The America of his dreams
Dick Polman: Judging by the content of Barack Obama's Inaugural address, it is clear that he yearns to turn the page on the past and govern as a "post-partisan" president.
The America of his dreams
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Judging by the content of Barack Obama's Inaugural address - an assertive speech punctuated by muscular patriotic passages, and somber meditations on our perilous moment - it is clear that he yearns to turn the page on the past and govern as a "post-partisan" president.
If he can really pull that off, he'd be the first of the 44 to do it. The odds are against it. But, like any new president on day one, Obama took the opportunity to conjur the America of his dreams.
Petty politics and ideological combat have always been staples of Washington governance (and mis-governance), which is why President John Adams, miffed by the vicious politicking that contributed to his defeat in 1800, subsequently decided to skip town on Inauguration Day rather than watch rival Thomas Jefferson take the oath. Jefferson then declared in his Inaugural address that he intended to turn the page on the past and usher in a post-partisan era of unity; as he insisted that day, "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." It was a nice sentiment, anyway.
Other new presidents tried the same approach, conjuring visions of a post-partisan climate. Even Richard Nixon tried it. Check out his 1969 Inaugural speech, and you'll find him urging all Americans "to surmount what divides us, and cement what unites us. To lower our voices would be a simple thing. In these difficult years, America has suffered from a fever of words...We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another."
That sounds a lot like what we heard today from Obama, who declared: "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...in the words of the Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things...the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."
Given how badly things worked out with Nixon, perhaps the efficacy of the post-partisan message depends on the quality of the messenger - and on the willingness of his listeners to heed the message. Obama has been pushing this message since the day he announced his candidacy; he has entered the White House on a wave of good will that is unprecedented in contemporary polling. Most importantly, the movement he built was incrementally strengthened and sustained by ordinary, independent-minded citizens who were fed up with the predictable left-right paradigm - and yearned for a post-partisan president.
We'll see how well that experiment goes. When I heard Obama talk about the importance of national unity, about the need for one and all to pitch in and renew America, about the urgency of ushering in "a new era of responsibility," all I could bring to mind was the winter news out of Detroit, where SUV sales have gone right back up as the cost of gasoline has gone down. Forgive me for not immediately adopting the buoyant, besotted tone of the TV news anchors today...but the odds are surely decent that Obama's call for a new American far-sighted selflessness ("a willingness to find meaning in something greater than ourselves") could soon clash with another enduring American trait - namely, short-sighted selfishness.
Nevertheless, Obama made a characteristically powerful case for the America he'd like to see. His goal was to give us a thematic overture for his administration, and, in sports lingo, he gave it his best shot. Many Inaugural addresses have been long and soporific. This one was short (only 18 minutes); and, at times, it cut like a serrated knife.
He minced no words about the current crises, which he likened to "gathering clouds and raging storms...They are serious and they are many." When he uttered his call for a renewed national purpose ("we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America"), he sought to frame it as a grand American tradition, by extolling "the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things" who built the country and died fighting for it "in places like Concord and Gettysburg, Normandy and Khe Sahn (the latter being a Vietnam battlefield, a canny signal from Obama that we need to get past the '60s.)
At different points in his speech, he discomfited both Republicans and Democrats. The latter camp undoubtedly cheered the passage that sounded like New Deal 2.0: "The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."
He plucked this chord again when talking about Wall Street, and the need for a new regulatory era: "(T)his crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous."
And Obama's voters undoubtedly loved the passages where the new president trashed the old president who sat just a few feet away: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake." (Translation: George W. Bush, by violating the U.S. Constitution, not to mention the Geneva Conventions, violated our enduring American ideals.)
And then, moments later, came this: "(E)arlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint...Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats..." (Translation: By acting inprudently in Iraq, and thinking that he could do as he pleased, Bush violated our enduring American principles.)
But he spoke to conservatives by insisting that he will not tolerate government inefficiency: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works...Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government." Much of that passage could have been voiced by John McCain.
And these muscular passages, as well, could have easily come from McCain: "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you...To those (in the Muslim world) who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
In essence, Obama sketched a possible future in which left and right can theoretically meet at the midpoint, joined by mutual love of country. (This midpoint, not coincidentally, is the sweet spot for any president.) Hence his paean to durable American verities: "Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths." And then, as a clincher, he brought up George Washington.
