If Abraham Lincoln gave his Second Inaugural Address in 2014, would it stand a chance of being remembered at all, much less 150 years later?
If Martin Luther King, Jr. shared his dream in 2014, would it survive the onslaught of opinions to which we'd all be subjected immediately after it?
These questions come to mind as I reflect on a piece by Samuel Wells in the August 30 Christian Century (p. 31). Wells is the vicar of St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church in London. He writes about the upcoming Scottish vote for independence, but one paragraph sounds as if it should be exported across the ocean to our USA:
"What the [independence] debate has exposed is a vacuum in British society as a whole. Not only is no one able to offer an aspirational picture of a whole society where there's a place for everybody and the various identities enrich and bring out the best in one another; beyond that, our public discourse no longer even permits such language or such a vision. In the absence of an inspirational large canvas, it's inevitable that minority rhetoric will sound more compelling and exciting. But that can only mean splitting into smaller and smaller groups."
Suppose there were a political leader in our nation who possessed rhetorical skills perfectly matched to our times and media, and who had a vision of an "ideal" American society in which all were respected and honored both in words and in actions. Would we allow ourselves time actually to hear and absorb and reflect upon her or his vision before we let someone else tell us what had been said and what it really means?
Probably not; in fact, many of us would likely turn to some trusted commentator to tell us how to think about what we'd just heard before we'd consider it ourselves, on our own terms, from our own point of view. We'd likely go to someone with a stake in dividing us into manageable and compliant factions, and allow that organization or person to determine the validity and credibility of what we'd just heard.
There may be such a leader of vision out there, but I am not hearing his or her voice. Or am I limiting my options only to those I've come to believe are worth hearing?
In any case, it's not a good way to be a democracy.
