Obama’s Michigan Commencement Speech

On forging common future: "... that task is now in your hands"

President Barack Obama delivered the main address at the University of Michigan’s May 1 spring commencement.

Analysis of Obama commencement address

Word cloud analysis of the Obama UM commencement address. Image links to higher resolution file. Analysis done at http://www.wordle.net/

The Chronicle has transcribed the speech as delivered and provided some annotation, in part by providing section and sub-section headings that reflect the organizational structure of the president’s remarks.

The main themes were the role of government in our lives and the keys to preservation of democracy. One of those keys to the preservation of democracy, Obama told the graduates, is to “contribute part of your life to the life of this country.”


[applause ~30 seconds] Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you, everybody, please be seated. I love you back! [responding to "I love you" from audience] It is great to be here in the Big House. [applause ~5 s.] And so may I say, Go Blue! [applause ~10 s.] I thought I would go for the cheap applause line to start things off.

[Note: Based on the text that the White House released of the speech to be delivered, the line was not impromptu, but could have been perceived as an ad lib, riffing on the fact that many of the speakers who preceded Obama at the podium went for the "Go Blue" applause line at the end of their speeches, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, UM president Mary Sue Coleman, and student speaker Alex Marston.]

Good afternoon, President Coleman, the Board of Trustees, the faculty, parents, family and friends of the class of 2010. [applause] Congratulations on your graduation and thank you for allowing me the honor of being a part of it. [applause] Let me acknowledge your wonderful governor, Jennifer Granholm, your mayor John Hieftje [Obama misses pronunciation with a novel variation to The Chronicle, saying /Heef-jay/] and all the members of Congress who are here today. It is a privilege to be with you on this happy occasion.

America’s Voices


America’s Voices: How Obama Keeps in Touch

And you know, it’s nice to spend a little time outside of Washington. [applause] Now, don’t get me wrong, Washington is a beautiful city. [audience laughter] It’s very nice living above the store – you can’t beat the commute. [audience laughter ~5 s.] It’s just sometimes, all you hear in Washington is the clamor of politics. And all that noise can drown out the voices of the people who sent you there. So when I took office, I decided that each night I would read 10 letters, out of the tens of thousands that are sent to us by ordinary Americans every day. This is my modest effort to remind myself of why I ran in the first place.

America’s Voices: Kindergartners

Some of these letters tell stories of heartache and struggle. Some express gratitude, some express anger. I’d say a good solid third call me an idiot, [audience laughter] which is how I know that I’m getting a good representative sample. [audience laughter, Obama also laughs, generating cheers] Some of the letters make you think, like the one I received last month from a kindergarten class in Virginia. Now, the teacher of this class instructed the students to ask me any question they wanted. So one asked, How do you do your job? [audience laughter] Another asked, Do you work a lot? [audience laughter] Somebody wanted to know if I wear a black jacket or if I have a beard. [audience laughter] So clearly they were getting me mixed up with the other tall guy from Illinois. [audience laughter, followed by collective "aww" in response to a shot of a little kid on the stadium scoreboard screen] And one of my favorites was from a kid who wanted to know if I lived next to a volcano. [audience laughter] I’m still trying to piece the thought process on this. [Obama laughs] I love this letter.

[Note: Obama's reference to "the other tall guy from Illinois" is a reference to Abraham Lincoln.]

America’s Voices: Niceness

But it was the last question from the last student in the letter that gave me pause. The student asked, Are people being nice? Are people being nice? Well, if you turn on the news today, or yesterday, or a week ago, or a month ago, particularly one of the cable channels, [audience laughter] you can see, [audience laughter] you can see why even a kindergartner would ask this question. [audience laughter] We’ve got politicians calling each other all sorts of unflattering names. Pundits and talking heads shout at each other. The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story, which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make their arguments as outrageous and as incendiary as possible.

Contentious Discourse


Contentious Discourse: Origins in Current Crisis

Now, some of this contentiousness can be attributed to the incredibly difficult moment in which we find ourselves as a nation. Fact is, when you leave here today, you will search for work in an economy that is still emerging from the worst crisis since The Great Depression. You live in a century where the speed with which jobs and industries move across the globe is forcing America to compete like never before. You will raise your children at a time when threats like terrorism and climate change aren’t confined within the borders of any one country. As our world grows smaller and more connected, you will live and work with more people who don’t look like you, or think like you, or come from where you do.