Other new presidents have invoked many of these themes on Inauguration Day. Just as Obama is calling for a post-partisan era, so did Nixon and the senior George Bush. Just as Obama wants to "restore the vital trust between a people and their government," so did Jimmy Carter declare in 1977 that "we must once again have full faith in our country." Just as Obama says he seeks a new era of American renewal, so did Bill Clinton declare in 1993 that "a new season of American renewal had begun."
But Obama has the advantage of taking office at a time when most Americans (78 percent, as evidenced by the latest poll) are exhausted and distressed by the multiple failures of the past eight years. Obama has their full attention. And, as Ronald Reagan demonstrated, it's probably wrong to underestimate a president who has strong communication skills.
It's hard to know, on day one, whether Obama's post-partisan vision will prove workable or delusional - that may well hinge on his powers of persuasion, and the willingness of the people to be persuaded - but, for most Americans, it was sufficient on day one just to turn the page and anticipate the possibilities.
For now, there is the allure of the new; the old is gone, as embodied by Dick Cheney in his wheelchair. Obama's true testing will come soon, and, if his words today were prologue, ours will come too.
Chris, being shameful is calling someone a 'troll' who has a different political viewpoint than yours! I bet this inauguration cost double what Bush's did ($110 million worth of security?), apples to apples, but while Bush was vilified for it, Obama will get a free pass as usual! I guess we Repub 'trolls' represent fear, while the dems represent hope? A new era of bipartisanship in Wash DC is upon us!— NEPhilly- I found your enumeration of all the past presidents who have made a call for unity and post-partisan politics very interesting. So many pundits and journalists have hailed Obama's rhetoric, but have not brought up the point that you bring up, which is that many presidents before him have also claimed that they want to put aside partisan differences. So this begs the next question--why have past presidents failed? One could say that there are two reasons--internal and external. Internally, it may be that they never really meant it in the first place and were just saying it because that is what you are supposed to say on inauguration day, sort of like an automatic "thank you", or "you're welcome". Maybe they get caught up in the mood (it's easy to be generous when you won). Externally, one could argue that the essential nature of Washington is partisan, that the framers of the Constitution wanted it to be that way, and that calling for a post-partisan world is like asking people to stop eating or breathing. In essence, one could argue that the founding fathers wanted to create an institutionalized opposition. If this is the case, then we should acknowledge that there will always be a partisan nature to politics, but the true test of the Obama administration is if he can make it less partisan. The problem is, how would one measure that? The left/right wing blogosphere will not yield any answers--maybe approprite metrics are things like the degree of bipartisan support engendered for a given piece of legislation? I hope that we can stop talking about post-partisan politics because, in essence, I think that sets us all up for failure. I think the Constitution does not want us to be post-partisan. That being said, we could be certainly be less partisan...— Nalaka
- 1) The market bounced back 100+ points within 2 minutes of the opening bell on Obama's first full day. By the (exceedingly faulty) logic of the posters who blame Obama for the downturn since the election (which was a continuation of the recession begun in Dec 2007), then B HUSSEIN Obama deserves all the credit for this incredible turnaround. The "blame the president" logic is too preposterous for words.— Phrossty
- 2) Booing an outgoing president or seranading him with "nah, nah, nah, nah..." or giving him the middle finger salute is disrespectful to the Office of POTUS. It's also low-brow. I condemn it. (Although in the words of Chris Rock, "I understand.") HOWEVER... lumping all left-wingers, liberals or Democrats into that category is like suggesting all Philly fans booed Donovan McNabb on draft day and are all classless goons with no knowledge of football. Get real. It was a vocal minority displaying a pent up emotion. Don't stick everyone in the same boat. I didn't boo Donovan or W.— Phrossty
- 3) We do need a 2 party (at least) system. Otherwise, it's a "democracy" like the one in Venezuela. HOWEVER, there has to be room for civil discourse or it's pointless to debate. It's just a never-ending tug of war over irreconcilible ideologies. One trait of President Obama that gives me hope (over fear) is his ability to find the common ground in contentious discussion and build upon the commonality rather than the discord. Of course, BOTH SIDES will have to be willing to lay down their arms to join together in a common cause. I just hope it doesn't take a Pearl Harbor or 11-Sep-2001 attack to get America back to being the UNITED States.— Phrossty
