Obama's Inauguration Could do With Less Reagan, More (Gasp) Carter

After Ronald Reagan won his first election and took the oath of office as California's governor on Jan. 2, 1967, he sent a powerful signal about the mixture of politics and Hollywood-style fantasy that he was starting to invent -- by hiring the Walt Disney Company to produce his inaugural pageantry. I thought of that this weekend as I read that the current generation of Disney execs paid $2 million to Barack Obama's inaugural committee for exclusive rights to broadcast a children's concert with tween megastars Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers. I guess we can only conclude that the Great Communicator was really onto something 42 years ago - his only problem was he didn't know how to monetize it.

It was almost one year ago to the day that the president-to-be surprised some people when the candidate -- who spent a chunk of the 1980s as an inner-city community organizer -- praised Reagan to a newspaper editorial board in Reno, saying, "We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

He didn't mention the word "grandeur," but while his words may be invoking Abraham Lincoln a lot this week, Obama's style in pulling off the most expensive inauguration -- by far -- in American history, even as thousands of Americans are losing their paychecks daily, is straight from the Gipper's playbook. As NBC's new chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd proclaimed as the Obama Express barreled through rural Delaware on Saturday morning, "It seems like Obama is trying to do a throwback to Reagan -- and restore some of that grandeur."

You don't need to be a network pundit to see what Obama is up to here. It's classic "WWCD -- DTO." That stands for "What Would Carter Do? -- Do The Opposite." When Jimmy Carter took the oath on Jan. 20, 1977, Americans were just as alienated by the presidency as they were now, and for pretty much the same reasons - a senseless war that had been waged halfway around the world, Constitutional abuses, a government that spied on Americans, fear over oil supplies and a steady loss of blue-collar jobs.

Carter sought to declare on Day One that the era of the Imperial Presidency was over - shortly after his motorcade pulled away from the Capitol, he hopped out of the limo and walked most of the way to the White House, shaking hands with stunned onlookers along Pennsylvania Avenue.

That wasn't all; Carter replaced glitzy balls with low-priced ($25 a head) parties where the hors d'ouevres were most likely to be pretzels. The punditocray loved it -- the Washington Post reported Carter was "shattering...the idea that a president must be remote and removed from the people." But then the economy and gas prices sunk even worse, with a hostage crisis in Iran, and a nation desperate for answers. Maybe, some thought, we need a dash of the imperial in our presidency after all.

And Ronald Reagan, after defeating Carter in a landslide, was more than happy to indulge that notion. Back came the limos, the formal evening attire, the expensive re-christened inaugural balls, in an pomp-filled event in which Ronald Reagan (who had dispatched a press aide to unveil his Cabinet selections) and wife Nancy played a large role in planning. The affair prompted a Democratic congressman to blast "the incongruity between President Reagan's apparent call for sacrifice and...all the furs and the limos."

But soon the economy was roaring back -- more the result of Carter-appointed inflation fighter Paul Volcker and dropping oil prices than Reagan's policies -- and the groundwork was laid for a modern political myth. Ironically, by the end of the Gipper's presidency many Americans were already exhausted with the naked greed of the 1980s (remember Gordon Gekko?), but then a band of neoconservatives like Grover Norquist hijacked Reagan's legacy, warped it, and with the help of a compliant media created a bogus template for modern presidents, including -- at times -- Barack Obama.

I've recently researched the distorted Reagan legend for an about-to-be-published book -- "Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future" (Facebook group here) -- and had a chance to dwell on its toxic effect on American life, even now in 2009. Ironically, there are a few Reagan qualities that Obama would be wise to study - the 40th president's ability to communicate directly with Americans and convey a sense of optimism, for example. But much of the next four or eight years ought to be devoted to undoing Reaganism -- the assaults on the scientific proof of climate change and fossil fuel scarcity, the billions in red ink, the free-for-all on Wall Street - rather than bowing at its bronze idols.

But now the Obama inauguration crew has turned to Wall Street to help pay the massive cost of an event that with security may cost as much as $200 million, which would be a $40 million more than what President George W. Bush paid for his 2005 affair. One recent study found financial executives gave $7.1 million to defray the inaugural cost, more than any other industry, with many of the top bundlers executives from firms like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Wachovia that will be angling for more bailout cash from the Obama administration.

