“Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man _ our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.”
Notice how Obama slips in “ownership” (acquisitiveness) in the list of vices. What Marxist wouldn’t include ownership as a key vice with which men struggle. Notice also how Obama impugns those with wealth and power but doesn’t manage to see sin in those who are impoverished and who have no power. This is the classical liberation theology that Obama learned under Jeremiah Wright. The rich are vicious just because they are rich. The poor are saintly just because they are poor. Obama, following liberation theology tenets, suggests that he is the one who must make the world “fair,” by redressing this problem.
Obama implies that people who don’t agree with him are guilty of self-interest, and crass materialism. Obama implies that people who don’t agree with him are guilty of prejudice and have a fear of those who are unfamiliar.
“We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.
The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.”
Lets be honest and note that the soldier and lawyer who both love their country with equal passion love it so much that they believe it would be a far better country if those who disagree with them were shipped off to some other country. This is true because the country they each love is a country where the convictions of the other are crushed and eliminated.
“The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?”
Here Obama is building up to a technique that I’ve seen used countless times in the Church. Some issue comes up in a denomination where people have strong convictions on each side of the issue. What happens to jam the controversial issue through over the protests of those who are against the issue at hand is the recital of how noble the people are who want to see the controversial issue passed. There is a sense here that just because people have good intentions therefore whatever controversial issue they support must be embraced by the whole. From there what is lost sight of is the merits of demerits of the issue and what is turned to instead is the quality of the people who hold to controversial issues.
Obama seeks to fudge the lines of right and wrong by insisting that all the people who hold opposite opinions are good people. The implication here is that since the people who hold to varying convictions all have good intentions therefore all the varying convictions must be equally good.