Contentious Discourse: Historical Context

I really enjoyed Alex’s remarks, because that’s a lot of change. [The allusion was to the student speaker at the commencement, Alex Marston, whose message focused on change, and the difficulties inherent in accepting change.] And all these changes and all these challenges, inevitably cause tension in the body politic. They make people worry about the future. And sometimes they get people riled up. But I think it’s important that we maintain some historic perspective. Since the days of our founding, American politics has never been a particularly nice business. It’s always been a little less genteel during times of great change. A newspaper of the opposing party once editorialized that if Thomas Jefferson were elected, murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced. [audience laughter] Not subtle. [audience laughter] Opponents of Andrew Jackson often referred to his mother as a common prostitute, which seems a little over the top. [audience laughter, also from Obama] Presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson have been accused of promoting socialism or worse. We’ve had arguments between politicians that have been settled with actual duels. There was even a caning once on the floor of the United States Senate, which I’m happy to say didn’t happen while I was there. [audience laughter] It was a few years before. [audience laughter, also from Obama]

[Note: The reference to "actual duels" is to the pistol duel in 1804 between Alexander Hamilton, the former U.S. secretary of the treasury, and Aaron Burr, who was vice president at the time. Hamilton died of the wound he received at the duel. The reference to the Senate caning is to a physical attack by Congressman Preston Brooks on Senator Charles Sumner in 1856, in response to a speech that Sumner had delivered against the Fugitive Slave Act. The speech had insulted one of the authors of the act, Andrew Butler, who was a relative of Brooks.]

Contentious Discourse: The Nature of American Politics

The point is, politics has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. If you enter the arena you should expect to get roughed up. Moreover, democracy and a nation of more than 300 million people is inherently difficult. It’s always been noisy, and messy, contentious, complicated. We’ve been fighting about the proper size and role of government since the days the framers gathered in Philadelphia. We’ve battled over the meaning of individual freedom and equality since the Bill of Rights was drafted. As our economy has shifted emphasis from agriculture, to industry, to information, to technology, we have argued and struggled at each and every juncture over the best way to ensure that all of our citizens have a shot at opportunity.

So before we get too depressed about the current state of our politics, let’s remember our history. The great debates of the past all stirred great passion. They all made somebody angry. And at least once led to a terrible war. What is amazing is that despite all the conflict, despite all its flaws and its frustrations, our experiment in democracy has worked better than any form of government on earth. [applause ~15 seconds] On the last day of the Constitutional convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked: Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy? And Franklin gave an answer that has been quoted for ages. He said: A republic, if you can keep it.

If you can keep it.

How to Preserve Democracy

Well, for more than 200 years we have kept it. Through revolution and civil war, our democracy has survived. Through depression and world war it has prevailed. Through periods of great social and economic unrest, from civil rights to women’s rights. It has allowed us slowly, sometimes painfully, to move towards a more perfect union.

And so now, class of 2010, the question for your generation is this: How will you keep our democracy going? At a moment when our challenges seem so big and our politics seem so small, how will you keep our democracy alive and vibrant? How will you keep it well in this century? I’m not here to offer some grand theory, or detailed policy prescription. But let me offer of few brief reflections, based on my own experiences, and the experiences of our country over the last two centuries.

Preserving Democracy: Adapt Role of Government to Changing World

First of all, American democracy has thrived, because we have recognized the need for a government that while limited, can still help us adapt to a changing world. On the fourth panel of the Jefferson Memorial is a quote I remember reading to my daughters, during our first visit there. It says, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.” A democracy designed by Jefferson and the other founders was never intended to solve every problem with a new law or a new program. Having thrown off the tyranny of the British Empire, the first Americans were understandably skeptical of government. Ever since, we have held fast to the belief that government doesn’t have all the answers. We have cherished and fiercely defended our individual freedom. That’s a strand of our nation’s DNA.

But the other strand is the belief that there are some things that we can only do together, as one nation. And that our government must keep pace with the times. When America expanded from a few colonies to an entire continent and we needed a way to reach the Pacific, our government helped build the railroads. When we transitioned from an economy based on farms to one based on factories, and workers needed new skills and training, our nation set up a system of public high schools. When the markets crashed during The Depression, and people lost their life savings, our government put in place a set of rules and safeguards to make sure that such a crisis never happened again, and then put a safety net in place to make sure that our elders would never be as impoverished the way they had been. And because our markets and financial systems have evolved since then, we’re now putting in place new rules to safeguard and protect the American people.