- 4) "Putting away childish things" is not the same as overlooking bad behavior. If you're a parent (I'm looking at you, Tom.), then you know that to simply ignore transgressions is to invite further abuses. I do want the country and the partisan-left to look forward rather than backward, but that doesn't give carte blanche to the possiblity of war crimes committed. I also believe a witch hunt doesn't do the country any good. I'm reminded of Ford's pardon of Nixon. Sure, it angered people who wanted to see Nixon brought to "justice," but it was the right thing to do at the time to get the nation to move forward. Investigate, clean it up, promise to never again allow our national morality to be compromised by those in the highest office and get on with it.— Phrossty
- Phrossty, don't go making sense or being even handed:) What fun is that? Some on the 'hard left' have treated W like that since day 1 and it is not right! Thank you for pointing that out:) Again, I wish Pres. Obama the best of luck! What do you think of the 'hope over fear' line and Geithner's nomination?— NEPhilly
- 5) All the negative, fault-finding rhetoric doesn't do a fother mucking thing to meet the challenges this nation faces with "...those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task."— Phrossty
- Phrossty, you should have written the inauguration speech:) I am more inspired by your words than Obama's yesterday! What did you honestly think of his speech?— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly - like a lot of the inaugural address, I think the reference to "hope over fear" is a continuation of a campaign theme. Accurate or not, I personally attributed a lot of the vitriol from the cons/Repubs to fear while Obama specifically ran on hope. Fair or not, the right-wing/Repubs/cons are readily categorized as fear mongers. Allowing Joe "Electing Obama is a Death-blow to Israel" Wurzelbacher to become a spokesperson for the right doesn't do much to dissuade that posit.— Phrossty
- NEPhil, May I answer your question about Geithner and hope over fear? It's an awkward position for any new president at his/her inauguration. He wants to affirm that there's a new sheriff in town, with different philosophies and policies. At the same time, there's the old president sitting just behind him. I'm sure you would disagree, but in my opinion, the Bush administration did indeed exploit fears about terrorism to justify the Iraq war. We seemed to stop talking to anyone who didn't agree with us. You know, the old war horse, "You're either with me or against me." And I believe that did contribute to dividing our country even more. So while it may have been an uncomfortable moment, I can see why Obama did it. It was one of the few times he'll have such a large attentive audience. As for Geitner, I simply don't like the idea. With all the brilliant minds in America, I think we can probably find someone who is honest, yet knowledgeable about the treasury. (You can't convince me he wasn't trying to get away with something dishonest.)— NigeltheMastiff
Comment removed.- Phrossty/Nigel, the GOP needs to do something about the perception(which I do not believe) that we are the party of fear and division! I do beleive in the saying, 'you are either with me or against me', but then again I am old:) I agree that Geithner should not be confirmed. There has to be another Deme who is qualified to be Treasury Sectry. If nothing else, it should be very interesting!— NEPhilly
- While I don't begrudge Bush his library, the same cannot be said about the rabid right about Obama's inauguration. It will be interesting to see how the investigations that were ongoing end. Hopefully we never have another "imperial" presidency again.— ModerateMarge
- IMHO the hard-left, "Bush is not my president" from Day 1 types were bitter about Florida, the recount and the Supreme Court decision. It's hard to get folks to be civil when they FEEL cheated. You're also not likely to get people to be reasonable about their emotions. As for Geithner, I don't know too much. I saw and concurred with a very poignant post by Liberal that wealthy people tend to be arrogant - especially when it comes to who pays. (One thing I learned as an A/P clerk for a large corporation many moons ago is that wealthy people don't pay for isht.) At the risk of painting with the same broad brush I decried a few posts ago, I think it's typical of "the rich." A personal finances professor shared an anecdote about a personal tax planning client of his who shared the notion "don't worry about crossing the 'will I lose sleep' line, plan for the 'will I go to jail or not' line." I've had two former employers express that it's OK to cheat the system within reason as long as you pay up when you're caught. Are Geithner's mistakes innocent? I doubt it. Are they minor and did hey pay the taxes and penalty? Yes. Should he be disqualified? Maybe, but last I checked you can tell when a politician is lying simply by watching for movement from his or her lips.— Phrossty
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
