Yes We Can?

Yes, we can? by G. J. Gardner January 23, 2009 we *pron. [first person plural] 1 used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together or regarded as in the same category. > people in general. 2 used in formal contexts for or by a royal person, or by a writer, to refer to himself or herself. 3 you (used condescendingly). OED 10th ed. i ii "Yes, we can!" By now, after the lengthy presidential race of 2008 and the recent inauguration of Barack H. Obama II as the 44th President of the United States of America, there are few people who haven't heard the phrase. Used to great rhetorical effectiveness in Sen. Obama's speech conceding his defeat in the New Hampshire primary, it went on to play a role in many of the Senator's campaign speeches. It has served as an inspirational mantra and a call to arms for Obama supporters along the campaign trail. (There is even a "Yes We Can" music video.) Yet, what does it mean? iii

The phrase "Yes, we can." is extremely ambiguous when considered in a vacuum. Who is/are "we"? And what "can" "we" do? The context in which the phrase is spoken determines the answers to those questions. It is the context, therefore, which will be considered here. In many contexts, the meaning of the phrase is clear. For example, when spoken by an Obama supporter, the context dictates that she is using "we" in the first person plural, referring to herself and any other Obama supporters. "Can", however, is more ambiguous. Presumably, it refers to the election in the sense that "we can" get Obama elected. It might also be used in the sense of "we can bring change" or any number of hopeful clauses. iv Yet, consider when Mr. Obama says "Yes, we can." There are three possible ways, according to the definition of "we" in which he can be understood. "We" can be used to mean "you". In which case the phrase would mean "Yes, you can." This is not perhaps the way that Mr. Obama intends to use "we", but in a more general sense it might be the way that his audience perceives his message. Imagine, "Yes, you can heal this nation." Or "Yes, you can repair this world. "Yes, you can." It is grammatically possible to interpret Mr. Obama's remarks as an inspiration to his supporters. The responsibility would be placed on "you" but the message would essentially be the same, one inspiring people to change.

1

In fact, if one were to read Mr. Obama's New Hampshire concession speech and replace every occurrence of "we" with "you", it would still be an inspirational work. But one suspects that if Mr. Obama had meant to say "you" instead of "we", he would have. The context in which the phrase is used does not support an interpretation of "we" as "you", at least not compared with the other options. What if "we" is understood in the second option available, as the formal or royal "we"? In this case it would be understood as "Yes, I can." This is certainly a grammatically possible interpretation. If Mr. Obama were a megalomaniac, then it might be possible that he would understand "I" to be "we". Yet Mr. Obama seems eminently sane (and no more of a megalomaniac than any other President) so the formal/royal definition lacks evidence. "Yes, we can." is spoken by him while addressing others. Clearly, the context in which the phrase is used does not support an interpretation of "we" in the formal or royal sense. "We", when used as the first person plural, refers to people who are regarded as in the same category. There are many categories under which Mr. Obama and his audience can be regarded as the same. He and his supporters are human. He and his (voting age) supporters voted for him. He and the audience he was campaigning to were Americans. And so on and so forth. It is difficult for a listener to discern the exact sense in which Mr. Obama uses "we". But, common sense dictates that he uses it in the first person plural to reference one of the aforementioned categories or in the sense of "people in general". There is however, one notable category in which a distinction needs to be made. It is an important distinction because it pertains to a thing that categorically separates us from President Obama. Mr. Obama is a member of the government. But wait! In the United States, aren't "we" the government? Well, in a word... no, "we" (meaning the vast majority of the American public) are not the government. To clarify this point, consider a definition of government: government *noun. [treated as sing. or pl.] 1 the governing body of a state. > the system by which a state or community is governed. > the action or manner of governing a state, organization, or people. v Seeing as "state" is integral to the understanding of government, consider: state *noun. 2 a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. > an organized political community or area forming part of a federal republic. 3

2

the civil government of a country. 4 pomp and ceremony associated with monarchy or government. vi Thus, the "government" is the governing body of the "state". People who are not members of the government, in other words people who 1) do not exercise decision-making power over the "state" and/or 2) do not derive their livelihood from the action of the "state", are not the "government". Therefore, "we" (unless the reader should fit into either of the two categories listed above) are not the "government". Should readers feel that President Obama is being singled out for semantic dissection here, it should be noted that the use (or misuse) of "we" in this context applies to all politicians, indeed every member of government. Furthermore, it should be noted that this category distinction applies to all members of government, regardless of which state they serve, and regardless of the method of their selection. When King Louis XIV said "Je suis l'état. L'état c'est moi." he was correct. He was the sole individual who decided how France was to be governed. At that time, no other Frenchman but him could have said "We are the government," and been stating a truth. A democratic republic, such as the United States of America, disperses its governing power amongst more individuals than the absolute monarchy of Louis XIV. This dispersal does not remove the distinction which must be made between members of the government and nonmembers. In the U.S., many governmental positions are chosen via an electoral process. The fact that elections are held does not place the people who vote (or are eligible to vote) in the category of "government". This is because people are not voting to determine " the system by which a state or community is governed", nor are they voting regarding "the action or manner of governing a state". Voters vote for the candidates for governmental office who will, upon assuming such office, then get about the business of governance. Clearly, we (meaning the voters) are not directly involved in decisions about "the action or manner of governing a state", therefore, we are not the government. vii Let us return to the example of the Obama supporter chanting "Yes, we can." If she means "we can get Obama elected", then her statement would be grammatically correct. If she means "we can change the government," then yes, her statement would be correct (the type and amount of change are up to the newly dominant party). If she means "we can bring societal change," then the issue gets more complicated. Getting a candidate elected is something that we can do. Changing the government, by changing the composition of its members, is something we can do. But the possibility of our getting the government to act upon our decisions or whims (unless such decisions are