Now this notion [applause ~ 10 s.], this notion, class, hasn’t always been partisan. It was the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who said the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. And he would go on to begin that first intercontinental railroad and set up the first land-grant colleges. It was another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who said the object of the government is a welfare of the people. And he is remembered for using the power of government to break up monopolies, establish our national park system. [applause ~5 s.] Democrat Lyndon Johnson announced the Great Society during a commencement here at Michigan, but it was the Republican president before him, Dwight Eisenhower, who launched a massive government undertaking known as the interstate highway system.

Of course, there have always been those who oppose such efforts. They argue that government intervention is usually inefficient, it restricts individual freedom and dampens individual initiative. And in certain instances that’s been true. And for many years we had a welfare system that too often discouraged people from taking responsibility for their own upward mobility. At times we’ve neglected the role of parents, rather than government, in cultivating a child’s education. And sometimes regulations fail, sometimes the benefits don’t justify their costs.

But what troubles me is when I hear people saying, all of government is inherently bad. And one of my favorite signs during the health care debate was somebody who said, “Keep your government hands out of my Medicare,” [audience laughter ~5 s.] which is essentially saying “Keep government out of my government-run health care plan.” Now, when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening, foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold our [applause ~ 5 s.] we the people hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, and change our laws, and shape our own destiny.

Government’s the police officers, who are protecting our communities, and the service men and women who are defending us abroad. [applause ~5 s.] Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe. Government is what ensures the mines adhere to safety standards, or that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them. Government is this extraordinary public university, [applause extending through "big and small"] a place that’s doing life-saving research, and catalyzing economic growth, and graduating students who will change the world around them in ways big and small. And the truth is, the debate we’ve had for decades now, between more government and less government, it doesn’t really fit the times in which we live.

[Note: The reference to mine safety alludes to the April 5 explosion that killed 29 people at the Upper Big Branch mine in Montcoal, W.Va., a mine owned by Massey Energy. The U.S. Justice Department is currently investigating that incident. The mention of oil spills refers to the ruptured oil well off the Louisiana coast, creating a massive spill that's projected to be a worse ecological disaster than the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. The well is owned by the oil company BP. Obama was expected to visit the region on Sunday.]

We know that too much government can stifle competition and deprive us of choice and burden us with debt. But we’ve also clearly seen the dangers of too little government. Like when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly leads to the collapse of our entire economy. [applause ~5 s.] So, class of 2010, what we should be asking is not whether we need a big government or a small government, but how we can create a smarter and better government. Because in an era of iPods and TiVo, where we have more choices than ever before, even though I can’t really work a lot of these things, [audience laughter] but I have 23-year-olds who do it for me, [audience laughter] government shouldn’t try to dictate our lives, but it should give you the tools you need to succeed.

Government shouldn’t try to guarantee results, but it should guarantee a shot, an opportunity for every American who is willing to work hard. [applause ~10 s.] So, yes, we can and should debate the role of government in our lives. But remember, as you are asked to meet the challenges of our time, remember that the ability of us to adapt our government to the needs of the age has helped make our democracy work since its inception.

Preserving Democracy: Maintain Civility

Now the second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate. These arguments we’re having, over government and healthcare and war and taxes, these are serious arguments. They should arouse people’s passions. And it’s important for everybody to join in the debate with all the vigor that the maintenance of a free people requires. But we can’t expect to solve our problems, if all we do is tear each other down. [applause smattering extending to "right-wing nut"] You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question somebody’s views and their judgment, without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like “socialists,” “Soviet-style takeover” and “fascists,” and “right-wing nut” [audience laughter] – that may grab headlines, but also has the effect of comparing our government, our political opponents, to authoritarian, even murderous regimes. Now, we’ve seen this kind of politics in the past, it’s been practiced by both fringes of the ideological spectrum, by the left and the right, since our nation’s birth. But it’s starting to creep into the center of our discourse.

The problem with it is not the hurt feelings or the bruised egos of the public officials who are criticized. Remember, they’ve signed up for it. Michelle always reminds me of that. [audience laughter] The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation, it prevents learning. Since, after all, why should we listen to a fascist or a socialist or a right-wing nut? [audience laughter smattering] Or a left-wing nut? It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences, to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture. And at its worst, it can send signals to the extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

So what can we do? As I found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of politics is not easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: Treat others as you would like to be treated. With courtesy and respect. [applause ~10 s.] But stability in this age also requires something more than just asking if we can’t just all get along. Today’s 24/7 echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before.

It’s also, however, given us unprecedented choice. Whereas most Americans used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows. And this can have both a good and bad development for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways. That will only reinforce and deepen the political divides in this country.

