President Obama's Inaugural Address, a New Rhetorical Strategy.

A presidential inaugural address is a ritual of transition linking past, present and future as well as a reflection on the people, the citizenry and national identity. That's at least according to Karlyn Campbell, and Kathleen Jamieson in their masterpiece on presidential speeches,.


Indeed, an inaugural speech always makes the link between the MYTHS OF ORIGIN (sacred texts like the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers, etc..) and present issues, in a light that will make the president's political agenda seem rooted in national mythology.

President Obama's second inaugural address is no exception but what makes each speech unique is the strategy used to make this link between ORIGIN and NOW credible and successful.

THE SACRED TEXT: 

Very tellingly, Present Obama's speech starts with the first lines of the Declaration of Independence, and not with the words of the Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Declaration of Independence is the founding text par excellence, particularly relevant when it comes to civil rights, equality and freedom if compared to the Constitution, which, after all, asserted that slaves would count for three-fifths of a person and denied women the right to vote.
As Michael Waldman, a former speechwriter for president Clinton, noticed  "The greatest progressive arguments throughout the country’s history have been rooted in the language of the Declaration of Independence. This speech was really rooted in that tradition" (WP blog)
From this point, the rest of the speech is about making a convincing link between today's issues and the Declaration of Independence. As James Fallows - also a former presidential speechwriter - observed, the following sentence is the summary of the whole:

Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. 

Here we also have one of the key metaphors of the speech, quite often used in American presidential discourse, and particularly in Obama's addresses (see my post here): the journey metaphor.

THE JOURNEY METAPHOR:

One of the reasons the journey metaphor is a very common metaphor in American politics is that it is a concept at the heart of the mythical American historical experience: the voyage across the Atlantic, "the errand into the wilderness" of the Puritan discourse, or the historical frontier motif of settlers who traveled westward, and Obama makes this very clear:

It is now our generation's task to carry on what those pioneers began. 

Very conveniently for an inaugural speech, this metaphor also encapsulates two paradoxical notions: change (the realities of our time) and continuity (the meaning of those words). It is also an ongoing process and thus allows for the imperfections of reality for the time being.

For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.  

Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.  

Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.

This idea of process is also rendered by another metaphor: the nation as a building.

America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.

Because it is also an ongoing process, it makes the discrepancy between the professed American ideals (those words) and reality seem more bearable and acceptable. What could be seen - from a cynical perspective - as hypocrisy is turned into something positive, simply yet to finish.

The journey metaphor also gives sense to the need for individual differences, if not division, as long as we keep moving from the same point of origins towards the same ideals:

.... that all of us are created equal –- is the star that guides us still..... It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time. 

ACTION AND MOVEMENT

A journey also implies movement - something in line with the American view that action is good and passivity is bad. This is also rooted in the Puritan discourse that exhorted people to action to assure their redemption, and America has seen itself as a "can-do" nation ever since. (Something one could see in the "Yes, I can" of Obama's first presidential campaign).

We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today's victories will be only partial. 

But, unlike simple movement, a journey implies a destination and so it is purposeful and directional. Because the point of origin and the goal is the same, the journey is essentially collective: 

preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

Even if the journey is incomplete and somewhat uncertain, the president remind the American people that they can find comfort in their being on a mission: 

answer the call of history and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom

... and being a chosen people, akin to the Jews in the Old Testament: 

Freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth.

Eventually, it is the American character that justifies confidence in the future: 

we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinventionwe are made for this moment, and we will seize it -- so long as we seize it together.

These are the tenets of American Exceptionalism - something that every modern U.S. president has expressed, by they Republican or Democrat. 

SACRIFICE

Alongside the notions of 'MISSION' and 'CHOSEN PEOPLE', comes a third christian concept - that of 'SACRIFICE'. 

By using the image of "Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword," president Obama refers directly to Lincoln's second Inaugural address, but instead of saying, as Lincoln did, that the civil War was God's punishment for the sin of slavery and calling for reconciliation, Obama uses this rhetoric to stress national renewal: 

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Violence here is seen in a positive light, as an opportunity to start anew and move forward and it links modern nation formation to Christian martyrology. This idea is also made obvious in Obama's insistence that God's precious gift, (freedom in the president's own words) requires sacrifice:

Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm

This too enables the president to bind together the idea of change and permanence. The lesson of the civil war was the renewal of the nation, so change is good, and change implies new action. It is part of the national mythology. 

As a result, the fights for civil liberty - Selma , Seneca Falls  and Stonewall -  are not liberal events but they are part of the American tradition. 

(NOTE: the reference to Stonewall has been given much attention by the media as the first reference to gay right history in a presidential inaugural speech. Jon Favreau, one of the main architect of the speech  said "The line about Stonewall and Selma and Seneca Falls was actually in the commencement speech he gave at Barnard [in 2012]. And so we brought it back for this because it hadn't gotten much attention at all." source Huffington Post. If nothing else, it shows that inaugural speeches are still relevant today when a president wants to get his message across). 

If blood and sacrifice may be needed, the need for change also means new policies:

enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.

We are here very far from Bush's War on Terror which implies the very opposite. 

OBAMA'S "WE"

Finally, as in any powerful speech, Obama's second Inaugural Address includes all the members of the nation in the ritual. By repeating "We, the people...", he is almost chanting, like a mantra, the words of the Constitution, thus sacralizing the people at the heart of American national experience, while at the same time legitimating his political agenda. 

