Wednesday, October 10, 2007
One nation, under whose God?
Elizabeth Strother
Recent columns
- For those who have too little
- Time to gather mountain views
- Our blind spot on roads
- Following the money trail
From the RoundTable blog
Sen. Barack Obama has taken off his American flag lapel pin, he says, to make a statement.
It is a statement about patriotism: that simply showing the flag is not what true patriotism is all about. That love of America requires speaking out on issues important to its security, essential to its greatness.
I agree. Yet I winced.
Of all the presidential hopefuls crisscrossing the country in this long run-up to the parties' nominations, Obama has struck me as the most likable, the most able to connect with a crowd, to speak comfortably about shared values. He can remind Americans of the social principles that don't automatically divide us into liberal and conservative camps, Democratic and Republican, blue and red -- or black and white.
And here he was, hauling out unbidden the most emotion-charged symbol of our nation to make a complex point that, on a gut level, he just can't carry -- not to those Americans who pay tribute to all that is great about their country when they honor its flag.
Obama, I expect, wants to challenge people to think about more than the swell of emotions that the symbol can stir in people who love their country. That is such an easy political manipulation.
How much harder, and more authentic, is patriotism that pushes beyond flag-waving to demand that the nation act according to its highest ideals.
Grandiose flag displays can inspire -- but do not require -- unthinking deference to leaders. I have never been willing to cede the flag -- or, for that matter, the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem -- to any particular political brand, especially to the "America: Love it or leave it" crowd. When I stand, it is with reverence for a country I can defend and criticize freely.
Why seek to become president and, if successful, come to embody the nation, yet make a point of dropping a flag pin at the risk of alienating voters?
I am chagrined. Yet I have to admit a grudging respect for Obama's principled refusal to wear his patriotism on his sleeve -- or his lapel.
What, then, to make of his more recent attempts to embrace the "faith and values" voting bloc with his "40 Days of Faith and Family"?
Obama told an evangelical congregation in Greenville, S.C., Sunday, "I think it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party." Hear, hear.
Were his remarks sincere or political strategy, though, when he adopted the language of evangelical Christians in concluding, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth"?
Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, a liberal denomination. His spiritual mentor has been the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who led Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for many years, preaching an Afrocentric interpretation of the Bible.
Critics decry Wright's theology as racially exclusive. I am no student of his preaching, and can't speak to that.
What I wondered about, after reading of Obama's swing into conservative South Carolina, was not any pitch for racial exclusivity -- the candidate has never hinted at that -- but one of religious exclusivity. That should be anathema in American politics; regettably, it is not.
Evangelical Christians, as President George W. Bush understands well, speak a language of their own. The kingdom they are awaiting on Earth is a Christian kingdom.
I suspect Obama means no such thing in terms of his political ambitions. Many sincere and committed Christians -- especially of the liberal-minded persuasion -- think of their faith's promised Kingdom of God on Earth as all-inclusive, of every people and faith.
But some conservative evangelical Christians that I know do not.
So was Obama saying one thing, hoping that his audience would hear another? Or was he trying innocently to build a rhetorical bridge to Americans who center their lives on their religious beliefs, without implying sympathy for political views he surely does not share?
He was right when he told the reporters covering his campaign that, in the '90s -- and, I would say, beyond -- "the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that oftentimes seems intolerant or pushed people away."
Fearful, yes. Because expressions of faith, like those of patriotism, can be inspiring and misleading. Oh, how carefully a politician bent on integrity must trod.
Strother is a member of The Roanoke Times editorial board.
