Thoughts on the Inauguration

Did you watch the inauguration?

There are certain “American moments” which impress me and engender a certain patriotic reverence. One is the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery. The precise solemnity accompanied by the haunting sound of Taps sends chills up my spine.

Inauguration Day is another inspiring American moment. I love those opening bars of “Hail the Chief.” It is a great day for America. Even as we still digest the horrifying events of the January 6 invasion of the Capitol, the inauguration of President Biden and Vice President Harris is a celebratory moment in our nation’s history and a testament to our democracy. Regardless of who you voted for, each of us should thank God for America and her many blessings for our people, all Americans, and all humanity.

What lays ahead?

I am not going to try and predict the next four years in a brief message. It would be nice to try and move forward with less acrimony more interaction. This, by no means, means we should all agree. It does mean, though, that we need to talk.

In his inaugural address, President Biden said, “Politics doesn’t have to be a raging fire, destroying everything in its path. Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war.”

I think Republicans and Democrats can both agree with this sentiment.

At the same time, as Rich Lowry noted, unity is a loft yet highly unlikely goal. When Biden was walking the final leg of the inaugural parade route, a couple of CNN journalists shouted out, “President Biden, can you unite the country?” He didn’t answer. Lowry suggests that Biden should have replied, “Actually, probably not.” Unity is a great aspiration, but it is not reality.

This week, I inaugurated a series on The Literary Legacy of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. (You can watch the session HERE.) I discussed The Dignity of Difference, in which Rabbi Sacks addresses the issue of how religion, which divides people of different faiths, must still play a critical role in bettering society and bringing people closer together. How can this work?
 

How do we live with moral difference and yet sustain an overarching community? The answer, I have already suggested, is conversation – not mere debate but the disciplined act of communication (making my views intelligible to someone who does not share them) and listening (entering into the inner world of someone whose views are opposed to my own)…That is how public morality is constructed in a plural society – not by a single dominant voice, nor by the relegation of moral issues to the private domain of home and local congregation, but by a sustained act of understanding and seeking to be understood across the boundaries of difference. (Page 83)

If we cannot achieve unity, let’s, at least, have a conversation.

Speaking with one another is not about winning the argument. As my friend Tal Becker wrote:
 

And we should engage in argument, not mainly in order to persuade, but in order to refine and broaden our understanding. This does not mean the argument should be any less rigorous, or that poorly reasoned positions should not be weeded out. It means that the objective of an argument is to learn and not to win. It is a pedagogical exercise, not a competitive one.

As we begin a new chapter in our American story, I know there will continue to be heated disagreements. Instead of trying to convince each other who is correct, let’s commit to a conversation as a vehicle to try and keep us closer together.