The inclusion of the people goes even further by comparing the president's oath to every citizen's oath - that of a soldier, or an immigrant or every American's pledge to the flag, thus empowering the citizen as much as reming them of their obligation. In other words, the "WE, the people"... becomes the "You and I, as citizens" through the same oath to the nation, thus reinforcing the sense of national unity. 

CONCLUSION: OBAMA A PROGRESSIVE REAGAN? 

President Obama's second Inaugural Address has cast his political agenda (climate change, equal rights for women and gays, immigration and voting reforms, market regulation) as part of the great American tradition rooted in the national mythology based on individual rights and collective action. 

In this respect on could say that Obama has used a strategy similar to that of Reagan in his first Inaugural Address. Contrary to his first Inaugural speech, president Obama did not offer bipartisanship. This time he laid out his agenda head on and did not hesitate to make direct response to the Republican political philosophy (by saying for instance, "The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.").   

As E.J. Dionne noted in his Washington Post Op-Ed:

Reagan used his first inaugural to make an unabashed case for conservatism. Conservatives who loved that Reagan speech are now criticizing Obama for emulating their hero and his bold defense of first principles.

Clearly, both Obama and Reagan's speeches are combative in tone and unapologetic, but more importantly, they use traditional American myths to make their polical agenda relevant. In this respect though, I would rather compare Obama's strategy to that of FDR who saw privileges and prejudice as threats to the American freedom, thus requiring collective action: 

Obama took the advice most notably offered in a much-discussed 2007 essay by Bill Galston for the Washington Monthly entitled “Taking Liberty,” urging progressives to reclaim the rhetoric and substance of their own championship of freedom as integral to the case for collective action through government. (Washington Monthly)

But of course, only history can tell.  

Ideology in the U.S. Presidential Campaign.

What makes gaffes interesting in politics is that that they usually happen in those too rare moments of unscripted and uncontrolled communication by a politician. As such, they are refreshing but they also reveal plenty, not only about the teller of the gaffe but also about his opponent, and more importantly about what they perceive their voters want to hear.

Let's take President Obama's "you didn't build that" gaffe. Obama wanted to make the point that no one succeeds in modern society without the help of other people, or infrastructures, but he put it very poorly:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Here of course, the problem is first and foremost grammatical: "THAT" instead of "THOSE" which stand for "roads and bridges" but it can have dire consequences in a presidential campaign, and sure enough, the other side took advantage of it.

Jon Stewart had a good take on it:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Clearly, deep down, Romney agrees with what Obama meant to say. As Jon Stewart pointed out: he pretty much said the same thing about athletes at the Olympic Games.

Beyond the hypocrisy of using a sentence out of context, the whole controversy reveals plenty about American values, and American politics.

INDIVIDUALISM
As Michael Foley has shown in his excellent book American Credo: The Place of Ideas in American Politics, Americans tend to see failure or success in highly personalized terms. Just like American heroes, (the self-reliant pioneer, the lonesome cowboy, the outlaw, the super-hero, the crusading lawyer, etc), American entrepreneurs are seen as heroic individuals engaged in individualized projects. As a result, in the United States succes or failure is  assigned to the person rather than to the structure or conditions, contrary to Europe. Hence the importance of personal virtue for political leaders, especially for the commander-in-chief.
This is also why there is greater tolerance for extreme poverty and extrem wealth, and for economic 'inequality' in the U.S. than in Europe. In France in particular, the word "individualism" tends to carry negative connotations akin to selfishness.

That being said, the pendulum swings even more towards individualism for conservatives than for liberals. In this respect, president Obama has a typical liberal view that stresses the importance of the community, (and this is not surprising, after all Obama used to be a community organizer) whereas Republicans give primacy to the individual and the protection of personal liberties.

FREEDOM
Associated with individualism is of core the core notion of 'freedom' which lies at the heart of American identity, but here too, the meaning attributed to the concept in policies and politics varies in Democratic or Republican circles.

Generally speaking the word 'government' and 'Washington' are viewed negatively.

But it gets even more complicated when you realize that the same voters respond differently to the ideological appeal of 'freedom' and to the policy consequences of less government. The same people may want smaller government but better government services, less taxation but better infrastructures (roads, bridges, water pipes, power grid, etc...), or they may be set against healthcare may but praise Medicare and Medicaid.
This is akin to a schizoid split between abstract ideology and concrete operational use.

IDEOLOGY
And sometimes when a presidential candidate is trying so hard to embody ideology that he changes reality to fit his ideology.
The irony of Mitt Romney praising free enterprise for the economic success of Poland Vs. the "false promise of a government-dominated economy" has not escaped the Europeans who know - apparently better than he does - how E.U. subsidies have helped the Polish economy grow substantially:

In the EU’s 2007-2013 budget, the subsidies for Poland amounted to nearly EUR 68 bln, the highest sum among the EU funding beneficiaries. (source here)

And we're not even talking about the fact that total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP was about 44 percent last year — compared to 41 percent in the United States. (CBS)

Then, when during his stop in Israel, Romney also praised the Israeli economy while people there set themselves on fire in a desperate action of protest against their harsh economic situation. (CNN, ENews).
And it gets teven better when, he lauded the Israeli health care system, which is managed care, universal coverage, and has even more government control than the Obama health law Romney so strenuously faults. (Boston Globe). In effect, he's endorsed President Obama.

Well, Mitt Romney is probably smart enough to know all that, and this all tactical politics.

