More particularly, it came down to the men who landed here -- those who now rest in this place for eternity, and those who are with us here today.  Perhaps more than any other reason, you, the veterans of that landing, are why we still remember what happened on D-Day.  You're why we keep coming back.

    For you remind us that in the end, human destiny is not determined by forces beyond our control.  You remind us that our future is not shaped by mere chance or circumstance.  Our history has always been the sum total of the choices made and the actions taken by each individual man and woman.  It has always been up to us.

Barack Obama, Speech at Normandy, June 5, 2009

In my last, I wrote about how I saw connectivity as a central theme in the rhetoric of President Obama.  I saw that connectivity having lateral and linear dimensions, each moving from the center out.  In the first instance, the key was community and I offered some thoughts on how his extremely mobile formative years may have set him on his quest to form communities throughout his life, and to reach out to groups and individuals who of themselves would refuse to cooperate.  I also spoke to his garnering wisdom from older generations, framing discussion of behavior in ways which echoes the language of ordinary people.  I now turn to a few thoughts on the way Obama uses history in his rhetorical style.

"History proves" is comforting language to many people-the vast majority of them not historians.  On the other hand, Henry Ford is reputed to have said "History is Bunk"-which doesn't comfort historians much either.  

Politicians since the days of Pericles have conjured up historical references to prove the superiority of their particular corner of the earth: perhaps it comes with the territory.  Lincoln certainly did it in his most famous speech-given at yet another battlefield.  One might entitle this approach  as "history as judge".  History stands aloof and weighs us in the balance, and we a marked successes or failures by comparison with the actions of the noble past.

Martin Luther King used history in a somewhat similar fashion, particularly in the Letter from Birmingham Jail.  But he added two other historical devices.  He called upon the authority of historical figures to support his arguments on Non Violent Civil Disobedience, among them St. Augustine, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.  He also argues by historic analogy:   

    In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock?

King is also conscious of the sweep of the African-American experience from its earliest beginnings, and writes of it with force, conviction, and passion.  The Letter is history plus a projection of that history into the future.  It bears reading and re-reading.

Obama is closest to King in his use of history, MHO.  I think there are two ways in which he extends King's use, however.  I point to the first with the quotation from his remarks at Normandy with which I began this offering.  Over and over, Obama tells us that history doesn't bind our futures into inevitable paths.  "It has always been up to us".  Yet denying historical inevitability doesn't simultaneously suggest that the course of history can be changed by the wave of a hand.  The length of time it took to put us in the straits in which we find ourselves suggests the length of time it will take us to get out of those straits.  Consider this passage from the Berlin Speech.

    The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

    We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid.

    So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.

Finally, he argues that history shows us the impermanence of the present state of affairs.  We see that in the extract above, and I believe  similar examples from the Cairo speech were among the most powerful moments in the address.  He begins his address with a history-based compliment:

    For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.

Tradition and progress in harmony.  I think that a powerful ideal-persons with knowledge of the history of their own culture will recognize that tradition and progress are not always in harmony.  But is this inevitable and irreversible, either within cultures or at their intersections?  Obama seems to follow the thinking of Arnold Toynbee, who saw history as cyclical or perhaps spiralled.  Progress over the long run isn't linear or inevitable.  Toynbee would find no problem with this particular passage:

    As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities - (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and  places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial  equality.

He proceeds to drive this home by quoting one of the founding fathers himself, and citing an interesting fact which I suspect most Americans didn't know: "I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims."  So Morocco recognized us first.  Interesting!  It's also interesting that John Adams provides historic precedent for Obama's declaration in Ankara, reiterated in Cairo: "I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam".

So history gives its blessing to the quest for community and understanding at all levels. It shapes the quest and our understanding of it, and contributes mightily to Obama's rhetorical tools.