Today at Fort Hood, President Obama addressed the mourners at the memorial service for those who died in last week's shooting. The President's comments demonstrate both the opportunities and the pitfalls of this sort of leadership speech.
We expect leaders to speak on tragic occasions like this one. Their comments should comfort us and let us know that the deaths of the fallen have not gone unnoticed. There are certain demands of the genre and the occasion; it is the job of the leader to say something about the larger significance of the cause upon which the fallen were engaged. The leader should further address some specific audiences: the relatives of the dead, who have special reason to mourn, and perhaps other groups who are particularly affected.
Primarily, we look to the leader to give us some sense of continuity, reassuring us that the cause, and life, will go on. In the presence of death, then, we look to our leaders to help us find resilience and endurance — to re-orient us toward life, even as we grieve for the dead. How well did President Obama's comments achieve these goals?
Not well, unfortunately, though his remarks today were more thoughtful and better suited to the occasion than his earlier remarks on the day of the tragedy itself, which were rather perfunctory and tacked on to a speech about other matters.
Compare his comments at Fort Hood with those of presidents Reagan and Lincoln, faced with other tragedies. President Reagan's much-quoted eulogy after the Challenger disaster of January 28, 1986 is a brief masterpiece; Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was an even briefer, even more magnificent piece of prose. Both earlier presidents' speeches — but especially Reagan's — commiserate with the mourners. Both speeches acknowledge the role of the fallen in the larger cause. Both speeches point the way forward, making the argument that the dead have not died in vain because the cause goes on. And both speeches help their audiences rededicate themselves to the larger purpose involved, whether it is the exploration of space or the preservation of the union.
Those speeches spoke from both the head and the heart. Obama's speech made similar arguments, but nonetheless there was something lacking. His delivery was precise and cool; he seems to instinctively avoid the emotional. But that is exactly what we need from a leader at a time of tragedy: a sense that the leader suffers along with us even as he points the way forward.
Reagan evinced sympathy, compassion, and comfort in equal measure, his eyebrows drawn together, his head tipped slightly to one side, and his voice full of concern. He mentioned the fallen astronauts by name. He addressed the families of the dead directly, and took time to speak to the schoolchildren who were watching the Challenger flight because a teacher was on board. And he made an eloquent case that space exploration would go on. Similarly, Lincoln made the case that Gettysburg's fallen had not died in vain because the living would take up their cause and soldier on.
Obama did link the deaths of the soldiers at Fort Hood to the larger cause of keeping America safe. His text borrows an idea from Reagan's by mentioning the fallen soldiers by name, and indeed goes one step further, giving brief details of each person's biography. It was a nice touch. But he still seemed to shy away from the human emotions of the moment.
In times of great mourning, we look to our leaders to find the meaning that allows us to go on. But we also need our leaders to simply grieve with us for the lives that have been lost.
If we are to follow them into an uncertain future, leaders must lead with both head and heart.
by Nick Morgan
We expect leaders to speak on tragic occasions like this one. Their comments should comfort us and let us know that the deaths of the fallen have not gone unnoticed. There are certain demands of the genre and the occasion; it is the job of the leader to say something about the larger significance of the cause upon which the fallen were engaged. The leader should further address some specific audiences: the relatives of the dead, who have special reason to mourn, and perhaps other groups who are particularly affected.
Primarily, we look to the leader to give us some sense of continuity, reassuring us that the cause, and life, will go on. In the presence of death, then, we look to our leaders to help us find resilience and endurance — to re-orient us toward life, even as we grieve for the dead. How well did President Obama's comments achieve these goals?
Not well, unfortunately, though his remarks today were more thoughtful and better suited to the occasion than his earlier remarks on the day of the tragedy itself, which were rather perfunctory and tacked on to a speech about other matters.
Compare his comments at Fort Hood with those of presidents Reagan and Lincoln, faced with other tragedies. President Reagan's much-quoted eulogy after the Challenger disaster of January 28, 1986 is a brief masterpiece; Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was an even briefer, even more magnificent piece of prose. Both earlier presidents' speeches — but especially Reagan's — commiserate with the mourners. Both speeches acknowledge the role of the fallen in the larger cause. Both speeches point the way forward, making the argument that the dead have not died in vain because the cause goes on. And both speeches help their audiences rededicate themselves to the larger purpose involved, whether it is the exploration of space or the preservation of the union.
Those speeches spoke from both the head and the heart. Obama's speech made similar arguments, but nonetheless there was something lacking. His delivery was precise and cool; he seems to instinctively avoid the emotional. But that is exactly what we need from a leader at a time of tragedy: a sense that the leader suffers along with us even as he points the way forward.
Reagan evinced sympathy, compassion, and comfort in equal measure, his eyebrows drawn together, his head tipped slightly to one side, and his voice full of concern. He mentioned the fallen astronauts by name. He addressed the families of the dead directly, and took time to speak to the schoolchildren who were watching the Challenger flight because a teacher was on board. And he made an eloquent case that space exploration would go on. Similarly, Lincoln made the case that Gettysburg's fallen had not died in vain because the living would take up their cause and soldier on.
Obama did link the deaths of the soldiers at Fort Hood to the larger cause of keeping America safe. His text borrows an idea from Reagan's by mentioning the fallen soldiers by name, and indeed goes one step further, giving brief details of each person's biography. It was a nice touch. But he still seemed to shy away from the human emotions of the moment.
In times of great mourning, we look to our leaders to find the meaning that allows us to go on. But we also need our leaders to simply grieve with us for the lives that have been lost.
If we are to follow them into an uncertain future, leaders must lead with both head and heart.
by Nick Morgan