After all, what do most (conservative) Americans know about Poland, Israel or the Olympic Games for that matter. This message is for them and nobody cares as long as the message reinforces pre-conceived ideas about values and principles. And who cares if the conservative ideology has no applicability, the only thing that matters is to get to the highest office, then you'll deal with issues when they get there. 

This may be why Romney has be so evasive about his program and concrete ideas.

New French President, The Reasons He Won and What It (Really) Means.

As some of you may have seen in the news, France has a new President: socialist François Hollande who beat conservative Nicolas Sarkozy by 51,67% to 48,33% last night. This is a historica moment for France.

So a word or two (or more) is in order.

I read here and there that Sarkozy was ousted because of "public anger over austerity measures and economic crisis", joining a "series of other European leaders booted from office" in Italy, Spain or Greece (Business Week, Wall Street Journal,). In my opinion, this is mostly a wrong superficial analysis of France's mood. And Kevin Drum is wrong, Sarkozy is NOT merely the latest victim of the economic crisis. He is the victim of his own making and he has always been his worst enemy.
The election of Hollande was more anti-Sarkozy than pro-Hollande. There was not necessarily a lot of excitement about Hollande and there is doubt about his economic plan (the French know they're in for tougher time), but "anti-Sarkozy sentiment has become a cultural phenomenon in France." (the Guardian).
Upon hearing the result of the elections, people in French tough neighborhoods cheered loud from the windows in their projects, hunked the horns in their cars; and made all sorts of noises, - something resembling more winning the world cup than presidential elections, certainly not seen in France since 1981.

Sarkozy the Divider: One Does not Rule France by Dividing Its People

Sarkozy was the most unpopular president in French history (about 35% job approval) and his slip in the polls started fairly soon after the elections (Le Monde polls). He was criticized not only for his ostentation display of wealth, favoring the rich while leaving behind high unemployment, but also for his divisiveness and his agressive tone and style,seen as unbecoming of a president. in French culture.

The New Republic has it right:

(Sarkozy has) "constantly undercut himself, thanks to his notorious difficulty sharing the spotlight and his coarsely confrontational personal style. is no coincidence that his single best-known phrase, uttered to a protester in early 2008, is “Casse-toi, pauv’ con” (roughly, “Shove off, asshole”). It is not exactly de Gaulle’s “France cannot be France without grandeur.” (The NR).

Sarkozy may have been quick to react in times of crisis, but he was a lot of hot air, and lack any vision. He failed to see what people need in times of crisis.

 “Nicolas Sarkozy is constantly trying to create cleavages… when what people expect from a president, especially in times of crisis, is to be a unifier,” said political scientist Roland Cayrol of the Centre for Studies and Analysis. (here).

During the campaign, he went further to the right, trying to court far-right Le Pen's voters by playing on the fear of immigration, borders and Islam, missing the point that the French are more worried about the economy and high unemployment than Islam and immigration.

The French Prefer the virtues of the Tortoise to that of the Hare.

This is the allegory rightfully used by the NYTimes to describe the patience, diligence and quiet road chosen by Hollande to win over his rather impetuous rival, Sarkozy. As in the fable, Hollande was seriously underestimated by both the media and his opponent, who was overconfident.

The "New" Socialist.
A word of caution to my Anglo-saxon friends who might be afraid of the word "socialist". Even though Hollande was the candidate of the "socialist party" (which he ruled for years), I agree with Matthew Yglesias that Hollande is actually more a socio-democrat and I also think he's a pragmatist. Yes, he has promised massive taxation on revenues over 1 million euros revenues but that does not make him a socialist. As I reminded a friend the other day: in the United States the top income rate was 75% in 1939 ias high as  94% in 1944 and 1945 and remained between 90% and 70% until 1981, which did not make post-WWII America a socialist country.
Granted that those were other times, but the current crisis demands unprecedented measures and taxing the wealthy maybe one of them for its symbolism if nothing else. You cannot ask the rest of the country to face tough measures if it is not perceived as widely shared by the wealthy. After all, this something that Buffet can agree on.
The greatest challenge for Hollande is his deal with Merkel and the French debt which will require some spending cut and our president-elect has been more than evasive on the question. What is certain is that Merkel's austerity philosophy faces more and more criticism in Europe (NYTimes). Hollande wants to add growth, and that is after all what seemed to be working in the United-States. Of course, Hollande's way of achieving this may not be the same as other leaders' and he will have to compromise, but it is probably about time that someone stands against Merkel's obsessive one-eyed vision.

Franco-American Relationship:
As always in the U.S. it is likely that the election of a "socialist" president will scare some of the media, particularly on the right, the word itself is enough to spook most Americans. This unfortunate as it is largely ignorant of the particular of French and European history and ideology.
In 1981, when Mitterand name four communists in his government, a horrified Ronald Reagan sent his vice president, George H. W. Bush to voice his concern that "the future of Western democracy hung in the balance" (here and here). Yet in the end, Franco-American relations under Mitterand turned out to be one of the closest, including in the containment of Soviet Power (think of the Pershing missile controversy in 1984 or the less-well known but extraordinary Farewell spy case, (here too) or later the Gulf War for instance - LATimes)
In the same way that branding Sarkozy "American" (his view of America was superficial at best) is just as wrong and misleading as branding Hollande a "dangerous socialist".
In fact, one can argue that Hollande's platform has commonalities with Obama's (although not necessarily in the specifics):

The platform that Hollande won on, in addition to the stress it laid on restoring economic growth, echoed several other themes Obama sounded in Ohio on Saturday, when he officially launched his reëlection campaign: fairness, hope, and inclusion. (The New Yorker)

Europe's failures might even be a good lesson for the American electorate:

When the campaign turns to questions of economics, what is happening in Europe should provide Obama with plenty of arguments with which to flay his opponents. Republicans say they want to slash government spending and focus on the deficit regardless of the immediate economic situation. The Europeans have carried out that experiment, and, to say the least, it hasn’t turned out very well. (The New Yorker)

Obama's New Nationalism.

