Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. Or so some would have you believe from the hype surrounding his visit...
"He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat/.../Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!/.../He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave" and his is "a tidal wave of Change!", "Change is coming!" and "Yes we can!" (some of these are real slogans on t-shirts at the speech, one is not...)
Truly, I have seen the revolution. And I fear it may be something of a damp squib. As I write, it's not even an hour old yet, but I am willing to predict what reaction you will see on your TVs (or, more likely, on Youtube, who watches TV these days?) or read the Comment and Opinion section of your papers tomorro. Billed as probably the most anticipated American campaign speech ever held on foreign soil, it is undoubtedly going to be considered, well, good, but not great. A slight disappointment, in fact.
Yes, he's a great speaker, but this wasn't, in my opinion, a great speech. It was good. There was a slight tear in my eye at some points, but frankly I've been known to cry reading a Tom Clancy novel (this is actually true), so perhaps that isn't saying all that much. But it needs more than being good to be great. There wasn't any mass histeria, no fainting or screaming or crying that I could see. This wasn't yet JFK or Nixon or Jesus...
It started with a poor piece of organisation. The first large television screen wasn't close enough to the stage. This left a significant no-man's land where you weren't close enough to see him properly and yet all the screens were behind you. So naturally there was a gap. It got to 18:55 and stewards began to more and more frantically usher us forward. But the crowd wasn't here to make him look good. This is Germany. There were of course the, no doubt specially selected, American flag wavers right up there, but no one particularly cared to get close if they could see him better 50m further back. The gap never closed - this wasn't a delirious Democratic convention, this was Germany, they can't make the crowd move if they don't want to. Not when the speech is all about our common fight for freedom. I am sure that this spoiled the desired effect somewhat, it certainly didn't please the crowd nor draw them into the proceedings. And it ain't going to look too hot the cameras back home either.
He came on late (presumably while they waited for the crowd to move up) and finished early. Expected to talk for an hour, it lasted about half that. I have no idea of the numbers of people, but there were plenty there, stretching almost all the way up to the Branderbuger Tor along the Straße des 17. Juni, a good kilometre or more.
The rhetoric was fiery, the speech was well constructed, but it lacked that certain something that would have made it great. Perhaps his mispronunciation of Berlin's Mayor's name didn't help. Perhaps he thanked the crowd one too many times. But I rather think that what he lacked was the occasion.
The speech was carefully constructed, but without the sense of occasion, the bones of its structure were a little too bare. He dealt well with the controversy of the setting - along the lines of though this tower was built to celebrate victory in war, we stand here in celebration of peace, etc... - but one could see him do it, which disappointed, just as seeing how well a novel is constructed is a sign that it isn't quite constructed well enough.
Naturally he concentrated on the shared history of America and Berlin, empathising how Berlin has long stood at the frontline of the fight for democracy and the indomitable spirit of the people, from the Airdrop to the fall of the wall. He spoke fine, true and often stirring words about our common history - not ignoring Germany's past, but not dwelling on it either - and more importantly, our common humanity.
He referenced those famous speeches subtly and cleverly, but then of course he did. He came as a citizen not a politician (which is his excuse for not being able to talk at his first choice of venue). He spoke of Berliners and again, later, that all the world were citizens of Berlin. He talked continually of tearing down walls. And herein lies the crux of his failure I think.
His failure was twofold, but they are inter-related. He spoke of grand themes and great causes that unite us. He ticked all the usual boxes for the left. We had, albeit far too briefly, climate change and the environment, AIDS, an end to nuclear weapons, welcoming immigration, overcoming racism and discrimination and so on (I am sure there are more, I just can't remember them all). Not everything he said was crowd pleasing, speaking of a common duty to intervene and finish the job in Afghanistan (an unpopular view here, ask Merkel). Yes, he spoke to the crowd at home. Security was mentioned frequently, 9/11 touched on, terror and Iranian nuclear weapons. It was noticeable that whenever he mentioned a strong EU or a strong, united trans-Atlanticism the first reason mentioned was always our common security. In fact, I was surprised by how often he used the word security, terror too, but perhaps I was being naive about the demands of realpolitik back home.
Speaking to the middle ground back home wasn't where he went wrong though. No, for me, it was a lack of substance. A lack of substance and a lack of occasion. The latter highlighted the former. Great words are great, but they are only truly inspiring when the circumstance is great. Tear down the wall was a meaningful sentiment and even a meaningful policy position when there was a physical wall to bring down. What more sentiment or policy do you need? For every man to be a citizen of Berlin is fine indeed, when the danger is so apparent and stands right over there, wielding guns and manouvering tanks to prevent your family from enjoying basic freedoms, from seeing you. But when the walls that divide are internal, as he rightly said, it is no longer good enough to say that our common humanity must unite us to allow us to tear them down. What does that mean? How? How are you going to tear down the walls between you and the Serbs I met last month? How are you going to bring Israelis and Palestinians to the table? Why have you renounced unconditional talks with Iran or Syria or North Korea (ok, we know the answer to that one, duh, the voters won't go for it)? How?
Yes, it is naive to think that he is going to come to Berlin and spell out carefully his domestic policy. But without any details, without any promises of any substance, it leaves a bitter taste of rather too much politician in one's mouth. He promises change, but sadly I couldn't help wondering if he will be a real change at all. After all, didn't he just say what he knew we wanted to hear in Europe, without the substance we wanted, so that he could spin it as the folks would like to hear it back home. And here the audacity of hope founders against the reality of the world. Because what else could one really expect without incredible political naivety?
Surely the fact that he will be first Black President counts for change enough, you may say? Well, yes, that is undoubtedly a bid deal, but what does it matter whether it's a black man or white that refuses to bring the troops home from Iraq? They die all the same. Big business profits all the same. Climate change happens all the same. I suspect that the demands of the American election will bring him further and further from the change once promised and chasing the centre he will talk rather more about security and rather less about the personal sacrifice required to slow climate change. But don't they all?
Let's hope he does get elected. And let's hope that he returns to his strong positions on equality and open dialogue and real change. After all, what other chance have we got than the audacity of hope? It's either that or McCain and he is most definitely the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored...