But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from. Now this requires us to agree on a certain set of facts to debate from. That’s why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and the talking heads. [applause ~5 s.] That’s why we need an educated citizenry that values hard evidence and not just assertion. [applause ~5 s.] As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.” [audience laughter]

Still, if you’re somebody who only reads the editorial page of the New York Times, try glancing at the page of the Wall Street Journal, once in a while. If you are a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil, your mind might not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship. [applause] It is essential for democracy. [applause ~5 s.]

So, too, is the practice of engaging in different experiences with different kinds of people. I look out at this class and I realize for four years at Michigan you have been exposed to diverse thinkers and scholars, professors and students. Don’t narrow that broad intellectual exposure just because you’re leaving here. Instead, seek to expand it.

If you grew up in a big city, spend some time with somebody who grew up in a rural town. If you find yourself only hanging around with people of your own race or ethnicity or religion, include people in your circle who have different backgrounds, life experiences. You’ll learn what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes. And in the process you will help to make this democracy work. [applause ~10 s.]

Preserving Democracy: Participate In It

Which brings me to the last ingredient of a functioning democracy, one that’s perhaps most basic. And it’s already been mentioned, and that is participation. Class of 2010, I understand that one effect of today’s poisonous political climate is to push people away from participation in public life. If all you see when you turn on the TV is name-calling, if all you hear about is how special interests lobbying in partisanship prevented Washington from getting something done, then you might think to yourself, what’s the point of getting involved?

Here’s the point: When we don’t pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders, when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day, when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that’s when democracy breaks down. That’s when power is abused. That’s when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That’s what powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of power, because none of us are there to speak up and stop them. Participation in public life doesn’t mean that you all have to run for public office, though we could certainly use some fresh faces in Washington. [audience laughter] But it does mean that you should pay attention and contribute in any way that you can.

Stay informed. Write letters or make phone calls on behalf of an issue that you care about. If electoral politics isn’t your thing, continue the tradition that so many of you started here at Michigan, and find a way to serve your community and your country, an act that will help you stay connected to your fellow citizens and improve the lives of those around you.

You know, it was 50 years ago that a young candidate for president came here to Michigan and delivered a speech that inspired one of the most successful service projects in American history. And as John F. Kennedy described the ideals behind what would become the Peace Corps, he issued a challenge to the students who had assembled in Ann Arbor on that October night. On your willingness to contribute part of your life to this country, he said, will depend the answer whether a free society can compete. I think it can, he said.

This democracy we have is a precious thing. For all the arguments and all the doubts and all the cynicism that’s out there today, we should never forget that as Americans, we enjoy more freedoms and opportunities than citizens in any other nation on earth. [applause extending through "down"] We are free to speak our mind and worship as we please, we are free to choose our leaders, and criticize them if they let us down. We have a chance to get an education and work hard and give our children a better life.

None of this came easy. None of this was preordained. The men and women who sat in your chairs 10 years ago, and 50 years ago and 100 years ago, they made America possible through their toil and their endurance, their imagination and their faith. Their success and America’s success was never a given. There is no guarantee that the graduates who will sit in the same seats 10 years from now, or 50 years from now, or 100 years from now, will enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that you do. You, too, will have to strive. You, too, will have to push the boundaries of what seems possible. For the truth is, our nation’s destiny has never been certain.

What is certain, what has always been certain, is the ability to shape the destiny. That is what makes us different. That is what sets us apart. That is what makes us Americans. Our ability at the end of the day to look past all our differences and all of our disagreements, and still forge a common future.

Conclusion: Calling Graduates to Action

And that task is now in your hands. As is the answer to the question posed at this university a half a century ago, about whether a free society can still compete. If you are willing, as past generations were willing, to contribute part of your life to the life of this country, then I, like President Kennedy, believe we can. Because I believe in you. Congratulations on your graduation 2010. May God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. Thank you.


  1. By jan barney newman
    May 2, 2010 at 3:20 pm | permalink

    Thank you for carrying Obama’s speach in its entirity. I’m in Paris and would not have been able to have access to it otherwise. It was inspiring to me and I hope to the class of 2010. One can feel patriotic in absentia and a little homesick.

  2. By ERM
    May 5, 2010 at 6:05 pm | permalink

    Are you sure this wasn’t the commencement from 1984?

