Print
Share
A C-Change in Presidential Rhetoric: Compassion to Conscience and Common Interest
July 13, 2009
In his speech on Saturday in Accra, Ghana, President Barack Obama described the motivation for U.S. support to AIDS, malaria and other health programs in Africa:
America will support these efforts through a comprehensive, global health strategy, because in the 21st century, we are called to act by our conscience but also by our common interest, because when a child dies of a preventable disease in Accra, that diminishes us everywhere. And when disease goes unchecked in any corner of the world, we know that it can spread across oceans and continents.
Ghana was also the setting, in February 2008, for President Obama’s predecessor to offer his Administration’s motivation for large global health programs focused on Africa. In a pre-trip interview, then-President George Bush said his aim was to show that “the American people are a compassionate people, a decent people, who want to help moms with — deal with malaria, and families deal with HIV/AIDS, and the need to feed the hungry.”
“Compassion” then. “Conscience and common interest” now.
Just a switch in speechwriters, or a fundamentally different conception of why U.S. tax dollars should be used to support improvements in Africans’ health?
I’m no hermeneut, but I think the word choice represents a significant shift. Compassion connotes a relationship between individuals, where one is empathetic and voluntarily chooses to ease the suffering of another. Conscience implies a duty, based on knowledge of right and wrong. And common interest clearly balances the notion of a lifeboat, offered for reasons either of compassion or conscience, with an image of us all in the same boat.
And yet another “c-word” has popped up in official statements about the orientation of U.S. global health programs: “comprehensive.” A fact sheet released by the State Department last week commits to a “comprehensive global health approach.” In it, the Administration strongly signals an intention to expand beyond HIV/AIDS to, greater attention to other causes of maternal and child death, reduction in unintended pregnancies and a focus on neglected (but not for long) tropical diseases.
We will see whether this difference in the way the U.S. leader talks about global health translates into different actions — or into a change in support for the President by others, including those who for nearly a decade have helped to define the not-entirely-comprehensive agenda of compassion.
5 Responses to “A C-Change in Presidential Rhetoric: Compassion to Conscience and Common Interest”
Post a Comment
We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I believe that the point raised by Ruth Levine is extremely important. It reflects some other significant changes that those like us who live in developing countries are looking with hope comparing the former and the present US Government. The position that the President Obama expressed towards the Islam, and just recently with the coup in Honduras are very impressive. But, joining Ruth Levine’s questions, the expressions should be followed by changes in policies towards development, towards the need for change in some international institutions governance, and with a more active and generous aid policy, specially under the global economic crisis that is already affecting the poorer countries in the world.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:08 am
Surely Americans are Champions of Sustainable Development and Systems’ Approach. Seeing Hillary Clinton whose husband was the former US President, President Obama holding in his hand a Ganian baby; and the former President Bush all in the same chapter dealing with issues of development, it is so fulfilling. I wish Africa should take an example, as in Africa we more often than not set our wealth on fire with our own hands forgetting that in future when our parties take over from the ruling party development has to be sustainable. The Americans I wish you peace, rain and prosperity and to lead the whole world.
Thank you.
FRANCISCA ‘MAPITSO MATSOHA
July 18th, 2009 at 3:19 am
My opinion is thus: That all the three US presidents acted the way they did based on the context of the global challenges at there times. Clintin started and passed over to Bush, which mantle Obama has now recieved. The current challenges facing the entire globe are unique. And I must say Obama got it right: It is no longer possible to say we (Americans) and they (the rest of the world)! Because if we do not address the issues now they will cross oceans and reach to our door steps this is true for disease, terror and poverty. The greater challenge for America today is its image abroad. During the Bush administration the US built an enormous animosity accross the world, Obama now faces the challenge of correcting this. I agree with him, Africa can only be changed by Africans, and that we can eventually hold our leaders acountable.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:24 am
you may add: The two pictures tell you the story: Bush possed for the camera, while Obama posses for the camera but also and more importantly looks into the eyes of the little African girl and seems to ponder ‘how many more birthdays does she have left to celebrate!’
August 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
The new wording goes back to the earlier Democrat policy on global HIV/AIDS started around 2000 with Richard Holbrooke then-US embassador at the UN. Back then global AIDS was formulated in security terms, and current Administration’s ‘common interest’ speech only matches such policy framing. However, I would argue this new wording is not very much different in its consequences when compared to ‘compassion’. Compassion makes a whole lot of sense given Bush’s specific domestic factors, namely the role of his Christian constituencies, many of them quite involved in development-related work overseas for many decades (eg. CRS). In any case, from a political-theological perspective, I do tend to assess compassion as expressing a top-down, condescending, tolerant-like Christian attitude towards the world’s miserable, though without much promise of change in their lives, that would be, typical charity. At least rhetorically, ‘common interest’ expresses a wider sense of respect of sovereignty and state-to-state relations, although I’m convinced that envisaged consequences are very much the same.