Spit it out

Americans who are not fond of Pres. Obama dubbed his Mideast visit as an “apology tour,” principally aimed at taking potshots at the Bush regime and putting the Republicans in a very unflattering light. Speculations are rife as to how the leader of the most powerful nation in the planet will articulate America’s commitment to repair its blemished reputation in the non-Western community.

I don’t want to jump the gun here but as far as speeches go, the Notre Dame speech which was far from gallant, for instance, Pres. Obama’s conceptual language is teeming with moral ambiguities or as we say in PolSci, it’s the malady of the legalese and the legal juggernaut – the employment of theory and play obfuscation. It’s a whimsical style of saying nothing by saying a lot, to the point of emptiness, mastered by high-calibre lawyers, the US president being one of them.

For example, in that Notre Dame speech, Pres. Obama opined: “The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm.” On surface, we may find this agreeable but it’s a dangerous statement after deep reflection.

A soldier will rambunctiously push for martial rule to supposedly protect national security while a lawyer will defend the Bill of Rights and rule out martial rule as unconstitutional or without raison d’ etre. In Obama’s unsolomonic wisdom, both are right.

At the height of the oust-Erap campaign, I was invited to a forum and one of the resource persons used the biblical ploy “no one can cast the first stone” because we are all sinners. On the surface, there’s nothing disagreeable to the statement but it’s very dangerous to subscribe to this trap.

At the end of the day, since no one is blameless, we all forfeit the right to blame. No one is guiltless, therefore no one can point a finger at the guilty party. That’s dangerous when your statements blanket and exonerate everyone.

It’s not even for the sake of journalistic objectivity, as if it exists, but as someone dealing and processing facts, it has to be clear to you – who is the victim? Who is the perpetrator? It’s not that simple, I must concede, but we can’t all be victims, for Christ’s sake. People must have the moral courage to evaluate that a particular deed is wrong and someone has to pay the price. How can you make things right if you don’t acknowledge that a wrong was committed? You cannot push for peace unless justice is served and you start the process by assessing without opaqueness and ambivalence what injustice was committed and who made it possible.

My expectations of the much-anticipated Egypt speech are realistic. Judging from Pres. Obama’s previous rhetoric, it will be lacking in backbone. It will be wordy and verbose but will keep us pondering if the White House employs the same speechwriters, regardless of regime-changes.

Will Pres. Obama crack a whip on Israel, its most favored nation? Let’s listen for some surprises. Otherwise, we shall continue congratulating the man for being great at language games.