Yes, We Can...But

Not so very long ago, a Presidential candidate, with superb eloquence (and the help of a talented musician and a video production crew) inspired me to believe that justice, equity, compassion and peace could still guide this country in its domestic and foreign policy. I joined with him in a powerful, hope-filled refrain: "Yes, we can!" He warned me about a chorus of cynics who would only grow louder and more dissonant as time went on. He encouraged me not to slow down in the face of those who might urge us all to pause for a reality check.

And now, quite clearly from this vantage point, he is the one slowing us down. He is waving us over to the reality checkpoint. He is justifying--a little more artfully than past Presidents, but just as stubbornly--the practicality and inevitability of war, the corporate state, and the U.S. as Imperial Power.

He has become an obstacle we must overcome. If we believed in the meaning of that refrain: "Yes, we can!", then we have to stop believing that he is going to lead the way. If there is such a thing as change we can believe in, then we have to stop believing in him. The very most we can hope for is that, after the people blaze the trail, he will follow...but we can't bank on that, either. (We can't bank on much these days except that the banks, god love 'em, will be okay!)

And I know that I should not be surprised that I find myself at odds with the policies of my President. Yes, go figure, it's happened before. And I am not surprised that Obama is moving ahead with troops in Afghanistan. He was pretty straight about that in the campaign--though many of us had our fingers in our ears as we sang along with Will.I.Am. I am not surprised that I find myself disagreeing vehemently with his policies. But I am saddened, I must say, that when I hear him say:

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.

I now want to join with Joe Wilson, (the GOP congressman from South Carolina who shouted out during President Obama's address to Congress) in saying, "You lie!"

One need only read of Obama's apparent refusal to sign on with the international community to ban land mines. One need only read of his administration's stonewalling the investigation of "certain rules of conduct" in the previous administration. One need only ask for some actual proof that things have changed...

And I am saddened to find myself, not just disagreeing with him, but feeling deeply offended. I am disturbed by the note of condescension that I heard as he spoke of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. After this beautifully difficult and true quotation from King:

Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones.

Obama goes on to say:

As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Let's examine this passage for just a moment, revealing all of the "BUTS" that are buried within.

I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence...

BUT as a head of state, I cannot be guided by their examples alone (or at all? What are the examples you do follow, and why?)

BUT I face the world as it is (and King didn't? Gandhi didn't?)

BUT evil does exist in the world. (This would have been news to Gandhi? To King? Were they facing evil, or just some slightly misguided good old boy Brits and Americans?)

BUT a nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. (But might it have prevented their creation? Hitler's ascendance?)

BUT negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. (And remind me where they got those arms...how bin Laden received his training...how is evil born, exactly? And why do some figures seem to transform from evil to good to evil and back again without ever seeming to change what it is they do?)

Obama's speech for me can be summed up in this short phrase: I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence BUT...and as Dr. Phil taught me, when you hear a sentence with a BUT in it, you can safely ignore everything that comes before the BUT.

How utterly laughable (if it wasn't so tragic) for Obama to say: "The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance..." Does he really think it was considered practical or possible at the time, in the circumstances that they faced? Our President, I believe, is an intelligent man; a student of history; but please! Nonviolent resistance is NEVER considered a practical or possible means of changing things by those who have the weapons. But ask the Christian and Muslim Womens Peace Movement of Liberia--as chronicled in the film, "Pray the Devil Back to Hell"--if nonviolent action for peace is practical and possible.

The nonviolence practiced by King and Gandhi is not always practical, says our President, but the love they preached must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey. We cannot practice what they practiced, but we can preach what they preached, even while we are spreading violence. We cannot practice what they practiced...

Well, he can't maybe...but we can. Oh, yes we can!