From Deathmatch to Debate

President Obama last night:

I know that that unity that we felt on 9/11 has frayed a little bit over the years, and I have no illusions about the difficulties, the debates that will have to be engaged in in the weeks and months to come. But I also know there have been several moments like this during the course of this year that have brought us together as an American family, whether it was the tragedy in Tucson or, most recently, our unified response to the terrible storms that have taken place in the South.

Last night was one of those moments. And so tonight it is my fervent hope that we can harness some of that unity and some of that pride to confront the many challenges that we still face.

Steve Benen is justifiably cynical.

But at the risk of sounding cynical, I'd still recommend keeping expectations low. The differences between the parties is just too great and the partisan divisions run too deep. As Paul Krugman recently explained, "The point is that the two parties don't just live in different moral universes, they also live in different intellectual universes, with Republicans in particular having a stable of supposed experts who reliably endorse whatever they propose. So when pundits call on the parties to sit down together and talk, the obvious question is, what are they supposed to talk about? Where's the common ground?"

I don't blame the president for trying, but when it comes to Washington dysfunction, I'm not sure if anything can help.

Actually, I think that quote from Krugman is part of the problem. Certainly it feels like we're living in different moral universes. But what is the solution then? To give back as good as we get? What's the endpoint of that kind of exchange?

All of this reminded me of the speech President Obama gave at a Notre Dame commencement two years ago. I place it - along with his speech on racism, the one he gave in Cairo, the one he gave upon receiving the Nobel Prize and the one he gave in Tuscon this year - as one of his most profound.

By way of background, we should remember that giving this speech was highly controversial - he was going into a Catholic University as a pro-choice President to address the issue of abortion. That took a good deal of courage. He knew that the goal was not to come to some agreement about the issue of abortion - but to work towards having a different kind of conversation. Due to the setting, he puts that challenge in the context of religious faith. But its ultimately a call to a different way to see/talk to one another.

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. And 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...

The question, then -- 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, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?...

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words...

And in this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.

But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It's no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule -- the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

Is it realistic to expect that from our opponents? Probably not. Neither was it realistic for Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders to expect non-violence in return for their denunciation of violence as a strategy. But they did it anyway. Because it was not only a good strategy - it was the right thing to do. It demonstrated the depravity of their opponents and eventually won the "hearts and minds" of a majority of Americans to their cause. That didn't happen as the result of one incident - it took years, with too much bloodshed in the process. In other words, it was a "long game" that saw victory through planning, patience, and determination.

Our battles today are more often with words rather than fists and weapons. But I believe the same principles apply. And I think that's what Obama is trying to do...its the change he believes in.