"A man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath." It was not the words, but this transcendent reality that evoked the tears at Barack Obama's inauguration yesterday. The somber eloquence of the new president, the presence of over a million people celebrating what they had done, the grace of the Michele and Barack together, the infectious delight of their daughters, the relief felt in the long overdue departure of Bush and Cheney -- all were overshadowed by the historic reality of Americans electing the first African American president to lead them in this time of trouble. We see one another and the world sees America with new eyes as a result.
But Obama's speech should not be lost in that moment. Major presidential addresses are signposts, markers of an administration's priorities and perspectives. Each phrase is contested; what is said and unsaid have meaning. Political allies, aides and adversaries parse the text to claim mandates or define battles. This will be particularly true for Barack Obama, a gifted writer who takes words seriously.
Most analysis focused on the president's somber warnings of "gathering clouds and raging storms," two wars and a weakened economy. Conservatives took solace in his embrace of moral virtues, and martial rhetoric that "our nation is at war," and promise to "defeat" our enemies. Others noted his call to service, a stark contrast to President Bush's summons to the nation to "go shopping" after September 11.
But this distorts Obama's message. The core of the speech was structured around a pointed critique of the "failed dogmas" of the last thirty years of conservative misrule, a sharp rebuke of the policies of his predecessor sitting nearby on the stage, and a summons to a new and bold era of progressive activism.
At home and abroad, the new president claimed a mandate for a dramatic change of course. Domestically, he dismissed the centerpiece of modern conservatism: its scorn for government and worship of markets. "The question... is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works..." We know that the market has "the power to generate wealth," but surely we have learned once more that "without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control."
But he did not stop there. The test for a government that works is "whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement is dignified." This comes as close to the Franklin Roosevelt's call for an Economic Bill of Rights that we've heard since FDR issued that promise in 1944.
And the measure of markets is not simply a larger GDP or growth, but benefits that are widely shared. "The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy" depends on "the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart, not out of charity, but because it is surest route to our common good."
From these principles, Obama outlined his priorities. His recovery plan will be grounded on public investment in areas vital to our future -- from bridges to electric grids. He'll return science to its proper place, a slap at Bush's ideological assault on science. He'll launch a concerted drive for new energy -- to "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories" so we can reduce a dependence on oil that serves only to "strengthen our enemies and threaten our planet." And finally, he pledges a transformation of "our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of the new age."
As to national security, Obama begins by rejecting the "false choice between our safety and our ideals," dimissing Bush's use of September 11 to trample our constitution. He discards the bellicose unilateralism of the Bush neo-conservatives, evoking earlier generations that knew "our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please." "Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, and tempering qualities of humility and restraint." He paints an America "ready to lead again" by rejoining the world, with a new respect for "sturdy alliances and enduring convictions."
From these principles, he lays out his priorities. First to "responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan," somewhat reassuring phrasing for those of us worried that the dispatch of more troops to Afghanistan could trap us in a costly occupation. He places priority on reducing the nuclear threat, and rolling back "the specter of a warming planet."
Then after pledging the defeat of those who seek to terrorize us, he moves once more to seeking a "new era of peace," beginning with offering the Muslim world a new way forward, based on" mutual interest and mutual respect," watchwords for the Iranian leaders, among others. Rather than Bush's pledge to spread democracy at the end of a smart bomb, Obama offers to extend a hand to those "who cling to power through corruption and dissent and the silencing of dissent" if "you are willing to unclench your fist."
Also significant is what was left on the cutting room floor. There was no mention about raising the military budget, or reforming the military to expand its expeditionary forces. There was nothing about cutting back Social Security, Medicare or other parts of our social contract, the "grand bargain" that conservatives in both parties have been pushing for. Progressives looked in vain for words on reforming our unsustainable global economic posture, and the need to move from creating global markets for investors and multinationals to regulating them for the rest of us. Items marked urgent in his inbox -- restructuring a banking system once more on the verge of collapse, and providing mortgage relief to millions facing foreclosure -- received only the most oblique reference.
Events transform intention, as George Bush discovered when the collapse of Bear Sterns threatened to bring down the global economy. Movements force change that might otherwise never take place. No one speech defines the future. The fight over priorities and presidential attention has only begun.
But Obama used this speech to raise the bar. While the president understands how far we have come with the fact of his election, this journey is only beginning. He calls Americans to a new age of responsibility, a new commitment to service, to put aside petty and partisan politics to address the stark challenges we face. But his "postpartisan politics" is not about moving to the center, finding the least common denominator, and splitting the difference. In his inaugural address, the new president boldly summoned us to construct a new era of reform on the ashes of the failed conservative policies of the last three decades, with its foundations grounded on a progressive belief in activist government, regulated markets and shared prosperity at home, and a foreign policy that reflects our values abroad. Each of us is called to "pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America." It is a challenge that we can not afford to ignore.
