By Peter Gabel
WHEN BARACK OBAMA STOOD OPPOSITE HILLARY CLINTON DURING the Pennsylvania debate without his flag pin on, he was actually being an American hero. Practically inviting the inevitable exposure of his naked lapel by George Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson, Obama was willing to stand with the authenticity of his being against a demand that he adhere to a false image of "we," and hope that by doing so we could all break through to another level of connection to our common humanity.
In truth, all of us watching the debate have longed from birth to enter into an authentic relationship of mutual recognition with the Other, with all other beings. This desire is at the very heart of our social nature--it is the foundation of every baby's search for eye contact, for sensual nurturance and holding, for the completion of the self that only occurs through the reciprocity of authentic connection.
But tragically for all of us, we are born into a world that is not fully "there" yet. For a complex of reasons, as much as we long for each other, we are in flight from each other, passing each other with blank gazes on the street, hiding behind artificial self-presentations that we ourselves monitor moment to moment to keep each other at a safe distance. In place of the authenticity of mutual Presence, we condition each other to take on the artifice of this or that "role;" and in place of the authenticity of a supple and vulnerable human community, we require each other to pledge allegiance to a common mental image of community that blankets a universal solitude.
Thus the flagpin. When Obama stands before us as a candidate for president without his flag pin on--in his birthday suit, so to speak--he is appealing to all of us to trust that we can come out from behind our wall of coercive images and take the risk of being there for one another as who we really are. And when Stephanopolous and Gibson draw athreatening attention to the fact that he is not wearing the pin, they are actually expressing their anxiety that Obama might succeed, that if he were to become our leader, we might all be expected to become present to each other in a true relation of I and Thou as a loving and vulnerable humanity (themselves included). Thus although they are quite possibly liberals "in private" and do not privately believe that presidential candidates should be required to wear certain pins, in their public roles as "objective" journalists, they chose to engage in a play neutrality that sought to police Obama's ethical intentions on behalf of "the American People." Against Obama's courageous manifestation of and call for authenticity, the role-playing journalists chose to try to isolate the man and collude with the fearful image-world that supports, that actually is, the status quo.
Nothing that I'm saying here is meant to denigrate the value of patriotism as an identification with the best aspects of American history and culture, and Obama's willingness to challenge a coercive form of flag idolatry is in some ways a distinctly American accomplishment. I like the way Obama sometimes wears the flag pin and sometimes does not, showing respect for the cultural achievements of the historical community that he seeks to represent while resisting any fixed and robotic deference to a false image of community that traps all of us in a painful spiritual isolation. In some ways, the very best aspect of Obama's campaign has been the quiet confidence with which he has maintained his autonomy from the cascade of challenges to his "loyalty" that have underlain not just the flag pin drama, but also the uproars over Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and Bittergate. That autonomy is not really about separating himself from irrational and unfair allegations; it's about reaching out toward us through an invisible ether and affirming that we are all really Here and that a less crazy, more loving world is possible.
Peter Gabel is Director of the Institute for Spirituality and Politics and Associate Editor of Tikkun.
