We Are One?

I have to admit that I am a bit conflicted over all of this inauguration stuff. I understand the historic nature of this particular inauguration, and I enjoy the American spirit and the way our country transitions between leadership. So on that end I can appreciate all that is going on at this moment, just as much as I did during previous inaugurations. But I am already fatigued by all the Obama hype and worship. And I am a bit disappointed with many of the people who are now all excited about this country, but were absent over the past eight years.

I watched some of the "We Are One" concert Sunday. It was a nice, Hollywood produced event. But I wasn't quite sure what to make of the "We Are One" theme. Don't get me wrong . . I like the concept. If I was a coach of a team, I would be preaching an "all for one and one for all" approach, rather than a "play only for your own glory" concept. But the perception I got from the limited amount of the show I saw was that "we are one" is considered a new concept for America, something that could have only come about from Barack Obama. The perception these people seem to hold is that, when it comes to common purpose and helping others, Americans over the past eight years have been uncommonly selfish, and that it is the fault of George Bush. I don't agree with that. Certainly Americans, or should I say people, can be and often are selfish. This is part of our sinful nature. It has nothing to do with George Bush or Republicans or really anything else other than our self-absorption. But Americans are also extremely generous, and they have been consistently over the past eight years.

So just what does it mean: "We Are One"? It seems to me it can mean one of two things: 1) that when it comes to issues and policies, both foreign and domestic, when it comes to how we see life, priorities, values . . we are one in our perspective; or 2) when it comes to being in this grand American experiment, defending and fighting for freedom, respecting and protecting fundamental personal rights, lending support whenever possible . . we are one in that endeavor. On the second point I do not believe that has been challenged, perhaps ever, in our history. It is something that has never been lost, and it is something that is not new. On the first point, it is impossible to achieve. When people speak in those terms, when they see our country "finally" coming together in unity, what they are really saying is that "finally" their side is in power. That's not unity. They conveniently forget that there are millions of people out there who have honest disagreements when it comes to policies and issues. While it is possible to get along (something that I think most people do), it is not always possible to force or sway people to alter their deeply held convictions.

Sunday night, after the concert, Stevie Wonder was on Larry King Live. He seemed to imply (it was actually pretty overt) that anyone who doesn't grab hold of the Obama point of view is a "hater". That was his word. He repeated it several times. Hater? Really? Is this part of the "we are one" philosophy . . anyone who expresses disagreement is a "hater"? I guess my question is where were all these people during the past eight years? Why were they not willing to give George Bush the same kind of respect, right from the beginning. Instead they went into a full blown "hate" mode of their own, doing their best to discredit George Bush from the moment he stepped into office.

So you can see that I am conflicted. I want to enjoy this inauguration, just like I have past ones, regardless of who was coming into office. But between the media love affair with Barack Obama, the adoring crowds, the "we are one" feel good hype that comes with all the depth of a Hollywood star, the continual "historic" this and "historic" that, the stirring speeches "challenging" people with meaningless randomness . . well, you get the picture . . I'm conflicted.