  3. By Linda
    May 5, 2010 at 7:46 pm | permalink

    I do not always agree with President Obama, but this speech was certainly well thought out and well written. It has made me rethink some issues, which is what good speeches are suppose to do. Kudos to him and his speech writers.

  4. By Dick Downing
    May 6, 2010 at 12:39 am | permalink

    The President quotes Benjamin Franklin’s statement about how we were given a Republic if we can keep it. He then goes on to talk about America being a democracy. A republic and a democracy are two entirely different political systems. A “perfect” democracy is communism which is rule by majority. If the majority decides they want your house or car they can just take it. A republic is rule by law and in our case that includes the Constitution. I would think with his educational background he should know the difference. In a republic if you buy a house or car it is yours and a bunch of people or politicians can’t just come in and take it to give to someone else or keep it as government property.

  5. By Rod Johnson
    May 6, 2010 at 7:04 pm | permalink

    Promoting revisionist definitions of these two terms seems to be the tea partiers’ new pastime. But you can’t just make up definitions and expect people to take you seriously. Compare the (first) definitions in the Random House dictionary:

    Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

    Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

    There are difference of nuance there, and different historical sources, but the overlap in the meanings of the two terms is very broad. I was taught that democracies tend to vest power directly in the voters, whereas a republic tends to do it indirectly via representatives, but there are all kinds of gray there, and neither definition matches your nonsensical scenarios.

  6. By Tom Whitaker
    May 7, 2010 at 9:33 am | permalink

    I recall that my government teachers and professors always referred to the U.S. as a “democratic republic.” My understanding of the term “democratic” was that it referred to the “one person, one vote” concept, while the term “republic” meant a representative form of government.

    Remember the USSR (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) or the German Democratic Republic (a.k.a. Communist East Germany)? These countries also had representative forms of government, so they were indeed republics, but the candidates for representative were essentially handpicked Communist party members. Technically, they may have been elected by the people, but since representatives were not freely or fairly elected in a competitive process, these countries were not democratic–republics perhaps, but not democratic ones.

    The Soviet Union and East German republics were certainly governed by the “rule of law,” but I don’t think very many citizens in those countries were allowed to own their own house or car. To redefine the term republic as describing some type of libertarian heaven seems misguided to me.

    I think I can understand where this sentiment is coming from however. Whether you blame politicians or the media or both, the political middle ground has been slowly disappearing and we are becoming increasingly polarized. With moderate voices drowned out, it’s easy to feel oppressed if your party doesn’t happen to be the one currently in power. If you don’t fully identify with either party, it’s easy to feel completely alone and oppressed by both sides.

    This is what the President was talking about in his speech and why many people of all political persuasions found it moving. I think it was very wise and I think history will look back on him as being one of our greatest leaders. I hope and pray that he succeeds in healing our country and bringing us together again. It shouldn’t take a 911 or a war to unite us. We don’t need to agree on everything, but we can cooperate, listen to each other, and try to find a way forward together.

    I think we need to have more faith in our representative democracy and work within the system to change things we don’t like. I don’t think it serves our country well to call for a revolution or to threaten to move to Canada every time the political wind shifts away from our sails.

  7. By Rod Johnson
    May 7, 2010 at 10:22 am | permalink

    I think you can find the roots of Dick’s sentiment in The Federalist, No. 10, but refracted through the paranoia and rage of the right. Madison argues there against direct democracy in favor of representative democracy, and the current talking points identify these as “democrat” and “republican” because they conveniently match the labels of their good and bad guys. It’s the next logical step from their insisting on calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat” party. That didn’t get any traction with the public, so why not just try to tarnish the very word “democratic”? Because, you know, Democrats want to take your car.

  8. By Emily
    May 26, 2010 at 2:02 pm | permalink

    Dick Downing: You obviously don’t know much about government. Whether a government is a republic or not has nothing to do with rule by law. A republic is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. In this case, we elect senators and representatives, we elect electors who elect our president, and our elected officials select the Supreme Court Justices. We don’t vote on laws or judgements, we vote on the people we want to make these decisions for us. That’s what a republic is, and therefore it’s perfectly reasonable to call the U.S. both a republic and a democracy. Also, have you ever heard of the right of eminent domain? That means that if the government thinks that it’s in the best interest of the country, they can take your car or house or whatever they want, as long as they provide just compensation. Also, a democracy can be rule-by-law; it’s not necessarily completely majoritarian. Don’t talk about things you don’t understand, please.

    On a slightly related note, the terms Democrat and Republican, referring to political parties, have almost nothing to do with the terms democrat and republican, referring to types of government.