Last week, Barack Obama gave one of his most radical speeches (YouTube video)as of yet on the economy which may very well serve as a founding theme for his campaign.

The president’s  main topic was economic regulation and his role model was Roosevelt, not Franklin Delano but Theodore, the Progressive Republican president who attacked big business and asked for more government regulation.

President Obama symbolically gave his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, the small town where Theodore Roosevelt gave his New Nationalism speech over a hundred years ago.
Invoking a Republican president was a clever move - it adds credibility to his claim of rising above partisan politics. (The Economist).

The most interesting part, however, was not the symbolic historical context but the crafting of the speech itself.

First, it conveyed a classic opposition between BIG (banks, factories, monopolies) and SMALL (farmers, children, innocent, hard-working Americans, women / unemployed / elderly / people with disabilities), and between the FEW (wealthy, greed, 1%) and the MANY (the middle-class). Such a systematic opposition would not fly well in American discourse for its smacks of class warfare - which the president denied doing - if it was not framed in a way that can be accepted by an American audience.  So at the core of the president’s speech lie some distinct traditional American core beliefs: the American Dream, American Exceptionalism and a strong sense of community spirit.

In order to achieve this successfully, the speech relied on two powerful metaphors often used in political rhetoric: a BUILDING and a GAME metaphor.
The main advantage of these metaphors is that they imply the participation of several people (a community) and work nicely for a good understanding of national unity for a common purpose. It also conveys the need for rules (i.e. regulation) in a non threatening way by emphasizing on the notion of fairness and justice. You need order and rules to pay a game and you need a blueprint to build something.

THE BUILDING METAPHOR
-The BUILDING metaphor can be used for positive or negative assessments depending on whether the foundations are morally good or bad. The economy can be “a house of cards”, a “business model built on breaking the law, cheating customers, and making risky bets” or on bubbles and financial speculation, or it can be “built to last”, “on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country.”.  It can apply for the middle-class (“rebuilding the middle class “), or for the entire nation (“how America was built”, “investments that built this country”). It can also be used literally to talk about the nation’s infrastructure (“investments that built this country”).

THE GAME METAPHOR
In a similar way, the GAME metaphor is used for positive or negative evaluation: the system in Washington “can be rigged” or used by “the highest bidder”, but everyone knows that it is morally wrong “when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”. So what naturally follows is the need for rules (i.e. regulation) so that “everyone plays by the same rules.” because rules are morally good ("They want to have rules in place that don't put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing",). A game can also be inclusive when “the playing field is larger”; “everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street.”)
The GAME metaphor is thus closely associated to the idea of FAIRNESS and JUSTICE, with the underlying image of BALANCE. This allows Obama to take a moral stance on inequality and unfairness. The GAME metaphor also plays well with the American belief that LIFE IS A RACE. (“The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race”). But here too, it is not any race, it is the “race to the top”, as opposed to “the race to the bottom” (a race for lower wages for instance) since good is UP and bad is DOWN (see conceptual metaphor theory, Lakoff). This fist well the classical social ladder metaphor (“the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk”).This is even more clearly illustrated by the final sentence of the speech : "I believe America is on the way up."

COMMUNITY
The emphasis on community is further exemplified by a call for bipartisanship (“a vision that's been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years“), through the evocation of historical political figures from both parties - not only Theodore Roosevelt, but also F.D. Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. A sense of national unity is also rendered by trying to 'bridge the gap' between “Main Street and Wall Street” by using positive image of wealthy figures  (Henry ford, Warren Buffet or “Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel”) as well as corporations praised for their responsible attitude (‘Big Three auto companies”) or by linking CEOs to local communities, particularly small Town America:
“For the CEO of Marvin's, it's about the community. He said: ‘These are people we went to school with. We go to church with them. We see them in the same restaurants. Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys’.”

Obama frames the argument by appealing to American pragmatism, claiming that the trickle-down theory has been tried before but history shows “It has never worked”. Yet, at the same time, he acknowledges that “rugged individualism” and “healthy skepticism of too much government “  is part America’s ‘natural’ identity, making it even part of “America’s DNA”. One might draw from this an opposition between nature and culture. But more importantly, it implies some (protestant) belief in the deterministic nature of the American identity. It is something determined by nature, or determined by logic. The rationale for regulation is not simply that it is morally right, but it is also (and foremost) that it makes economic sense: “That is not politics. That's just math”. Henry Ford is praised for his pragmatic approach: “Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made”

THE AMERICAN DREAM
In the same way way, the reality of the American Dream is made evident by a traditional pragmatic argument - the very fact that “immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores” is proof that the promise that “even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class” is real.
The expression The American Dream itself is never used in the speech but the narrative is - “that this is a place where you can make it if you try.” is believed to be “at the very heart of America”. Even if it has been said before that Obama himself may be the embodiment of the American Dream, he cleverly uses another a personal personal and  highly symbolic illustration - the very story of his grandmother who “started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank”, which means that Obama himself cannot be biased against banks on principle. Unfortunately, this is a reality of the past and now “the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded” because “hard work stopped paying off for too many people”.
The solution lies in the community because MANY is better than A FEW and “we’re greater together than we are on our own”. This is an effective way to provide a positive backdrop for his political solutions:  more progressive taxes, and universal health insurance, which are based on the idea of an entire community sharing the burden.