Then there are the exclusive broadcast deals with Disney and with Time-Warner's HBO, which has the exclusive right to broadcast the Bruce Springsteen-U2-Beyonce extravaganza from the Lincoln Memorial, an arrangement that led activist Jeffrey Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy to say, justifiably, "to not make [the concert] available to the entire country just seems elitist." Inaugural spokeswoman Carole Florman told the New York Daily News the soaring pricetag, the rights deals and the fundraising are necessary because of the importance of this transition, that "you don't want it to look like a schlock affair."

Ronald and Nancy Reagan might have said the exact same thing. The shame here is that while Obama surely didn't need to copy Jimmy Carter, he didn't need to borrow so much from the Gipper, either. Many of us who watched in awe as Obama re-invented the America presidential campaign in 2008 were looking for him to do the same with his inaugural in 2009. A creative approach might have melded that Springsteen-Bono starpower with a tad more democracy, and figured out how to reduce the cost or channel more of that Wall Street largesse to the rising number of needy people, especially in and around D.C.. It's increasingly looking like that's not going to happen.

One other irony was striking this weekend: The posh Georgia 300 rail car that the Obama's and Joe Biden's family rode from Philadelphia to Washington is one that was crafted back in 1930, just as America was sliding into the despair of the Great Depression. As he sped toward destiny in the lap of luxury, hopefully the Reagan-mind Obama pondered one lesson from Jimmy Carter: That sometimes it's good to get out and walk.

Comments

[mikep007]

You nailed it... People forget, Carter's economic numbers were much better than Reagans. GDP, sales, wages... It's all detailed in the 1984 Congresssional Quarterly. All those things went down under Reagan.

[Yermammy]

Carter was with out a doubt the last good president we had. He had bad news to tell us and we were spoiled children. Ronnie Ray Gun held up some shiny foil and we all ooohhhed and aaahhhed and followed this fool of the edge of the cliff. And it's finally catching up with us. Welcome to reality, folks. It's about time.

[ntmessage]

The inauguration is a grander and more important event than most in modern society, by definition and custom alone, not by any particular action. Let people be happy, let people cry, celebrate. Let the media bring it into our homes, let producers, produce. Many Obama events are akin to a super bowl sized event held all across America.

From the right, sour grapes and perpetual obstinate sensibilities overlaid with revisionist rhetoric is all we have to look forward to in a post Bush Presidency. Why spoil this inauguration and hope for the future simply because two people will now occupy the worse president in history legacy.

Indeed the next open election or party change inauguration, will posses even more grandeur. This leads to the point. Putting on a party has nothing to do what so ever with how well someone actually connects with people nor how well they will govern.

We have been beaten down, terrorized and deceived. A somber inauguration? Perhaps by a tone deaf Carter. From boycotting the Olympics to allowing 18% interest rates, exacerbating an economic decline and allowing the world to ridicule Americans, Carter had no grasp as to what was actually happening in America or how Americans felt when he governed.

Sophistication over the disingenuous, trivial and simplistic is essential; even of it means Disney for a day. A jubilant and soulful, even grand pep rally is in order, for we have a lot to do over the next eight years.

[david43a]

Have a party I say...of course its going to cost a bundle....that many people kept safe and at least somewhat sane is a huge job...just think of the traffic....OMG!
The only issue I have is who is putting up the money...
This should be on the taxpayers dime, its our party!
And its worth it.
It is not, however, HBO's, wall streets or disney's "gig"
And please, yes, this is buying influence....how much and from who is the question....

[closerthanuthink]

Sorry Mr. Bunch but I ain't buyin what your sellin'!
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003
People should REALLY do their homework!

[butters2004]

Thanks for the link. HP, please update!!!

[breakfast]

I don't remember how th Electoral College vote turned out, but in the popular vote, Reagan just barely eked out a win over Carter. It was something like 50.1 % to 49.9 %. Hardly a landslide.

[savethecountry]

The 1980 election was an electoral landslide for Reagan, but he only mustered just above 50% of the vote in a 3-way race (Carter had about 42% and John Anderson had about 7%). The 1980 election was similar to the 1968 election in that Nixon won 301 electoral votes, but just squeaked by Hubert Humphrey in the popular vote in a 3-way race (George Wallace completed the trio). Of course, both of Bill Clinton's wins were accomplished without exceeding 50% of the vote in two 3-way races (Ross Perot being the third to George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996).