That's funny, I seem to remember three democrat presidents and two democrat congresses in the last thirty years. How about we place the blame where it belongs? On both parties.
Clinton clearly represents the prodigality of talents and passions that characterize the creative and affluent coming of age of his generation during the 1960s, But ultimately, his legacy is the tragedy of unfulfilled promise due to self-indulgence and moral aimlessness. Bush, in turn, represents the moral certitude of the truth-seekers of his generation and correspondingly the tragedy due to a failure to listen and appreciate the complexity and diversity of perspectives and cultures that is required of both leadership and citizenship in our modern age.
President Obama, on the other hand, represents the triumph of his generation by his appeal to the enduring values and truths of our democracy and his style of strenuous pragmatism to fulfill these values in the realities of our present time. His ascendancy is not a passing of the torch from one generation to the next, but rather a clarion call to all generations to lead and to serve, to be responsible and accountable. This synthesis of idealism and practical accomplishment is a hallmark of effective community organizing and it is this ebullient optimism in the power of people to come together to effect change that is perhaps the lasting legacy of the baby boomer generation.
First point, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Second point, how can we teach responsibility and accountability when we are growing the size of our govt. to provide our needs for us? Bailing out private businesses, propping up failed credit card companies and effectively nationalizing private banks does not teach responsibility, it teaches the opposite. It tells us that if we fail, govt. will be there to bail us out. Part of being responsible means that when you fail at something, you suffer through the consequences and learn to come out the other side stronger for having pulled yourself through it.
That's his question maybe. But "works" is the key term. He went on to list a bunch of stuff the government needs to do, that is absurd (like helping people find jobs). Thank God the government doesn't "work" to do that. Alas, the government is too big, and it "works" too well I'm afraid.
Were we able to control all our companies sending off their industrial jobs to other countries? In fact our politicians helped that along.
Now the US has no manufacturing base. We make nothing and therefore cannot hire anyone.
Were we able to stop the Fed from mucking about with interest rates, pushing them down to practically 0 so that savings disappeared from banks. Everyone purchased on credit financed by China and now China owns us. Our manufacturing base? Given to China.
Granted we all did stupidly yell for tax cuts. But those cuts never got to the little people but were given to the Bigwigs. You know, those bigwigs who are asking to be bailed out now with our tax dollars.
And of course it is the little people's fault that our whole banking industry decided to turn themselves into Las Vegas. In the process, the bankers influenced our politicians to help them in their grand larceny.
All of this is our fault. Of course. No one in power had anything to do with all of this. Nope.
Wow. What a much better way to approach this. Of course the Muslim's definitely did get our attention on 911 by destroying the WTC and killing 3000 of our citizens. I see how that method of spreading Islam didn't work well either.
It's also wrong to aver that "the Chief Executive Officer of that government is singularly responsible for fixing everything, and it is our due to criticize endlessly what he does (not) do, while sitting on our duffs munching popcorn.
A great many of the problems of the past thirty years are ... and always have been ... criminal. What is it about "public office" that so encourages us to embrace the notion that those who occupy public offices represent a plutocracy that is "without sin?" We know better.
We should also always remember that: there are 305 million of us, and only a few thousand people (total!) in the key positions of what we call "our (Federal) government." In all the fifty states there are probably less than fifty thousand (total!). And by my handy-dandy calculator, that's "0.016% of this nation's population."
Who's going to fix the problem? Yep, the millions. And... uhhh... who (by deliberate act or by the unwillingness to act) created them? Yep.
Accountability is essential. It is ONLY your leadership that is to blame when problems occur. It isnt always what you DO that determines your success or failure as a leader but mostly what you DONT do.
If you are a Proactive leader who anticpates potential problems and installs effective policies and processes to prevent problems you tend to have less problems. If you are a Reactive leader that blunders along under the assumption that you are always right, that you can always shift blame or fix any problems that arise then you will tend to always be correcting problems you facilitated.
If the intent of your post was that you cant blame the President after 8 years of his leadership that resulted in NOTHING productive for his country well then you are WRONG. I see no indication that Bush did anything to PREVENT all of the bad things that occured on his watch. No veto or use the bully pulpit to speak out against bad legislation. By what he DIDNT do he is just as incompetent as for all the stupid things he did do.
Article II, section 1 is very specific about reach of the president's authority, and nowhere does it describe the amount of power we have given the office over the last several decades/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tmLn6N_Srw
May we all see the reflection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls
Speculation is a great thing!
I sometimes stand in front of a roulette table and speculate which number will come up.
I do agree with Robert that we do not know what the future holds and how a president will react. Bush did things that I agree with and he did things that I did not like.
It will be interesting to watch President Obama deal with the future. However, Obama has drifted in my direction since the campaign. He has moved right.
I am “happy” that liberals are “happy” (again.)
However, it is dangerous to place your hatred (or happiness) of your country on the shoulders of one person.
B