3

similar/identical to what the government is already doing) is limited. As stated above, this is due to the structure of government and the nature of politics in the United States. Suppose that many voters supported Obama because he declared he would stop "activity X" (assuming that it was in his power to stop such an activity). Once elected and in office, the decision to stop "activity X" is largely up to him. He might choose not to stop it, he might keep his word. Ultimately the decision is his, the people who cast ballots in the election have very little to say about it. Should they disapprove of President Obama's decision, what are their options? Clearly, they could wait until the next election and at that time choose to vote against him (assuming another candidate proposed to stop "activity X"). They could write, call, protest, or otherwise lobby him in an attempt to convince him to stop "activity X". Also, they could bring legal challenges against the government arguing against "activity X". Barring his removal from office, those are the legal options. viii Many voters have invested themselves emotionally with President Obama; time will tell if theirs has been a good decision. The President seems to carry the hopes and dreams of his constituents on his shoulders. He may deliver on his campaign promises, he may not. Politics is a complicated endeavor, and it remains to be seen how much political capital he has or if he will choose to spend it on the activities that attract his supporters. Many of the most dramatic changes that humanity has experienced did not begin as governmental programs. They started with ideas, these ideas were shared, people took the ideas and ran with them. They wrote letters, published books, went on strike, engaged in civil disobedience, got elected to office, etc. In short, changes happened because people put pressure on themselves and on "their" governments. The historical evidence for this is overwhelming and written large on the consciousness of people who lived through such changes. One only has to reflect upon the struggles for civil rights in the twentieth century for an example. ix http://www.africanaonline.com/civil_rights_timeline.htm What does this have to do with "Yes, we can."? Well, it means that "we" and "can" aren't simple matters. They depend upon the context in which they are thought or spoken. It means that perhaps people have misconceptions about how government works, and that we need to be reminded of the very limited extent to which we are involved in and able to influence the workings of government. It means that if "change" is what people want, then they had better get busy fomenting it instead of harboring illusions such as "We are the government."

4

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. i

This definition, as well as the others which follow it come from the Oxford Concise English Dictionary 10th Edition. I specifically chose the OED in order to preempt any criticism of my argument via the idea that I arrived at preconceived conclusions because I was able to define the term of the debate. The OED is impartial enough for the purposes of this essay. Any readers who disagree with the conclusions reached in this essay will have to challenge them on other grounds.

ii

Yes, the author is aware of the "Use - mention distinction". He admits that he didn't take the time to reference if he was employing correct grammar when deploying quotation marks around the "words-as-concepts" words. Get over it. iii

Though not relevant to the content of this essay, it should be noted that "Yes, we can." was often paired with the Spanish phrase "Si, se puede." during the campaign. "Si, se puede." has been the rallying cry of the United Farm Workers since 1972. Translated literally, "Si, se puede." means "Yes, it is possible." or "Yes, it is allowed/permitted." Only under a loose and context dependent interpretation can "Si, se puede." mean "Yes, we can." http://www.ufw.org/ Readers who recall the George Orwell novel "1984" may notice that this is yet another (small) example of how government and politicians destroy language. For a more egregious example, consider the atrocities waged in Iraq by the US government on behalf of "democracy". iv

"Change" was also a word which received a lot of usage in the most recent electoral cycle. Interestingly, both McCain and Obama used it, though McCain was clearly the copycat. The fact that a Republican presidential candidate made 'change' a campaign slogan even though the sitting President was a Republican demonstrates the unpopularity of George W. Bush among the American electorate. Also, it remains to be seen exactly what type of change an Obama administration will bring. Any student of "The Federalist Papers" will recognize the fact that the Federal Government was structured so as to be resistant to widespread or quick change. Indeed, one of the salient characteristics of American government is its policy continuity, also notable is the history of smooth power transitions between administrations. v

It must be particularly stressed that "we" are most certainly not the government in the sense of "we" meaning "people in general". Murray Rothbard wrote about this particular fallacy and he warrants quotation at length: 'The useful collective term "we" has enable an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred.' "Anatomy of the State" in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays [1974]. vi

A thorough examination of the State is beyond the scope of this essay. Nevertheless, some readers may find it useful to reflect upon the definition provided by the OED and note two key points: A) the State is "considered" to be an organized political community, this is important because there are often "members" of States who don't "consider" themselves to be under said State's jurisdiction. B) Also, it is notable because it allows for the very real possibility of inter-State conflict (i.e. war) over territories that each of the conflicting States "consider" to be "theirs".

vii

What about plebiscites, referendums, and ballot initiatives? These measures make "government" more democratic. They increase the voters' power over the governance of the "state". They do not impact how the change in governance will be implemented and administered. Suppose there were a plebiscite/referendum about starting a new program that would scholarship needy inner-city orphans. Suppose that voters voted "Yes" on this measure. It is true that they have affected "government", in this case expanding it. However, they still do not make decisions regarding the implementation of this new program. That was either decided either prior to the election, by the legislator who wrote the plebiscite, or will be decided after the election by bureaucrats. Thus, even in the case of plebiscites, referendums, and ballot initiatives, "we" the voters are still not the "government".

5

viii

There are many other ways by which to influence government and encourage change or put a stop to "activity X". They require imagination and may result in governmental coercion - or outright aggression - against the individuals involved. ix

This is not to say that such changes are well received by all of the population. To elaborate on the example of the struggle for civil rights, many private individuals and members of government resisted the changes. The question of whether it was ultimately social force, "extra-governmental" action, that resulted in the success or whether it was the application of government coercion against those who resisted change, is up for scholarly debate. The two forces, social and governmental, worked in tandem, once sufficient social pressure was brought to bear on the government.

6