PDA

View Full Version : The Festival Is Over



thedrifter
01-21-09, 07:10 AM
Special Report
The Festival Is Over

By Philip Klein on 1.21.09 @ 6:10AM

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "This is the first time that people have been this excited about inauguration," a precocious boy explained to me as I rode the Metro to the Capitol Tuesday morning. "This is the first time people have been this excited about the presidency."

My first instinct was to play the role of the wise elder and explain that there were plenty of times throughout history that people were just as exited about a new president. But instead, I just smiled and nodded, because walking around Washington, D.C. on the day of Barack Obama's inauguration, it was hard to disagree too fervently with the boy's analysis.

From the time I left my apartment in downtown Washington, I was immediately swallowed by the hordes, some who were local and others who were bused in from places like Akron, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan. Attorney Surat Singh, who went to Harvard Law School with Obama, told me that he made the long trek from New Delhi, India, to see his classmate take the oath of office.

Vendors turned the city into a giant flea market, with merchandise bearing Obama's image more ubiquitous than Mickey Mouse souvenirs at Disney World -- right down to a novelty item featuring Obama on a $9 bill.

The standard chants of "O-BAM-A" and "Yes We Can!" echoed throughout the city, along with some improvisational numbers. At one point, I witnessed a woman singing her own rendition of "Happy Obama Day."

Looking down from a platform of the Capitol onto an ocean of people stretching past the Washington Monument, it was hard not to be impressed. Lawmakers marveled at what they saw below them and Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), among others, snapped a photo of the spectacle from his cell phone camera. Some estimates put the crowd at over 2 million people, or enough to fill about 40 Yankee Stadiums.

But as soon as the newly sworn-in President Obama approached the lectern to deliver his inaugural speech after he and Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the oath of office, it became clear how much was riding on our new president, and how he has set up expectations that will be impossible to fulfill. The speech itself was evidence of that.

Despite nearly two months of fine-tuning, the man whose gift for oratory helped launch him into the White House gave a rather flat and unfocused talk without any memorable lines. It didn't even generate much applause among the Obama die-hards who had waited outside in the bitter cold to be a part of history.

The 19-minute address was filled with trite metaphors from "the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms" to "let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come." At times, its somber tone recalled Jimmy Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" talk rather than the sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan or Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After weeks of hyping the speech -- and reporting how Obama was studying past great addresses such as Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural -- the spin from the media following the subdued performance was that Obama actually intended to give a weaker than usual speech to reflect the seriousness of the times. Are we to believe that if Obama knocked it out of the ballpark, the media would say it was too showy and inappropriate for the occasion?

MORE IMPORTANTLY, the content of the speech highlighted one of the central difficulties facing his administration. His rhetoric succeeds because it makes everybody feel that he sympathizes with them, but sometimes ideas are inherently contradictory and that will become more obvious now that he has to make decisions.

Obama, in a nod to conservatism, invoked the Founders and touted the importance of tried and true values that "have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history." He also called for "a new era of responsibility."

But Obama believes that the Constitution is a living and breathing document, while conservatives believe that it should be interpreted on the basis of its original intent. Conservatives believe that people who purchased houses that they couldn't afford should be responsible for their decisions rather than taxpayers, while Obama believes we have a collective responsibility to make sure people – even irresponsible people -- don't lose their homes.

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply," Obama instructed us. "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works…"

As far as this goes, Obama isn't breaking new ground. In his own first inaugural address, Reagan said, "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work…"

The debate isn't over whether or not government should work -- good luck finding one politician who touts ineffective government. The debate is over whether a smaller or larger government works better, and about the criteria for measuring what constitutes a working government.

For Reagan in 1981, government needed to "work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it." While for Obama in 2009, government is working if "it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, [and] a retirement that is dignified."

Obama also insisted that the question isn't "whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control…"

But that statement is meaningless, because a "watchful eye" can mean anything from an NFL referee to Big Brother.

IN FOREIGN AND NATIONAL security policy, Obama's statements are no less problematic. He wants to renew America's leadership role in the world and reach out the hand of friendship to all willing countries. But in this world of jealous nations, sometimes befriending one nation alienates another.

Also, in what is being touted as a clear break with the Bush administration, Obama "reject[ed] as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." But even before taking the oath of office, Obama already stretched his timeline for closing Guantanamo Bay to within his first term, and has recognized it’s a much more complicated process than he let on during the campaign.