I suppose all of this is minutia now, but after having to listen to Dubya say, after the 2004 election, that he had "political capital" to spend after narrowly winning both the electoral and actual vote (after only winning the electoral vote in 2000 with the help of the U.S. Supreme Court), well, I guess it's important to put a fine historical point on these things.

[BJMS]

Oh give me a break! The man is the first African-American President, he won by a bigger margin than anyone since Reagan's RE-election, and has inspired more people than anyone since Kennedy...He and WE DESERVE a huge celebration. It's thrilling to see so many people actually EXCITED about government, history, and our President again...after the past 8 years, we NEED a big party!!!

[Tulsaslim]

I look forward to the day when 'the myth of Reagan' is debunked. The guy was a good actor. The rest of it is a total fairy tale.

[indyleftist]

I wish they'd listen to Carter on election reform and foreign policy as well

Despite all of the republican propaganda and the democrat's refusal to ever defend him against such onslaughts
Jimmy Carter's record is that of the best modern president
Oddly with George Bush Sr. in second

There is no other president who got through their time in office without committing horrible war crimes.
Just imagine if our other presidents hadn't been supportive of the mass a slaughter of people from Vietnam, to Nicaragua, Iran, to East Timor and on and on.

[MagisterLudi]

"Jimmy Carter's record is that of the best modern president."
simple comment--- laughter.

[savethecountry]

Hmmm, Magister. Can you name at least 5 things that Carter did during his presidency that have import today? I can:

*Mideast peace treaty with Begin and Sadat
*Panama Canal treaties
*SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union
*Established formal diplomatic relations with China
*Major environmental protection legislation, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act)
*Established human rights as a key issue in dealing with other nations
*Pardoned those who rightly avoided the Vietnam era draft and fled to Canada
*Didn't get the U.S. involved in any wars
*Community Reinvestment Act, which has helped many low-income people move up the socioeconomic ladder
*Didn't get involved in any scandals

Of course, his post-presidential years are unparalleled, highlighted by his community service and the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

Can you name at least 5 things that George H.W. Bush did during his presidency that have import today?

Carter had problems in getting the economy moving, and did a poor job of rallying the American people during that economic downturn (although the recession during his presidency was a blip compared to the one Dubya has us in now) and getting the hostages back (how much Reagan had to do with that, given that they were released on Jan. 20, 1981 and the "October Surprise"), but he wasn't Dubya.

It's not even close!

One more brick in the wall that is the Dubya Revisionist Tour.

[worldwithoutus]

it will be a great day for america if he governs like president reagan, one great american trying to emulate a great man is not bad. but carter?????

[Chavez08]

I could give a rats ass about speeches or quotes or charisma, substance and evidence speaks volumes with me. Unfortunately, most Americans are stupid and shallow and they need an idol.

Obama is the Reagan of the new century. Reagan smiled and joked and made hollow, meaningless for-camera demands for foreign leaders to liberalize their political systems while eliminating an entire class of people and committing genocide in South America.

People need to stop entertaining all the tv news liars and engage in critical thought for a change. Watch not what Obama says, but what he does.

Stop being stupid, America. Yes, this means you.

Americans need to stop being stupid. Yes, this means you.

[kathy001]

"Watch not what Obama says, but what he does."

I like that. I would describe myself as a "rabid Obama supporter" but I agree, we need to watch what Obama and the entire government do. We need to pay attention and we need to speak up - loudly - when we don't like what's happening. We haven't been doing this and look where it's gotten us.

Obama says that he is going to pay attention to what the public says and what it wants. I think he's going to put his money where his mouth is, but I'm definitely going to be watching to make sure he does.

[ro1942]

thanks Chavez thats so true.

[susieq54]

The bigger the celebration, the better I like it ! It's for the "cause" don't you know!

[glockman]

Why did you have to bring up Carter. Good grief.

[leftoflennon]

Blah Blah.

If you didnt notice. Obama has a flair for the extravagant.

Carter's inauguration backfired.

The Gipper wasnt all bad.

[FearlessFreep]

"The Gipper wasnt all bad." Damning with faint praise.

[Adriana231]

Washington DC is expecting 2-4 MILLION people for this event...a number we have never seen before. I live in the area and we have never seen anything like this.
How do you keep 2-4 million people safe? What would happen to our country if a single suicide bomber set themselves off on the mall tomorrow, regardless of whether or not Obama was affected?

BTW, the 2005 Bush inauguration was the LEAST attended since WWII...