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.
The other uniquely American narrative is American Exceptionalism: if LIFE IS A RACE and if UP IS GOOD, then America must be at the top. Here again, Obama takes for granted the narrative of American Exceptionalism by presenting a series of superlatives and comparatives:
“the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known;
the most productive workers;
the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth.”
And this is not just a thing of the past, it is still true today:
“still home to the world's most productive workers.
still home to the world's most innovative companies.
prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.
nobody does innovation better than America. Nobody does it better. No one has better colleges. Nobody has better universities. Nobody has a greater diversity of talent”
If nothing else, the logical conclusion to this series of superlative can only be “That's why we're the greatest nation on Earth. That's what our greatest companies understand.”.
One of goals is of course to boost confidence in America in these times of crisis and renew a value highly praised in American credo: optimism.

OBAMA & ROOSEVELT.
President Obama treats Theodore Roosevelt as a prophet with "a vision" who "took the same message across the country". But if Obama gave one of his most radical speeches, it is still rather consensual and tells a very conservative national narrative if you compare it to Theodore Roosevelt’s speech in 1910:

It has become entirely clear that we must have government supervision of the capitalization, not only of public-service corporations, including, particularly, railways, but of all corporations doing an interstate business.One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.

Quoting Lincoln, Roosevelt also said:

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration”.

Of course, this sort of strong radical rhetoric would be unthinkable in today’s American political discourse especially from a former or current president, let alone a Republican. In fact, president Obama is careful to say that “This isn't about class warfare. This is about the Nation's welfare.” (notice the nice parallelism and the alliteration) thus not only raising the stakes but also making it a question of patriotism.
In fine, the parallelism between 1910 now implied by Obama’s choice of venue and references is a smart move as it also demonstrates how different the Republican party has become. (Washington Post). This will undoubtedly be a theme used by democrats in the presidential campaign.

Even if Obama’s speech in Osawatomie was cleverly crafted, one may deplore that his argumentation which, while being pragmatic, only relies on economics. As Jedediah Purdy reminds us, Roosevelt “put citizenship -- civic and political engagement -- at the heart of the good life he wanted for Americans." In Obama’s speech, “even education, that most civic of public investments, is just about economic opportunity.”
That being said, different times, different words, and Obama’s speech probably reflects quite well the priorities of today’s world in which well-being and happiness must be measured in material terms.

Birthers, Racism and Conspiracy Theories.

Barack Obama may have called the birther controversy "silliness" and tried to treat it lightly, the fact is that  for the US president to have to produce a birth certificate to prove his citizenry (see video here) is a first in American history.

If nothing else it shows how powerful and successful the conspiracy theory regarding his birth has become in the United-States today. 

Conspiracy theories are nothing new of course and even though Americans are particular fond of them, they are not strictly Americans (the French call them "théories du complot" and have had had them since before the Revolution)

 They're also very common in modern politics - Bill Clinton had the Vince Foster "murder." and George W. Bush had 9/11 Truth but those were on the fringe and didn't make the headlines. 

This time may be different : not only has the conspiracy made the headlines, but if we are to believe the polls this is probably the most successful conspiracy theories of all :

The numbers are impressively scary  especially if you add those unsure with those who are certain he's a foreigner. (although, to put it into perspective, keep in mind that  34% Americans also claim to believe in UFOs and 24% in witches - Foxnews)

This conspiracy is also different because it implies that the president of the United-States is illegitimate - an idea naturally popular with Republicans :

Most of the birthers are indeed to be found among Republicans (45% of them - see the Chicago Tribune) and unsurprsignly in the South (here).  As Steve Chapman nicely puts it in the Chicago Tribune : "Birthers don't dislike Obama because they think he was born abroad. They think he was born abroad because they dislike him" 

But what makes this conspiracy theory more unique is that it questions the legitimacy of the first BLACK American. president, and so you can't help wondering if this is an "insidious new form of 21st-century racism", as Clarence B. Jones claims in the Hufftington Post.
Here's a good example : 

Now of course, all birthers may not be racist - let's hope not anyway - but the questioning of Obama's American identity has some troubling resonance for African Americans.

I find the whole notion of birtherism so ridiculous that I failed to see the significance of all this to African-Americans. That is until I saw this video from the site thegrio.com (via The Rachel Maddow Show) which really gives it all a different perspective.

Clearly, birtherism smacks of racism. Look at how Donal Trump, after claiming victory even though he was proved wrong, has now shifted from questioning Obama's citizenry to questioning his education :
"I heard he was a terrible student, terrible. How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?" Trump said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm thinking about it, I'm certainly looking into it. Let him show his records." (NBC)

Some Europeans may not see the link with race but Trump's words imply that Obama was admitted to Ivy League Schools because he was black. In other words, it is a coded attack against affirmative action. (Trump's racism did not escape David Letterman  this week either). This is intended for those who think that certain people (African-Ameircas, women, etc...) can only succeed if they are helped.
Funny that Trump did not voice concern about G. W Bush who apparently did not enter Yale thanks to his SAT results or academic achievement but that was different  of course because Bush was Republican, white and wealthy. 
Trump's attack will play well with some Republicans. It has even been suggested that birtherism may have been an opportunity for some Republicans to start a "second Republican ‘Southern strategy."

