Acknowledging the 'Enemy's' Humanity

Many enemy movements are intractable. But many of their members, and sometimes even their leaders, are not. and unless you're planning a shooting war, it helps not to have a huge number of individuals who foster multi-generational worldviews of being suppressed, waiting for redemption and revenge.

Case in point: As the Civil War was ending, Lincoln was the only politician who on the one hand saw the need for radical restructuring of the South, but on the other wanted to avoid as much suffering as he could, even on the part of the gentry, while the society was being revamped. With the finally popular Lincoln's death, the country was led (despite Andrew Johnson) by people who wanted to punish the South for punishment sake, and to steal whatever they could—and then by those who had had enough of the suffering and the expense of occupation, and let the status quo fester.

To my mind, the 100 years of intense, institutional racism that continued after the country had shed so much blood is even more shameful (because it was more avoidable) than the history of slavery itself. And I think it likely that had Lincoln lived, things would not have turned out so badly. Which is not to say that force is never necessary. But vindictiveness, triumphalism, and vilification of the shallow and confused associates of the true villains is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Anyway, this came to my mind once again because of an incident I just read about at an Obama campaign stop.

A group of about a dozen anti-abortion protestors interrupted one of Barack Obama's New Hampshire rallies Monday night.

The group shouted in unison, "Abortion is abomination," forcing Obama to pause in the middle of his speech.

When the noise erupted, Obama first paused and looked up into the balcony where they were standing.

"Alright," Obama said, attempting to squelch the commotion. "Alright."

The rest of the crowd soon got angry with the protestors.

"No need to boo. We appreciate [their] point," Obama said, adding that he'd be happy to talk to them afterwards but that shouting "isn't going to solve anything."

The whole incident lasted about two minutes before they were escorted out by police.

...

Once the audience calmed down again, Obama said, "Let me just say this, though... Some people got organized to do that. That's part of the American tradition we are proud of."

"That's hard, too, standing in the midst of people who don't agree with you," he added.

Assuming disrupting the rally violated some valid law, which depends in part on whether the rally was held on public property, Obama handled that just right. I know many won't see it that way. But if you're more concerned with what the country will look like in 2020 than in vengeance for the dubious 2000 election, and if you're able to see even right-wing activists as individuals, some of whom will grow wiser with time, then Obama's approach is the right one.

Of course, instincts for inclusion aren't enough. And I do wish I knew more specifics of what Obama will do with the power that his statesmanship will bring him. The downside is that his politics could be indistinguishable from Clinton's. In the abstract, we could do worse. But in this contest, that is the downside, so it seems silly to withhold support from Obama on that basis, except to vote for Edwards, so long as that's a meaningful choice. The upside is that he will gather enough trust and enough of a mandate so that he can accomplish more than anyone has in a very long time. Here are a quote each from Clinton and Obama on the power (or lack thereof) of words. Clinton is right. Obama is more right.

Clinton:

As beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, [words] are not action. What we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the undue influence that they have in our government. And you know, probably nobody up here has been the subject of more incoming fire from the Republicans and the special interests, so I think I know exactly what I'm walking into and I am prepared to take them on.

Obama:

It's easier to be cynical and just say, "You know what, it can't be done because Washington's designed to resist change." But in fact there have been periods of time in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better, and I think we're in one of those moments right now. I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes -- not incremental changes, not small changes.... The truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them yes, we can.

More concisely, people will demand a better government only when they think a better government is possible. Obama can elicit that. Clinton probably can't.

h/t Al Petterson