were out of the way, a student raised her hand and said, “Mr. Pierce, can I ask you a question?”

She did: “Is Barack Obama the anti-Christ because they keep saying (at church) that there are all kinds of parallels between him and the anti-Christ?”

Several students echoed her question.

I also teach two classes that are glorified study halls for seniors, and they are all in their first government class and are pretty fascinated with what’s going on. I think I’ve had three students in that setting ask me if Obama’s the anti-Christ.

I honestly think that those students asking me that is just about the saddest thing I’ve ever heard, especially since most of them have heard this in church and from other teachers.

I remember Dostoevsky saying somewhere that to love is to see someone as God sees them. Or to always choose to see them in their best possible light.

How sad is it that the church is raising kids who can look at anyone and think that that person could be the anti-Christ? How much more cynical could we be teaching them to be?

It’s a sin to think anyone is the anti-Christ, much less a decent man like Obama.

The dehumanization that we see going on at the Republican National Convention is having and will have damaging effects far beyond this election.

Tonight, I was talking to Dad on the phone about the choice of Biden for VP (I like it, by the way--he's been a long-time favorite).

Anyway, at the end of the conversation, Dad revealed that he's a little worried about how invested I am in the campaign. He asked, "So, what do you think you and Kalyn will do if McCain wins?"

Immediately: "Move to Europe, maybe to heav-- Canada."

He laughed, and we hung up the phone.

But then I started thinking...

Maybe I shouldn't leave the country, especially to Canada...

After all, chances are awfully high that if you're not in America come '09, McCain's probably going to attack you...

------------

In other election news, I got my new Obama t-shirt yesterday, and I am really happy with it (my last one was too small for comfort--I've given it away).

Anyway, I hurried up and washed it so that I could wear it today--Saturday.

I'd read an anonymous email that warned that wearing Obama merchandise on a Sunday might burn off your flesh.

On the bright side, the email noted, an Obama shirt worn on Sunday in moderation could get rid of unsightly back hair. I've not got a big problem in that area, though, and so I'll just play it safe.

Frankly...

I agree with just about every word Jack Caffertywrote about McCain's performance in the recent forum at the Saddleback Church. Over and over, Rick Warren's questions opened up an opportunity for thoughtful reflection on the ways Christian faith should be translated into political action. And over and over, McCain offered brief, empty answers that nevertheless appealed to the conservative audience. He showed that he can recite the Republican platform, but I heard nothing to suggest that he can authentically respond to the challenges of human life from a perspective of faith.

He's like Bush. He's a decider, but he doesn't have the ability to understand the problem.

Obama's answers weren't nearly as smooth, but they were miles more meaningful.

Unfortunately, I think Joan Walsh was also correct that the forum didn't play well for Obama and probably never could have.

Thoughtfulness isn't in at the moment.

I hate politics.

I really keep trying to ignore the election. I've done my homework, and I've known for a while who I'm voting and rooting for. He's not perfect, but I certainly like him more than most politicians. And I respect him. I figured it's best, at this point, to not pay too much attention to the election cycle. It's only going to be ugly right now (on both sides), and I'm only likely to become nervous or angry. Or both.

I've not been able to stop myself, though, and right now I'm angry.

I'll admit that I've always held a bit of respect for McCain, though I've rarely agreed with him. I never thought he had nearly as much integrity as he's supposed to have had, but there were moments, at least, when he showed to have a touch more of it than most politicians.

As a result, his campaign the last week has been really disappointing, really disgusting, to me. It's been as low as I've seen a campaign be in my lifetime (clearly worse than the Swift Boating episode, though not as blatant). His campaign, at this point, seems to be primarily orchestrated so as to 'otherize' Obama, to make him seem foreign, unpatriotic, insidious, and presumptuous--outside of the mainstream. The foreign trip Obama made last week played into this narrative, so that despite the trip's success, he's been hurting in the polls.

I think Bob Herbert does a tremendous job of outlining some of the ways in which Obama's race has been exploited, quite subtlely, by McCain's campaign to otherize Obama. David Gergen (who's the best political analyst anywhere, in my opinion) made much the same case this morning on This Week.

The ad McCain put out that depicts Obama as a sort of anti-Christ seems to me to be the most despicable example of it.

And so, I'm angry and really agree with Herbert that it's frustrating to hear McCain complaining that Obama is pulling the race card. McCain is absolutely the one attempting to use race divisively, even if he's being very circumspect in doing so.