In any case, conspiracy theories about Barack Obama are unlikely to die. First, because conspiracy theorists live in their own reality and there's no way to talk them out of it - anyone not supporting their views is either manipulated, or worse, part of the conspiracy. In the same way, facts that prove them wrong are fabricated. Then, because race is still a hot issue in the United-States. Last because the Internet is a conspiracy theorist game room, where all sorts of unverified information become viral within a few seconds, and according to some anthropologists, "evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans today…gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories".

Unfortunately, it looks like we should be ready for more of the same paranoia. (see other suggestion) 

 It is most certainly something to be aware of and not to treat too lightly if we are to believe Karl Popper who argued that totalitarianism was founded on "conspiracy theories" which drew on imaginary plots driven by paranoid scenarios predicated on tribalism, chauvinism, or racism. (see here)

Obama's Exceptionalism.

"For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom.

(…/…)

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. "
From President Obama's Address to the Nation on Libya, March 28, 2011.

Despite what some conservatives may have said in the past, the fact that President Obama’s remarks on the US intervention in Libya smacks of AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM is no surprise and it has been noted by many commentators, including conservative pundit Billl Kristol (see here and here)

Of course, American Exceptionalism has been one of the tenets of the American national narrative since the Revolution,. It may have taken different forms and shapes from “the shining city on a hill”, to the “Manifest destiny”, the Frontier and the American Dream, but it has always been how the Americans have envisioned their nation.

As many of his predecessors, the president linked might (“the world’s more powerful nation”, “our strength abroad (….) at home”) with right and responsibility (“our responsibilities to our fellow humans”), thus offering a new version of the “white man’s burden”.

History itself seems to dictate action (“with the course of history poses challenges”) but the past not only justifies US action in Libya today but it also serves to limit its role (“we went down that road in Iraq (…)something we can afford to repeat in Libya”).

However, if Obama uses a traditional national rhetoric, his Exceptionalism is different from more conservative presidents in that not only does he emphasize cooperation with other countries, but he also shows a very humble facet of American leadership (“The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change”) and justifies action with defending international institutions (“The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security.”)

In his speech, Obama clearly stated his doctrine for US intervention abroad when the US is not directly threatened:

- humanitarian reasons, (“responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace”)

- regional security,

- maintaining the flow of commerce (something that would not never be used in French presidential discourse)

Interestingly to this blog is that France is the other country in the front seat of the coalition against Gaddafi. The Sarkozy government has pushed for a motion in the Security Council of the United Nations to impose a “no-fly zone” over Libya and French planes have played a crucial role in bombing Gaddafi's forces.

So how do the French see their role in this war? Well, France also justifies its action by its Exceptionalism.

As Steven Erlanger reminded us in the NYTimes:

France had “decided to assume its role, its role before history” in stopping Colonel Qaddafi’s “murderous madness,” Mr. Sarkozy said solemnly on Saturday, standing alone before the television cameras and pleasing those here who still have a strong sense of French Exceptionalism and moral leadership.

And indeed there is a wide consensus in France from the left to the right. Of course one can easily see ulterior political motive for the French president – a foreign military venture may help his popularity and unite the French people behind him.

But if the French should so easily rally round the chief in this war, it is because it has been justified on humanitarian ground precisely because they believe they have a “special role to play”. The French people are proud to have given the world the Declaration of the Rights of Man and their politicians commonly call their nation “the country of human rights” (“le pays des droits de l’homme”).

Like the United States, modern France was born out of a Revolution with universal claims of freedom, and its Exceptionalism is based on the intellectual tradition of French republicanism, and its democratic and egalitarian principles of citizenship.

As The Economist concluded a few years back :

Born of revolutions, America and France each established republics inspired by Enlightenment thinking, and based on freedom and individual rights. Within the same year, 1789, both the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the American Bill of Rights were drafted.

Above all, each nation believed in the universalism of its model—the Americans stressing liberty, the French civilisation—and shared an ambition to spread it abroad. The conviction among the French elite that France represents an alternative to the American way runs deep. It forms part of the national mythology that has helped to shore up French pride. And it explains why the French so readily pick on America at times of self-doubt. (The Economist)

The most virulent supporter of French Exceptionalism in modern French history was no doubt Charles De Gaulle who famously claimed : "Il y a un pacte vingt fois séculaire entre la grandeur de la France et la liberté du monde." (“There exists an immemorial covenant between the grandeur of France and the freedom of the world.”) and very telling these words are inscribed on the base of his statue on the Champs Elysees.

So I would agree very much with what Obama said in 2009 when asked about American Exceptionalism :

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

(…)

Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us. (Time)

In other words, a country’s Exceptionalism should not have to be believed at the expense of the uniqueness of other nations – in some ways, the basis of nationalism in ever country is its belief in its unique destiny but what makes France and the U.S. so different is their belief that each is the role model for other nations to follow.

Obama's National Narrative in His State of the Union Address.

The States of the Union address is fascinating to anyone interested in the use of national myths. It is a uniquely presidential genre in which the president is given the opportunity to present his political agenda but also to reconstruct the past in order to forge the future, and thus taking the role of a national historian.
Its annual delivery before Congress is not a requirement of the Constitution – which only asks the president to inform Congress from “time to time” about the “State of the Union”. It is the result of custom and tradition.
My approach here is to consider precisely not what is political in presidential speeches but what is "American".

