havard simensen

Barack Obama’s speech on race was an event that both manifested his strengths and exposed his shortcomings. For Obama, it had become a matter of urgency to explain his association with an anti-American and xenophobic pastor. For the public, Obama’s speech was an opportunity to study if he was ready to face criticism head-on. But instead of a clear response to the questions concerning his association with Reverend Wright, he held a more of a sermon than a speech. Obama talked about the history of race animosities in America. He cited Christianity’s ‘obligations to love one another, to care for the sick and lift up the poor.’ He quoted the demand found in all religions ‘that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.’ He talked about moving beyond race and finding a ‘common stake in each other,’ about letting politics reflect that spirit as well. In one part of the speech he insisted that Americans must fix their public school system, because the children who suffer from lack of proper education are not ‘their’ kids, they are America’s kids, and ‘we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy.’ The speech was an attempt to spark patriotism, to remind Americans of the project that they have in common: To bring about a more perfect union with justice and liberty for all. For that to happen, it is necessary to move beyond prejudices that hamper progress, Obama said.

Embracing Christ
Obama is a religious man and he refers to his faith, Christianity, in his campaign. This is what he said in another speech at the Building a Covenant for a New America conference, back in June 2006: ‘You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away – because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith.’ Obama said that ‘kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.’

In what way can religion help transform American society? In today’s climate of revitalized mystification, some writers in the US claim that ‘religious feelings’ must be protected as something sacred – as some kind of supersensitivity. Also, many on the European Left say that religion furnishes an individual with an unshakeable conviction, a semantic core, which helps him or her withstand the pressures of the occultist phenomenon of ‘Neo-Liberalism.’ These leftists say that a new solidarity movement consisting of leftists and religious forces should challenge today’s capitalism. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Building societies that provide opportunities for all does neither require religion nor political leaders that inspire. A highly capitalist country like England was able to put in place universal health care, including dentistry, without any star struck political leadership. Similarly, in the Nordic social democracies we have social benefits, paid maternal leave, free education through university level, free health care and unprecedented degrees of social equality. Social mobility is in fact more prevalent in Norway and Denmark than in the United States, according to a recent study from LSE. Despite a dreary cultural climate, and extremely uninteresting politicians, the Nordic countries have been able to establish a social order that combines strong market economies with social justice.

Solidarity
There is a perception in the US that the quality of a politician is somehow strengthened by religious devotion. Religious leaders claim that religion help create a more just society. But comparisons of public religiosity and social justice in Western countries fail to show any relation between faith and solidarity. On the contrary, it appears that the more religious the population is, the less qualified society is to reduce the gap between rich and poor. (Scandinavian countries have the world’s most nonreligious populations.) In a study of foreign aid – both private and governmental support – the Centre for Global Development found that ‘the least church-going rich countries’ give the most money to development in poor countries. Apparently, the practice of charity, benevolent giving, words of solidarity and calls for us to love our fellow man in the name of religion does not necessarily materialize in policies. One can perfectly well have a social just system without any proclaimed obligation for all to love one another. Economic benefits, job creation, rights to free healthcare and education have not been put in place through empathy, but through a simple rationale: We want a socially just society because we want everybody to have the opportunity to live a good life. There is no need to ground justice in any supernatural obligation.

This is not to say that our culture does not need explorations of what love is. Of course we need inspiration. For that, we’ve got novels, movies and music. We’ve got Shakespeare, Hollywood and, yes, we have religious fairytales that provide some people with comfort. We have writers, composers and preachers that remind us of what it means to be human. In all cultures we need narratives that open our eyes to our common reality. In modern capitalist economies our fates are in fact more entwined than in traditional societies. The work of our fellow man is essential to the survival and functioning of our own lives, so our cohesion ought to be stronger. Like we say in Scandinavia: ‘We are all in the same boat.’ Recognition of citizenry is often built through such culturally transmitted catch phrases – through words. Yes, even a politician’s words can sometimes provoke such revelations. But then, we all know that a politician will say anything to get elected. The actual power of a politician in office to create unity is, and ought to be, limited. Most of the work of a politician consists of manoeuvring in order to find compromises and build effective policies. Politicians cannot make us love one another.

Unity through faith?
What did Obama’s speech on race have to do with politics, after all? The tasks of the president of the United States seem to me to be very different from that of a reverend attempting to make people ‘come together’ or to ‘show compassion for those who suffer.’ In his speech, Obama did not explain to voters why he – for twenty years – continued to frequent a church that had the opposite message of that of unity. Reverend Wright was a divider, not a uniter. Obama’s campaign so far has been more successful at articulating the longing for harmony found in every person, and manifested in every religion, rather than actually outlining policies for how social change, real social justice, is to come about. (His attempts at policy-making have been unimpressive.) His campaign slogan ‘Change we can believe in’ appears to be a perfect one for Obama: It means nothing specific. It is faith-based. Believe in me, and change will follow. Unfortunately, such words have little to do with the hard work required to establish a more social just society.

The strategy of Nordic social democrats has been to work toward more or less the same vision of social justice that religious leaders claim to yearn for, but by using a diametrical opposite rhetoric: We must ourselves build a free, just and prosperous society. God is of no importance in this regard. Justice must be achieved in this life, not in an imagined afterlife. If you become unemployed or sick, society will provide for you through cold, bureaucratic measures, not through artificial charity. The state can only provide you with rights, services and money. Empathy must come from elsewhere. The sentences above can scarcely be regarded as inspirational. But such disillusionment usually creates an environment for sane political judgements. I just cannot imagine a successful Scandinavian politician claiming to be ‘beckoned by God’s spirit,’ encouraging citizens to ‘love one another’ and being a member of a church with a racist revered.