The Moral Power of Michelle Obama’s Anti-Politics

The Moral Power of Michelle Obama’s Anti-Politics

The Moral Power of Michelle Obama’s Anti-Politics

The former first lady makes the personal case against Donald Trump.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders delivered the two most effective speeches on the first night of the Democratic National Convention, taking very different angles. Sanders spoke as the leader of one faction within the Democratic Party, making the case for his supporters to unify behind Biden. He emphasized the danger Donald Trump poses to American democracy, which requires a popular front of opposition that runs from progressives to moderates and even includes conservatives.

If Sanders made the political case against Trump, Michelle Obama focused on the moral case. This was hardly surprising, since she is notorious for her dislike of politics. Further, her previous position as first lady was an essentially nonpolitical one. To be sure, there have been first ladies with strong political profiles, notably Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton. But unlike Roosevelt or Clinton, Obama has been chary of using her stature for overtly partisan or ideological goals.

Michelle Obama practices the politics of anti-politics, which allows her words to reach people who tune out normal political discourse. “You know I hate politics,” she explained in her pretaped speech. “But you also know that I care about this nation. You know how much I care about all of our children.” Caring for children is, of course, a quality that transcends partisanship.

Not to say she’s been completely apolitical. Rather, she’s held back from political battles until her involvement was necessary. As former Barack Obama aide David Axelrod notes, “Because she is not a politician and doesn’t think or speak like one, @MicheleObama is such a powerful communicator. As she is showing again here, she speaks with a moral authority few in public life can summon.”

It’s exactly that “moral authority” that Obama brought to bear in her speech, which was focused not on Trump’s policy failures but on his lack of the human qualities that are needed in a leader.

The major theme of her speech was empathy, again a quality that is separate from party affiliation: “Empathy: that’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately,” Obama reflected. “The ability to walk in someone else’s shoes; the recognition that someone else’s experience has value, too.”

According to Obama, Trump’s personal lack of empathy was changing American society:

They see people shouting in grocery stores, unwilling to wear a mask to keep us all safe. They see people calling the police on folks minding their own business just because of the color of their skin. They see an entitlement that says only certain people belong here, that greed is good, and winning is everything because as long as you come out on top, it doesn’t matter what happens to everyone else. And they see what happens when that lack of empathy is ginned up into outright disdain.

They see our leaders labeling fellow citizens enemies of the state while emboldening torch-bearing white supremacists. They watch in horror as children are torn from their families and thrown into cages, and pepper spray and rubber bullets are used on peaceful protestors for a photo-op.

The speech earned surprisingly positive reviews from Dana Perino and Chris Wallace on Fox News. “You got the sense when you talk about authenticity, she has it in spades. She has that voice, she has clarity, and she knows what she is out there wanting to do,” Perino enthused.

Wallace emphatically agreed: “She really flayed, sliced, and diced Donald Trump talking about the chaos and confusion and lack of empathy, especially coming from this president and this White House, spoke more about the deficits of Donald Trump than the pluses of Joe Biden, but did talk about especially, not so much policies, but especially his empathy and what he has been through and his care for average Americans.”

It could be argued that the moral case against Trump was already made in 2016 and didn’t convince enough voters. There’s an element of truth in this argument, in the sense that a moral argument might not be sufficient. But Michelle Obama isn’t the only speaker in the convention. Other speakers like Sanders are on hand to flay Trump’s policies. The moral argument is one arrow in the quiver, and there is no one better able to deliver it than Michelle Obama. The former first lady did what she had to do.

Disobey authoritarians, support The Nation

Over the past year you’ve read Nation writers like Elie Mystal, Kaveh Akbar, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Bryce Covert, Dave Zirin, Jeet Heer, Michael T. Klare, Katha Pollitt, Amy Littlefield, Gregg Gonsalves, and Sasha Abramsky take on the Trump family’s corruption, set the record straight about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s catastrophic Make America Healthy Again movement, survey the fallout and human cost of the DOGE wrecking ball, anticipate the Supreme Court’s dangerous antidemocratic rulings, and amplify successful tactics of resistance on the streets and in Congress.

We publish these stories because when members of our communities are being abducted, household debt is climbing, and AI data centers are causing water and electricity shortages, we have a duty as journalists to do all we can to inform the public.

In 2026, our aim is to do more than ever before—but we need your support to make that happen. 

Through December 31, a generous donor will match all donations up to $75,000. That means that your contribution will be doubled, dollar for dollar. If we hit the full match, we’ll be starting 2026 with $150,000 to invest in the stories that impact real people’s lives—the kinds of stories that billionaire-owned, corporate-backed outlets aren’t covering. 

With your support, our team will publish major stories that the president and his allies won’t want you to read. We’ll cover the emerging military-tech industrial complex and matters of war, peace, and surveillance, as well as the affordability crisis, hunger, housing, healthcare, the environment, attacks on reproductive rights, and much more. At the same time, we’ll imagine alternatives to Trumpian rule and uplift efforts to create a better world, here and now. 

While your gift has twice the impact, I’m asking you to support The Nation with a donation today. You’ll empower the journalists, editors, and fact-checkers best equipped to hold this authoritarian administration to account. 

I hope you won’t miss this moment—donate to The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x