One of the reasons the State of the Union address has become an institution over the years is that it meets a very American concern – namely the need of a diverse nation for UNITY. After all, George Washington himself already warned against the danger of division, and whether it is sectionalism, slavery, the Civil War, the Civil Rights, different religions , ethnic diversity or the shooting in Tucson, the fear of division has always haunted American presidents.


That is why the NATION AS A FAMILY used by Barak Obama at the beginning of his speech (“We are part of the American family”, “American Muslims are a part of our American family”) is a very relevant metaphor which has been used since the Revolutionary era (Marienstras). In addition to reassuring American about their quarrels, it also reinforces the ties of the people to the nation by adding an organic component to the original contract around which the nation is built (“the rights enshrined in our Constitution”). (Stuckey).
The nation is thus guaranteed by both the “law of nature” (the American family) and will (the Contract, i.e. the Constitution). What makes the American nation specific is that it is not based on an ethnic group, a language or for its first 100 years on a fixed territory. The American nation is “the first nation to be founded on an idea”, says Obama because the unity of the nation has to be about “something greater” which can never die or disappear, like an idea (“The idea of America endures”).

THE RAGS TO RICHES MYTH

So what is this “idea of America”? It is in part constituted by the AMERICAN DREAM (the word “dream” is mentioned 12 times) which is about material success or at least the opportunity for material success ( “turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise”). As president Obama reminded his audience, he is himself the incarnation of that dream (“That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight”) along with the Vice president (“a working class kid from Scranton”) and the Speaker of the House (“someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father’s Cincinnati”).
The success of the nation is understood first and foremost in economic terms:
"America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs”

That is why the goal of the nation is “to make America the best place on Earth to do business.”

This view reveals a distinct feature of the American nation – its unity around the idea of economic prosperity which has existed since its very foundation (after all, the Revolution began with a revolt against the Stamp Act). The term “American Dream” itself was only coined in 1931 but the idea had been there in different forms, including with the Frontier where the adventurous spirit expanded an enterprising nation and its market economy (Stuckey).

It has also had the great advantage of making class or ethnic conflicts less relevant. What may often be seen as a selfish goal in Europe - material wealth - becomes the patriotic duty of all Americans since even president asks the American people to “make America a better place to do business and create jobs”
Material success is what makes you a true American – it even has redeeming power and it can even supersede the “rule of law” by making even illegal immigrants worthy of being members of the American family: “let’s stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation”. This is of course a contentious point but it is interesting that the framing of the justification for legalizing undocumented immigrants should not be based on humanitarian grounds, but on material success.

HARD WORK AND SACRIFICE

This emphasis on material success is often misunderstood by Europeans who cynically associate it with greed and a-morality (if not immorality), but it is part of a coherent and moral system.
In the American psyche material success is moral because it is the result of hard work and sacrifices (“the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded”). The American Dream “has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.”. Sacrifice is a biblical archetype that was at the center of the Puritan ideal and it has been written into the American civil religion (Bellah).

This is also the way president Obama morally justifies the government cuts needed to reduce the deficit: “Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.”. By definition, sacrifice needs to be hard and difficult and so it will require “painful cuts” (“Already, we have frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees”) and it is also morally right because it is about self-discipline.
This is a return to the traditional Protestant Ethic that considers excess (likened to gluttony) morally wrong and restraint morally good (Max Weber) - a fascinating paradox of American society where more is often better - so Obama’s government cuts have to be about “excess weight” and “excessive spending”. In effect prosperity is supposed to be the result of discipline and hard work which makes it moral. (Lakoff, The Political Mind).
(Think of the self-help books which all have this underlying theme -that redemption and success come from self-discipline or why taking drugs or smoking or drinking is so frown upon).It is also a theme developed by Max Weber pointed out in his "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".



But of course, the greatest sacrifice for the nation is that of “the men and women who serve” it. (t but here are very few references in this speech to the military and the war other than to illustrate the unity in diversity).


THE FRONTIER MYTH

Those people who serve the nation abroad are “heroic” and one of the characteristic of the American hero is that he or she is an ordinary person.
This is why many presidential speeches have been recently punctuated by the illustration of stories of regular Americans who become elevated to role models because of their character, their hard work or their hardship; and who ultimately prevailed (“Robert and Gary Allen who run a small Michigan roofing company”; “Kathy Proctor , mother of two” who “worked in the furniture industry since she was 18 years old”). Just like superheroes of the comics, what makes them heroic is not their powers (the villain also has powers) but their action and character: “From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream.”.

Whereas yesterday’s national heroes were Jefferson’s yeoman farmer or Jackson’s frontiersman, today’s hero is the economic pioneer: the “Edison and Wright brothers” of our time, who founded “Google and Facebook”. Under different forms, it is in fact the same tale of the Frontier Myth – of “centuries of pioneers and immigrants [who] have risked everything to come here.”, and president Obama clearly links today’s challenges to yesterday’s in his “Sputnik moment” remark (“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.”). This is not only a reference to Eisenhower’s response to the Soviet’s Space Race but it also embraces Kennedy’s rhetoric of the New Frontier and so Obama links today’s investment in “clean energy” to yesterdays’ funding of “the Apollo Project”. In the same way, he links today’s investments in “high-speed wireless” and “high-speed rail” to yesterday’s “transcontinental railroad” and “interstate highway”. This is typical of a State of the Union Address in that the past is used to talk about the future, thus reassuring Americans about policies by linking them to long held traditions and in this case, to the Frontier myth which appeals to all Americans.

