Obama's Still Got It (Part I - The Good)

(updated below)

Yesterday, President Obama gave the commencement address at Michigan, and I immediately realized that a) I was basically the only law student that didn't see it (I was at a friend's wedding - congrats again Johnny and Jen!), b) it was worth the hours of waiting in line, and c) it was a speech that could have been designed just for me (I was told so by several friends). So I read through it, and I almost began tearing up and couldn't stop smiling, except in the points where I wanted to yell out that he's being a hypocrite. And again, this was just while I was reading (full text here). But I've also seen enough of his speeches that I could recreate the delivery in my own head. Anyway, given my varied and strong reactions to his address, I figured I'd write about the different parts. This post is incredibly long, so I'll write here about the good, and about the bad separately.

Of course, rhetorically, the speech was classic Obama - great balance between serious and humorous, and both cognizant of reality and inspiring at the same time. Substantively, the speech basically centered on the theme of participatory democracy - what it means, and what it requires. Specifically, he touched on the evils of thinking government is the enemy, the fact/opinion divide in the news, diversity (with multiple meanings), and the importance of civic engagement.

Government: He starts off saying that the "role of government" debate has been going on since before the Constitution. These days, however, much of the conversation is not about the proper size or role, but one side saying government itself is inherently bad. Even the people that are more moderate on this use the "analysis" that government's just gonna screw it up anyway, so why put more in their hands? He points out the Tea Party signs that say “Keep Your Government Hands Out Of My Medicare” to make the point that the one sided anti-government rhetoric just makes no sense. He gets maybe his best line of the speech out there pretty quickly: "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us." This line also bookends the speech nicely when he concludes with a call for greater participation.

His point about all this is exactly right. As I've mentioned before, lots of conservatives want small government not because it would work better for certain goals, but because government inherently "restricts freedom" and is evil. And these same folks assume the opposite about liberals - that we just want big government. In the end, that's not what the debate should be about, and that's not constructive. I'm very happy Obama started with this point.

Media: So anyone who has spoken to me, well, ever, knows I could rant about this for days. This was also the reason friends told me they thought of me when they heard this speech. Needless to say, I believe the broken media is the biggest reason our political process works so poorly. Obama chose to highlight the community sharing aspect of news that is so important, and that we have lost a great deal of:

Today’s 24/7 echo-chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before. And it’s also, however, given us unprecedented choice. Whereas most Americans used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner, or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows. And this can have both a good and bad development for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways. That will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country.

But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.

Now, this requires us to agree on a certain set of facts to debate from. That’s why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and talking heads. That’s why we need an educated citizenry that values hard evidence and not just assertion. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously once said, “Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

There are so many different ways to think about what's wrong with the media right now, but the erosion of the fact/opinion divide is quite central. When I was starting to come up with my Note topic last summer, a somewhat hare-brained and very controversial approach to improving cable news which is involves oversight, I tossed ideas around with a few people. Given the proposal's controversial nature, received a lot of helpful (and unhelpful) criticism. But one piece of criticism I received several times always upset me: when fact-checking came up as a part of the proposal, some clever folks responded "Ah, but the facts according to whom?" The idea that there is no such thing as objective fact is the greatest crime that our "balance"-obsessed journalistic culture has done to our society, and thoroughly destroying this idea, restoring the value of actual fact, is where anybody hoping to make media relevant again must start.

Diversity: Obviously, given the focus of this blog, we're all probably pretty happy he added this in, but really it's an important part of democracy that too often goes unmentioned explicitly. Obama spoke both about diversity of thought (which ties back into media and polarization) and diversity of people.

Still, if you’re somebody who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in a while. If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil; your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship. It is essential for our democracy.

And so, too, is the practice of engaging in different experiences with different kinds of people. I look out at this class and I realize for four years at Michigan you have been exposed to diverse thinkers and scholars, professors and students. Don’t narrow that broad intellectual exposure just because you’re leaving here. Instead, seek to expand it. If you grew up in a big city, spend some time with somebody who grew up in a rural town. If you find yourself only hanging around with people of your own race or ethnicity or religion, include people in your circle who have different backgrounds and life experiences. You’ll learn what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes, and in the process, you will help to make this democracy work.

This topic rings especially true after a few days' discussion of the unacknowledged white privilege rampant in law schools and legal culture.

Participation: This is more standard fare - the charge to the graduates. And yeah, if it's from the President, the charge to be politically involved really makes a lot of sense.

Here’s the point. When we don’t pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders, when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day, when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that’s when democracy breaks down. That’s when power is abused. That’s when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. . . .

Participation in public life doesn’t mean that you all have to run for public office -– though we could certainly use some fresh faces in Washington. But it does mean that you should pay attention and contribute in any way that you can. Stay informed. Write letters, or make phone calls on behalf of an issue you care about. If electoral politics isn’t your thing, continue the tradition so many of you started here at Michigan and find a way to serve your community and your country –- an act that will help you stay connected to your fellow citizens and improve the lives of those around you.

When he says "the government is us," he really believes it, both as truth and as future ideal. If anyone in the UM Class of 2010 takes his words to heart, it will be truer for them than it would have been before. My only real regret about this speech is that it won't be given the airtime on cable news that it needs to get. It was as good as almost any on his campaign, only it's about not about what he will do, but what we can do. Everyone needs to hear this charge.

UPDATE: Just watched Obama's speech at the WHCD, given later the same day, and he does repeat the charge directly to the press (around 14:40 in the video). So maybe we can start having this discussion for real. Not holding my breath that it will be repeated much though.