I've definitely lost whatever respect I once held for McCain. And I'm going to have a really difficult time trying to keep myself away from politics this summer.

A Couple of Things I Noticed in the Political World in the Last Week or So

First, I noticed this little nugget in Hillary Clinton’s interview today in which she was explaining the reason for her inaccurate sniper fire comments concerning her trip to Bosnia as First Lady.

“I did misspeak the other day. […] Occasionally, I am human like everyone else.” – Hillary Clinton

That changed my outlook on the matter. At first, it had bothered me a little that she’d lied about the matter. But, I was sincerely happy to hear she’s at least sometimes human.

Second, I wish I had the link, but my internet’s too slow to take the time to look it up. I’ll try to add it tomorrow at school. I swear I’m being pretty accurate.

Anyway, I noticed an article from the Wall Street Journal that began by saying something like the following: “Obama is taking flack for comments by his pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who is a proponent of the radical so-called ‘black liberation theology.’”

I’ve actually seen a number of other interviews and articles (etc.) that struck that same tone as that sentence. What bothered me was that the writer of this article and several other people I’ve heard and have talked with had never heard of Black theology.

Now, I certainly can’t be called an expert on Black theology, but I definitely know that it has a tremendously notable history in the country. It’s an organic theology, grown out of the African-American experience. My students certainly can see its seeds, for instance, in Frederick Douglas’s autobiography. Martin Luther King, most prominently, was definitely a proponent of Black liberation theology (though I’m pretty sure the term became more prominent later). The most ubiquitous (and most universally appealing, it seems to me) aspect of Obama’s campaign (the need for ‘hope’ rather than ‘optimism’) has come straight from Black theology (I’ve never heard Obama quote him, but I think a lot of his ideas come straight from the theologian Cornel West, which is why I started to like Obama in the first place).

Anyway, I’m not defending all of Rev. Wright’s comments that were released this week (one of the three, I absolutely oppose). But the most shameful thing to me has been that so many people (especially the media and church) are so ignorant of the existence and history and value and nature of Black theology and consider it with such fear.

Third. You know how I was angry about Texas Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton because I considered it unethical. Anyway, it's turned out that those votes very likely did sway the primary in her favor.

And people wonder why the country's cynical about the election process.

Oh yeah, the fourth thing I noticed was that Eliot Spitzer is an idiot.

A Letter to the Editor

[I've been really bothered by the plans of a lot of Texas Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton because they consider her the easier one to beat in the fall. This has been especially troubling since the Republican factor seems to have moved her to a tie or a narrow lead in the polls, whereas he had a 5-6 point lead in polls two days ago. Of course, I'm an Obama supporter, but I guarantee you I would be bothered by these circumstances no matter what candidate was being manipulated.

Anyway, I got into rather a debate today with two colleagues at the school who are McCain supporters actually planning to vote for Hillary. I ended up airing my complaints in a letter to the Abilene Reporter News editor. I think it'll be published. They emailed me back when I submitted it and asked for a more edited version to publish. I sent it in. Whether or not they publish it, here it is.]

Dear Citizens,

I was troubled today, visiting with some of my conservative friends at school, to learn that they plan to vote Tuesday for Hillary Clinton. They do not consider her the best candidate. They, instead, consider Clinton the most beatable against McCain.

I wasn’t surprised that some people consider voting in this way. Eight years ago, when I was a junior in high school, I convinced my father, an Al Gore supporter, not to cast his primary vote for John McCain. What he considered a small statement against Bush, I considered dishonesty. Without much effort, my father, who had always taught me to ‘let my yes be yes,’ was convinced to do the right thing.

What surprised me today was that my colleagues recognized the ethical turpitude of their choice, but they, nevertheless, have remained steadfast in their intentions to vote for Clinton. Clearly, a vote cast for a candidate you do not support is a lie. Clearly, it breaches trust to vote in the Democratic primary when you do not support a Democratic candidate. Clearly, it is a violation of trust to vote for a candidate you do not want to win. My colleagues saw these realities but remain convinced that it is acceptable to disregard ethics when it comes to politics. You do whatever it takes to win.

I disagree with them. The ends do not justify the means. Casting a vote in the opposition party’s primary for the most beatable candidate may be good politics. But, without doubt, it’s bad ethics.

So, my appeal is to please vote with honor. Vote for the candidate you want to win. Let your yes be yes. Don’t let your vote be a lie.

Sincerely,
John Pierce