THE FUTURE IS OURS TO WIN.

This New Frontier myth is also the general frame behind one of the most important themes of Obama’s State of the Union Address – the reinvention of the self.

“In Robert’s words, ‘We reinvented ourselves.’ That’s what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves.”.

This is of course part of one of the most important founding myths of the American nation – the myth of creation and new beginnings, the permanent ‘Novus ordo seclorum’ of the U.S. Great Seal. (Marienstras). In America reinventing oneself is celebrated and extolled.(Lakoff) and Obama’s speech is a case in point. Re-invention is based on change and innovation. (“Our success in this new and changing world will require reform, responsibility, and innovation”; “In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It’s how we make a living.”). But of course, new beginnings require a change from the past, however painful: “We cannot win the future with a government of the past”.

There are 10 occurrences of the word “future” in Obama’s speech vs. only two of the word “past” (which are negatively connoted).
The American national rhetoric is typically about embracing the future but also about the idea that the future is good because it is free and for everyone to “win” which implies the belief in the control of our destiny. (“Our destiny remains our choice”). And this is also at the core of the “American idea” and the American Dream – “the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny”, and the American nation is indeed a nation of "voluntarists" (Marienstras) but the ideological assumption is therefore that individuals are responsible for their economic fate and that those fates are indicators of talent and character (Stuckey), and personal responsibility is a universal value: “Around the globe, we are standing with those who take responsibility”.

This confidence in the future is reinforced by the many movement and space metaphors. Movement and journey metaphors are very common not only in political discourse but also in everyday discourse (Chilton), but they are particularly relevant in American presidential speech.
In Obama’s state of the Union Address we have a great number of metaphors about MOVING FORWARD which illustrate the idea that action in the present can shape the future which gives meaning to politics :
“What comes of this moment is up to us”; “will move forward together”; “I ask Congress to go further”, “Now, the final step – a critical step – in winning”; “we have made great strides over the last two years”; “It is time to move forward as one nation”;” I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal”; “the work ahead of us”; “hopeful, our journey goes forward,”
Even if Obama acknowledges that “for many, the change has been painful.” (and “many” means not all), and even if it may seem unfair, (“the rules have been changed in the middle of the game”), change is still mostly viewed positively (“In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there’s an internet connection.”) and change is incarnated by “the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information – from high-speed rail to high-speed internet.”.

LIFE IS A RACE

The beliefs that change is good and that we can control our destiny serve to boost confidence and morale. It also creates a narrative in which the rhetoric of competition becomes coherent and can be easily accepted and embraced. This is a view of the world that is distinctively American: life is a race which ought to be won.
The words “win”, “winning”, “winner” or “race” actually appear 20 times in president Obama’s speech. It starts with kids in school, with the “education race” and the need to win “the race to educate our kids” and very tellingly, the government program of investment in schools is called “Race to the Top”. So for president Obama, not only is competition a good thing, but it should also be celebrated and taught to kids (“we need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair.”).
This may seem like a more conservative value as it assumes that competition is crucial because it builds discipline and character, but it must be kept in mind that competitive sports are very central to the American way of life anyway and competition is something most Americans are very comfortable with.

Politically, this narrative re frames the role of government into that of empowerment rather than support or redistribution (which would be a socialist view). In other words, if the government takes the role of a parent, it is not the nurturing role of the “nanny state” but the more masculine role of a “builder”, “investor” (“with the help of government loan”) and competitor since the entire world is in a race : after all, China and India could “compete in this new world.”
This is also why the laissez-faire economy is so much at the core of the American narrative, beyond the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans. Government regulation should not be “barriers that stand in the way of success” or “unnecessary burden on businesses” and thus one must “reduce barriers to growth and investment”.
But the Democratic president has to walk a fine line as this is also about his political agenda he endorses the role of protection of the government (his new health-care program is its best illustration) and he won’t hesitate to “create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people.”. But he immediately reassures his audience by linking it to the past – making it an American tradition (“That’s what we’ve done in this country for more than a century.”), and by limiting it to the correcting of abuses by greedy agents in the system (the “credit card companies” or the “health insurance industry” which should be prevented “from exploiting patients”) and to common sense notions widely shared by American people (“speed limits and child labor laws”).

EXEPTIONALISM.

If competition is a natural law, it is also a reality in the world and it thus becomes a patriotic duty not only to do your best, but to be THE best.
“We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper.”.
This is why the use of superlatives and comparative is so important – because America has “the largest, most prosperous economy in the world”, because “No workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs.”, because it has “the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any other place on Earth”, and because “there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.” the nation can look to the future with confidence.

One of the reasons why this ambitious goal is not so much a cause of anxiety is that the narrative is built upon making past experiences (the Frontier, the American Dream or the “Space Race” - which is assumed to have been won.) the posteriori knowledge of the future (Twings).
It also brings confidence by making the future dependent on the intrinsic qualities of the American people, their unity (“it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.”), hard work and discipline (“success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.”) which have built the American character. Finally, it is the enduring belief that the U.S. is the “greatest nation on Earth” and a “light to the world” that makes the prospect of winning the competition for the future within reach. This is of course reminiscent of the biblical archetype of the Manifest Destiny of the Chosen People so prevalent in 19th century narrative to justify western expansion. The narrative is now about the New Frontier, the economic Frontier.