|
All of the greatest unifying cries and ultimately the deepest causes can be purely stated in a handful of words, and actually that is the only way in which they ever are purely spoken, because beyond those powerful phrases the writer starts to inject personal bias and toning and choice of words that tend to resonate differently for different people.
John Lennon said "All you need is Love", and in a way that sums it up too. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" has a real ring to it also.
OK, I do understand your point. Wesley Clark is an intellectual and by most accounts, a complex man. Still I have no doubt that the simple phrase: "Honor, Duty, Country" means a great deal to him personally, and that it has provided him with a basic compass heading he has consulted throughout his life.
There is a reason why most successful public leaders, and I guess I can include preachers here too for the hell of it (pun intended), are great orators. Words have the power to inspire, and to uplift. They also have the power to brainwash, and to deceive, granted. I am convinced that one of the great political American battles of the early 21st century will revolve around words, what it truly means to be an American. I think Republicans won that battle in the late 20th Century.
"We believe in the promise of America as a place of opportunity and inclusion for every man, woman and child."
The key word there is inclusion. That is not part of Republican rhetoric, it changes the subtext of the rest of the statement which is otherwise boiler plate. Now you are right, almost all Democratic politicians would acknowledge that statement, in passing. The way I see it though, we are taking a pledge to embody that concept (inclusion) in all of our political and social stances, so that those of us who sign on to this pledge bear witness through our ongoing actions to the central importance of that concept. It becomes the benchmark, the litmus test, to whether or not we stand for equality in this great land of opportunity. I accept that my political work should be measured by that benchmark.
"We appreciate the great opportunities our citizenship bestows and accept the responsibilities it demands. We realize that shared sacrifice and service to country are fundamental to the American experience."
At the onset of his campaign, Clark initiated a call for voluntary community service, and he asked his supporters to take up responsibility for acting to improve people's lives on a local scale through coordinated activity. Clark does not believe in conscription. He strongly defends a voluntary military and is opposed to the resumption of the draft. It is Clark's call for giving something back to your country and your community, recognizing that compassion and cooperation strengthens us as a people and as a nation, and that the elevation of narrow self interest as the defining measure of progress and success is corrosive to us as a people, and ultimately to our well being.
"We accept America's role as an enduring symbol of hope and progress for the human spirit throughout the world. We welcome the responsibilities this role demands."
You point out that the implications of that pledge can play out in different directions depending on how it is interpreted and implemented, and you are right. Again, this is a case of wresting control of positive imagery words and concepts out of right wing hands. That is our challenge, and we should be judged on that. We will have to further define that meaning through our actions and our beliefs, I do understand where your lack of ease comes from. This is the center of the right/left struggle with symbolism as it pertains to the justification for America's actions in the world. It is essential that we redefine these concepts in America's unconscious mind away from the PNAC script you refer to. Clark in his speeches often specifically referred to the United Nations as essentially an American initiative, reflective of American values, that our current government does not value. With a little research I can point you to other speeches where he details how America's security is dependent on whether or not the world perceives us as a force for greater good or greater evil. An example of what Clark means by this type of language was the massacre in Rwanda. Clark believes we were untrue to our moral obligation, given our capabilities, when we did not act to stop it, whether or not their was oil involved, or Geo political alliances at stake.
"We recognize that a successful democracy requires discussion, disagreement and dissent, and that leaders must be held accountable for their actions and decisions."
All Democrats will say this, though not all Republicans without rushing to include language that undercuts the essence of this statement. Nonetheless, it is a clear line in the sand. Another benchmark that can be referenced anytime any elected official, Democrat or Republican, gets secretive or evasive. Clark holds this standard up as being at the core of our Democracy. That is the point here. Not that most or all Democrats can agree with this, but that adherence to this standard is at the core of the unifying principles of his cause and movement, not something peripheral or elective depending on circumstances.
"We cannot accept despair, neglect or discrimination in our country's schools, workplaces, hospitals and public services. We will not tolerate corruption and exploitation by our leaders, corporations, or special interests."
Since we agree here, 'nuff said. I'll group the next two "platitudes".
"We trust and support a government of, by and for the people. We believe in the role of the American government as an uplifting force, a voice for the oppressed and an arbiter of justice."
"We recognize the untapped potential of the American people and the awesome power of our shared heritage and treasure. We believe our potential is not being recognized."
Yes, platitudes. It hints at a commitment to participatory Democracy, beyond simply voting every couple of years. Perhaps that could be strengthened. It confirms a belief that Government can and should be activist in nature, so long as it adheres to the other stated principles. Now this is standard pap for Liberal Democrats, but the beauty of Clark's movement is that because of the genuine chords of a deep sense of patriotism that it struck for many who have NOT considered themselves Liberal Democrats, some were drawn to Clark who have not fully embraced this concept. I suppose you could see this piece as firming up the conceptual support of moderates and even some conservatives who have been drawn to Clark for an understanding that Government can be a force for Good, not only a necessary evil.
Anyway, the proof is always in the pudding. But if these concepts become identified with the types of people who have been the activist core of Clark's campaign, then the words used themselves will be redefined away from the moths of their Republican kidnappers, AND THAT IS A CRUCIAL STEP IN TAKING BACK AMERICA.
A basis of unity can never be as detailed as specific policy positions, and they can never be as nuanced as a platform, or certainly not as comprehensive as a political thesis. They form a starting point for discussion, not the end point for a movement.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(102 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
