The recent tragedy at Fort Hood prompted President Obama to
modify previously scheduled comments to a Native American group in order to
comment on the horrific shootings (
http://tinyurl.com/yjg4pyz). The
President’s comments demonstrate both the opportunities and the pitfalls of
this sort of leadership speech, and bear comparison to President Reagan’s
much-quoted speech on the Challenger disaster of January 28, 1986 (http://tinyurl.com/yzsv4dl), not to mention Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and
Pericles’ funeral oration on the death of Greek soldiers during the first year
of the Peloponnesian War.
We expect leaders to speak on tragic occasions like this
one. Their comments should comfort
us and let us know that the deaths of the fallen have not gone unnoticed. There are certain demands of the genre
and the occasion; it is the job of the leader to say something about the larger
significance of the cause upon which the fallen were engaged. The leader should further address some
specific audiences: the relatives of the dead, who have special reason to
mourn, and perhaps other groups who are particularly affected.
Primarily, we look to the leader to give us some sense of
continuity, reassuring us that the cause, and life, will go on. In the presence of death, then, we look
to our leaders to help us find resilience and endurance – to re-orient us
toward life.
How did President Obama’s comments compare to the great
examples of the genre provided by presidents Reagan and Lincoln, as well as the
Ancient Greeks?
Not well, unfortunately. Reagan canceled his State of the Union address to speak
solely about the Challenger disaster.
Obama squeezed his comments in the end of a speech on other
matters. The choice of the latter
to continue with his other business diminishes the sense of occasion.
Reagan’s eulogy is a brief masterpiece; Lincoln’s an even
briefer, even more magnificent piece of prose. Both earlier presidents’ speeches acknowledge the role of
the fallen in the larger cause.
Both speeches point the way forward, making the argument that the dead
have not died in vain because the cause goes on. And both speeches help their audiences rededicate themselves
to the larger purpose involved, whether it is the exploration of space, or the
creation of a more perfect union.
In this re-dedication, the two speeches echo Pericles’ oration, which
argues passionately for his listeners’ continued allegiance to the city-state
Athens and its role in the world as a beacon of freedom.
Obama’s speech, on the other hand, is primarily
tactical. He talks about getting
to the bottom of the mystery of the shooting, and the involvement of various
governmental bodies in that pursuit.
He does note that the soldiers who died are heroes in service to their
country, but the comment is brief and perfunctory and does nothing to specify
either the particular mission of the soldiers in question or particular groups
affected beyond the obvious, the families of the fallen.
His delivery is flat and distracted, as if his attention was
split between the audience in front of him and the events at Fort Hood. Reagan, on the other hand, is
completely focused, evincing sympathy, compassion, and comfort in equal
measure, his eyebrows drawn together, his head tipped slightly to one side, and
his voice full of concern.
Reagan’s speech mentions the fallen astronauts by name. He addresses the families of the dead
directly, and takes time further to speak to the schoolchildren who were
watching the Challenger flight because a teacher was on board. And he makes an eloquent case that
space exploration will go on:
I’ve always had great faith in and respect for our space
program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don’t hide our space program. We don’t keep secrets and cover things
up. We do it all up front and in
public. That’s the way freedom is,
and we wouldn’t change it for a minute.
We’ll continue our quest in space.
There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews, and yes, more
volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue.
Similarly, Lincoln makes the case that Gettysburg’s fallen
have not died in vain because the living will take up their cause and soldier
on:
The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have
consecrated (this ground), far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long
remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be
dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far
so nobly advanced. It is rather
for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from
these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave
the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead
shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth
of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people,
shall not perish from the earth.
In times of great mourning, we look to our leaders to find
the meaning that allows us to go on.
President Obama should call upon all his eloquence and help the families
of Fort Hood – and the nation – deal with this most recent tragedy with words
and demeanor more suited to the occasion.
