Politicians have longed employed the use of what have been called mythos appeals when engaging their constituents – especially at momentous times in the history of a nation or during election season. You’ve always heard these appeals – even if you didn’t realize it. Mythos appeals are rhetorical devices intended to tap into the cultural and religious stories and values shared by a community or a nation. And they can be very effective. Think of a preacher standing up on Super Bowl Sunday morning and making a bold prediction about the outcome of the game before he begins to preach. This is an example of a secular mythos appeal intending to capture the attention and goodwill of an audience in a sacred context. Politicians are often very skilled at using sacred language in secular contexts (even if they are not themselves particularly religious). These types of appeals are useful for politicians because they can unite people behind an idea or feeling even if they don’t necessarily care for the politician in question. They are also effective in creating the two things that politicians love to leverage the most – hope and fear.
It is important to not misunderstand how a politician uses mythos appeals. Generally a politician does not use a certain type of rhetoric (especially in election season) to radically alter the thoughts and values and narratives of the existing culture. Instead, he is trying to tap into the overall feeling that is already present within his constituency. He is hoping to recast it or leverage it in his favor. So, the way that a politician talks may reveal to us as much (or perhaps more – depending on your level of cynicism) about our own culture as it does about the politician him/herself.
All that being said, I find the following comparison fascinating not only for what it tells us about our first and our current president but also for what it tells us about how popular beliefs (and the language we use to express those beliefs) about God and about His plan for our nation have so radically shifted.
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted cannot be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. (George Washington, first inaugural address, April 30, 1789)
But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn't try, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people. Yes we can…we will begin the next great chapter in America's story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea - Yes. We. Can. (Barack Obama, New Hampshire “concession” speech, January 8, 2008)
The two speeches could not be any more different. Both speeches share the general assumption of American exceptionalism and share a hopeful vision of the future (it would be shocking for a political speech to not contain these two elements – unless of course it is a speech about your opponents).
Washington’s speech is a call to gratitude and national humility acknowledging the “Invisible Hand” which guides the affairs of all men, but especially the affairs of the United States. In the face of insurmountable odds, a new nation had been born. Washington is desirous to give God’s Providence the credit for this improbability and all the more, since there were those who were fearful of Washington’s power. Washington was using theological language that was very much at home in the 18th and 19th centuries (Have you ever read the fourth verse of the Star Spangled Banner?). This language isn’t above reproach. It is very easily used as a pretext for nationalism and in fact was the justification for the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. It is right to critique this selfish misuse of the doctrine of God’s providence. But, overall, I think that the sentiment of Washington’s words is admirable. It is falsely humble and actually arrogant to acknowledge any of the successes of this nation (particularly in the realm of freedom and human rights) but then to hesitate in giving God any of the glory for those successes. It is arrogance that resists saying “God has blessed the U.S.A.” or praying “May God bless the U.S.A.”
Washington’s speech is a call to gratitude and national humility acknowledging the “Invisible Hand” which guides the affairs of all men, but especially the affairs of the United States. In the face of insurmountable odds, a new nation had been born. Washington is desirous to give God’s Providence the credit for this improbability and all the more, since there were those who were fearful of Washington’s power. Washington was using theological language that was very much at home in the 18th and 19th centuries (Have you ever read the fourth verse of the Star Spangled Banner?). This language isn’t above reproach. It is very easily used as a pretext for nationalism and in fact was the justification for the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. It is right to critique this selfish misuse of the doctrine of God’s providence. But, overall, I think that the sentiment of Washington’s words is admirable. It is falsely humble and actually arrogant to acknowledge any of the successes of this nation (particularly in the realm of freedom and human rights) but then to hesitate in giving God any of the glory for those successes. It is arrogance that resists saying “God has blessed the U.S.A.” or praying “May God bless the U.S.A.”
Hope and exceptionalism are very prominent in Obama’s speech, but the language of divine providence is completely missing. Hope has been turned into a humanistic project. Exceptionalism resides in our own ability to make ourselves great. Yes WE can!! It is interesting that Obama uses Manifest Destiny language (sea to shining sea) in a purely humanistic way. Many have pointed out the liberationist themes in Obama’s rhetoric. The idiocy of Glen Beck aside, it is undeniable that Obama is our first liberationist president. But any comparisons with the typical liberation rhetoric of the past should not be overblown. Martin Luther King, for instance, used very humanistic language but the whole project was instigated and inspired by a God who rescues the oppressed. We may argue about his particular approach to scripture, but there is no doubt that MLK consistently drew upon biblical themes for his message of hope and liberation. Maybe it is because Obama is a politician while MLK was an activist, but those themes are virtually nonexistent in Obama’s message of hope. Contrary to what you may or may not believe, this isn’t intended as a political critique. It is more of a cultural observation.
America over 200 years later is no less interested in hope – especially these days. But these days hope is now a human project. We are our own best hope. Maybe we can. But I wouldn’t count on it. God’s role in hope has been pushed out of the public sphere to the extent that talk of God’s providential care is now seen as either passé or perhaps even racist.
