Helping President Obama Win the Future

“Winning the Future,” the recurring theme of President Barack Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address, combines a pragmatist orientation toward the future with a realistic invitation to join in a hope-motivated struggle in which more than one team is involved and the outcome if far from certain. His apparent goal was to get clarify that all Americans are on the same team, even though “we have fought fiercely for our beliefs—and that’s a good thing…but there’s a reason why the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause: each of us is part of something bigger…we share common hopes and a common creed…that, too, is what sets apart as a nation…” It was good to see rival Members of Congress sitting together as an expression of this unity amid diversity and to see them rise together with a roar of approval when he said, “As contentious or messy or frustrating our democracy can be, I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other country on earth.” Lastly, it was good to hear him acknowledge that the struggle for the better way forward will and should continue in order to develop and adopt the best ideas, that this will not happen unless rivals actually work together instead of demonizing one another, and that this new approach to daily politics will require help from all of the American people. Even though he disagreed with President Obama’s policy proposals, Representative Paul Ryan’s civil and intelligent reply on behalf of the Congressional Republicans was fully compatible with this new approach to handling differences in political vision.

However, some powerful interests have already rejected this new approach, including some talk show radio hosts and cable commentators who earn large incomes by pouring fuel on the flames of fear and dislike, some elected officials like Representative Michelle Bachman who owe their offices to the disaffected and find themselves out of patience to listen to or read what their opponents actually propose, and those who lobby professionally on behalf of various interests that heard or thought they heard that they might make less money if Congress actually starts thinking together about how to advance America’s interest as a nation in a complex and unstable global context. Many of us ordinary citizens have already heard a lot from these voices, in part because some fair-minded communicators think that the democratic ideal requires that they give them “equal time.” This is a mistake, because these voices stand in opposition to the social preconditions of democracy, without which its formal processes are empty and even perverse.

What we need to do to help President Obama, the American people, and other peoples who long to live secure and meaningful lives with the guidance of the democratic ideal is to call out those who refuse to walk the walk while demanding equal time or as much time as money can buy to talk a very different kind of talk. This means we need to send emailsor tweets or even old-fashioned letters to challenge uncivil and anti-democratic speech as soon as we hear it. Democratic respect for others’ right to speak their minds freely does not require that we treat the views of those who challenge others’ rights to democratic participation as if their views were just “another perspective.”