Barack Obama's Farewell Speech: Can't We Listen to One Another?

Public reactions to Obama's farewell speech in Chicago so far reflect the liberal-conservative divide. Yet, too few commentators actually listen to the speech. My own quick look at news websites seems to show many more articles and editorials about the speech by conservatives than by liberals. Conservatives seem to have been offended by it, while liberal commentators, for the most part, are paying less attention.

The conservative National Review published Charles C. W. Cooke's article describing Obama's speech as reflecting "schizophrenia." That does seem overstated, and it is not at all clear that the author actually knows what the word "schizophrenia" means. To a psychologist, schizophrenia means that a person is disconnected from reality. In the public mind, it often means that the person holds two

Barack Obama, WH photo

different ideas. Seemingly, Cooke uses the second, less exact meaning of the word. Cooke described the speech as "tinnier and more hollow than usual."  Cooke's basic argument is that Obama was calling for change, but that Obama fails to understand that Donald Trump is also calling for change. This seems a bit ironic, since to be a conservative, by definition, means that one resists change. At the same time, Donald Trump certainly is advocating change. The question, as Cooke does sense, is whether Obama or Trump is advocating for good change or bad change. I suppose that history will tell. What bothers me about this critique is that it seems so personal: sliding over the issues that Obama raised, and instead attacking Obama personally. For example, Cooke complained about Obama's "self-congratulation" The personal attacks were quite polite, but they were personal attacks on the same. At the same time, just as Obama used his speech to review his career in the White House, Cooke used his article to review what he saw as Obama's character failures.

Matthew Cooper, writing in the more liberal Newsweek, notes that Obama repeated many of his usual refrains, such as the need to advocate positive change and to represent the needs of minority religions and ethnicities. Cooper felt that the most enduring part of the speech is, probably, Obama's call for "a reality-based politics" in which people are willing to leave their "bubble" and to interact more with people whose opinions differ from their own. Cooper did find fault with Obama's speech, calling it "gassy" and noting that much of it did not seem very original. In contrast to Cooke's article, which was quite negative, Cooper gives a more balanced review of what Obama had to say. At the same, Cooper, like Cooke, gives short shrift to Obama's content.

The biggest problem that I have with these reactions, and others that I have seen, is that they seem to be motivated as much by the writer's preconceived opinions about Obama as by the speech itself. Obama appealed to identification, to the seeking of common ground with others, and divided himself from those who do not respect our traditions. Unfortunately, we no longer seem to agree on what our traditions are. Neither article paid much attention to the underlying principles that Obama discussed, instead looking for ways to turn those principles toward a particular viewpoint. They both missed the point. This has, unfortunately, become common in today's political world.Did either of these authors pay careful attention to what Obama was actually trying to say, or evaluate how well he said it? Instead, even with the election over, too many in the media still view Obama's every presentation as part of some kind of horserace between Republicans and Democrats. What the country desperately needs is for people to listen first, and evaluate later, instead of evaluating first and listening never.