Ever since he launched his candidacy nearly two years ago, Obama has been able to use well-crafted rhetoric to paper over contradictory signals, and his lack of executive experience created questions about how he would govern. Would he rule from the center or left? Is he a radical or a political pragmatist? Will he be a transformational liberal leader or a merely another Democratic president?

This morning, as President Obama awakes from a night of revelry with the entire nation rooting for him, the guessing game will be over, and the American people will begin to judge him on the decisions he makes, and the results.


Philip Klein is a reporter for The American Spectator.

Ellie

thedrifter
01-21-09, 07:32 AM
The Inauguration [Yuval Levin]

I watched today’s speech from the Capitol lawn, with a million or so shivering fellow citizens. I’ve been there for the last four inaugurals and so have seen men of both parties sworn in, and men of both parties shown the door. I would highly recommend the experience, whatever you think of the latest glutton for punishment taking the oath. It’s a great civic moment.

This was, understandably, a very partisan crowd in which I was badly out of place. The loudest boos, to my surprise, were not for Bush and Cheney, who got plenty, but for Joe Lieberman when he was shown on the huge television screens—more than one voice could be heard shouting “traitor” around where I was standing, so my wife and I broke into applause for Joe. Most of the people around us were just happy and excited, though, and it was lovely to see so many Americans waving the flag with a smile.

I have to say, the level of excitement and energy was certainly higher before the speech than after it. The speech, no doubt crafted more for the television audience than those present of course, was I thought pretty poorly received by the crowd. People were a bit confused by it: eager for lines they could cheer for or chant. Not one of the clearly intended applause lines got any real applause. There were even a couple of times when Obama stopped speaking to wait for an audience reaction and had to just keep going. It was much too dour and down for this excited crowd, and I frankly also found it a surprisingly flatly written and uninspired speech from a politician known for doing far better (indeed, a president probably elected on the power of his speeches above all.)

It also seemed to me that the shots at Bush were unseemly and out of place in such a speech, and rather surprising given the cooperative tone that has characterized both parties to the transition.

The most problematic parts of the speech, for me, had to do with the theme that always bothers me at such occasions: the dismissal of political differences as insignificant and petty products of irresponsibility, rather than of serious and meaningful disagreements about how our country should govern itself. What possible sense could be made of this passage in the speech?

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

Is everything that preceded the coming of Obama in our politics childish and petty? Every president calls for replacing partisanship with responsibility—Obama’s call on this front can be found almost verbatim in Bush’s 2000 campaign speeches. But maybe the reason it never works is that partisanship very often is responsible, and our disagreements are not childish things but serious substantive debates about important subjects, given form by some profound differences in worldview.

I did, however, very much appreciate the implicit traditionalism of the speech: the attempt to place the moment in historical context, the references to ancestors, founders, and duty to future generations at the beginning and the end. In parts, of course, they made the basic conceit of the speech, that we are in a moment of immense challenge comparable to 1776 or 1933, seem pretty silly. We simply are not. But they were also very much in order, and elevated the speech by linking this very significant moment to the larger American story. It was great to hear Tom Paine’s Crisis quoted—a stirring work of patriotic poetry, even for all of its (and its author’s) radical excesses. Obama even reinforced a great patriotic myth, that Washington had The Crisis (or some versions say Common Sense, which is even more unlikely) read to the troops by their commanders; an image I have always loved, though it has never been corroborated and is very implausible—perhaps Rick Brookhiser could correct me on that.

The speech was not a great work of rhetoric. It’s hard to imagine anyone will remember any line from it in a few weeks, let alone a generation from now. But most inaugurals are like this, and what it tried to do was frankly pretty encouraging.

Tomorrow, no doubt, Obama will sign some papers putting the United States firmly behind international abortion efforts again, and will begin the work of enacting a massively wasteful spending bill, and our politics will begin again to take up the great arguments that have long given it shape: about the proper relationship of the state and the citizen, about America’s place in the world, about the regard and protection owed to every human life, about how we might best reconcile economic prosperity and cultural vitality, national security and moral authority, freedom and virtue. These are divisive questions of enormous consequence, and they are neither petty nor childish. They are the substance of the political life of a healthy and thriving democracy, and Barack Obama, whether he likes it or not, has just thrown himself into the middle of them all. God bless America.

Ellie