Nota bene: After publishing this I thought it might come across as too harsh and too critical toward the new president. And when many were still basking in the afterglow of the Inauguration. So I marked it “Private” which means it was there but no one could read it. Well after the first two weeks of the Obama Administration… the gloves are off.
********
Two million dollars just for the election night celebration? One hundred seventy million dollars for the presidential inauguration? (Slate magazine excoriated then President Bush for spending one quarter that amount – but this time around regards the amount as entirely appropriate.)
Sure. He won. He is the first African-American president. (Which is indeed huge and historic and well worth celebrating.) And the first new and Democratic president in eight years. I think we of more conservative stripe can be generous on such an occasion. Why not?
Much has been written about Inauguration Day and the prayers and the swearing-in and the inaugural speech. It was disappointing. Not because it was bad. It was not. But because it was okay. And an inauguration speech is too important an occasion to deliver one that merely is okay.
Among other things it was precisely vague. Cal Thomas in particular directs our attention to this:
I enjoyed his line dismissing “worn-out dogmas” but wonder what he means by it. When a liberal dogma and a conservative dogma face off, which dogma will bite and which will roll over? When liberals talk like this, they usually require the conservative to compromise his principles in order to receive their blessing. During his relatively brief time in elective office, Obama has not been known for seeking common ground. Words ought to mean something. What does he mean by his?
Obama hinted at what he intends do about embryonic stem cell research and possibly “global warming,” saying he wants to “restore science to its rightful place.” What place would that be? Above morality and common sense? Above other scientists who disagree? There is no consensus about global warming. In fact, there are growing numbers of scientists and growing amounts of scientific evidence questioning whether this is indeed a dangerously warming planet. Will Obama rely only on those scientists who agree with his political positions?
On stem cell research, new science is showing that adult stem cells may fulfill the objectives originally believed to be achieved only with embryos. Which science will prevail in such cases? Will it be real science, or the “science” that supports the objectives of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party?
Read the whole thing here at Townhall.Com. You do not have to register.
I do not think President Obama’s (and we can call him President Obama now – respectfully and appropriately) precisely vague rhetoric was accidental. I am beginning to suspect that people employ vague rhetoric when they assume the debate over certain issues is over and we already know the right answer. Yes there may be some who still offer contrary opinions (on how to govern, the role of government, on the rightful place of science) but their voices are neatly dismissed and marginalized by not even being mentioned.
I acknowledge this interpretation is ungenerous and possibly incorrect. Let me offer further evidence.
Yuval Levin picked up on this theme (dismissing opposing points of view):
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.
Read the whole thing here at National Review Online. You do not have to register.
And what exactly is meant by “childish things”? The implication is that we have been children and engaged in childish things. Until now. Until President Obama.
George Will noticed the sub-text that Americans do not have a problem. We are a problem.
That was the nation’s response to Barack Obama’s inaugural address, even though — or perhaps because — one of his themes, delicately implied, was that Americans do not just have a problem, they are a problem.
“The time has come,” he said pointedly, “to set aside childish things.” Things, presumably, such as the pandemic indiscipline that has produced a nation of households as overleveraged as is the government from which the householders insistently demand more goods and services than they are willing to pay for. “We remain,” the president said, “a young nation.” Which, even if true, would be no excuse for childishness. And it is not true. The United States is older, as a national polity, than Germany or Italy, among many others.
Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.
Apparently until now America has not been a terribly compassionate nation nor much concerned with the needs of others besides ourselves.
Ben Shapiro notes:
Obama’s inaugural address deflated us because it perfectly crystallized the quandary America now finds itself in: we wanted our faith renewed through a “transformational moment” — but now we’ve got a faithless man for president. Obama has no faith in God’s stake in the American destiny; instead, God merely “calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.” Despite his protestations to the contrary, Obama has no faith in Americans; instead, he wishes to change our hearts of stone for hearts of flesh: “we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.”
Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.
And there was a certain sophomoric silliness at points in the inaugural speech.
Jonah Goldberg points out just a couple examples of this:
I agree with most of the folks here that it wasn’t as well-written as I expected. There were some awfully clunky clichés in there. For example, here’s the second paragraph:
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
Gathering clouds and raging storms? Really? How did that survive the first draft? Oh, and shouldn’t that be forebears not forbearers? A forbearer is someone who refrains from something.
Also, if you’re going to use clichéd language you should at least make it track logically. According to this imagery, times of peace and times of prosperity have not coincided, unless of course rising tides can be still at the same time.
Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.
And for the historical record – forty-three Americans have taken the oath. (Grover Cleveland – two non-consecutive terms.)
And “harness the wind and the sun and the soil to power our cars and factories”?
Soil?!?
I don’t want a puppy. I want a unicorn!
The lackluster quality of the inaugural speech makes one wonder just who wrote it? Who supplied the sloppy history? The cliched metaphors? It turns out that we know:
Twenty seven year old Jon Favreau. One can read a lengthy article about him (published while he was working on President Obama’s inaugural speech) here at The Washington Post. You do not have to register.
I acknowledge that all of the above critique seems mean-spirited and petty. It probably is. (Especially picking on the speechwriter.) Let me wrap up with two clarifications/explanations.
First. There was plenty in the inaugural speech that was praiseworthy. Its appeal to the past and to history and to tradition. Its expressions of determination against real forces of opposition. (In other words the “war against terror” is real. Thank you George Bush.) Its ostensible if flawed efforts to inspire and encourage. And so on. So why not spend more time and space giving President Obama credit?
Here is why.
Second. President Obama has plenty of fans and more positive press than he needs – or deserves. What he has done right and well and what was praiseworthy about Inauguration Day and the inaugural speech will and already have plenty of space and attention.
I believe it is right and appropriate therefore to be part of the “honorable and loyal opposition”. That when people treat President Obama almost as Messiah and king – we who do not agree with all of his policies can and should speak up and offer critique. The Mainstream Media has demonstrated all too well whose camp they are in. Alternative voices are needed. I would like to be one of them.
And when people criticize President Obama too much or unfairly – and that can include liberals and the Left as well as conservatives and the Right – we should defend the President and give him credit where and when it is due. We will not oppose President Obama always and for the sake of opposing. No self-respecting conservative with integrity truly wants him to fail. When he says and does what is right and just and wise – we should support and defend the President.
We can without guile say “God bless and protect the President of the United States of America”. And pray for him in all sincerity.
