I’ve had a week or so to reflect on the inauguration. It’s going to take a little more time to process everything.
Even watching it from my television, there was an air of splendor, warmth and intense excitement circulating in the crowd. It was a watershed moment ““ the swearing in of the first black president, a day after the nation observed the 80th birthday of another monumental black hero. It was the reification of centuries-old dreams, and the liberal multitude was understandably joyful.
I doubt there’s anything President Barack Obama could have said in his inaugural address that would have stymied the exhilaration of his adoring fans. They were happy just to be there soaking up the moment in all of its historical majesty.
Nevertheless, people who were expecting a great speech were probably disappointed. The speech lacked a unifying theme that’s necessary to make it a great speech. It did not have the musical quality that we’ve come to expect from Obama (i.e. his race speech), nor did it dazzle with its eloquence. It was watered down by platitudes. It stressed collective responsibility over victimhood (something liberals have trouble comprehending).
The speech departed from the tone of the campaign days. The emphasis was not on “hope” and all the other saccharine expressions that Obama trumpeted to rouse people’s emotions and get elected. Obama must have realized that Inauguration Day was not the time for such things.
The greatest quality about the speech was its inclusiveness. There was something in it to make all parts happy ““ or nobody happy at all. To appease the liberal front, Obama peddled phrases like “our patchwork heritage” and emphasized the need to “responsibly leave Iraq to its people.”
For the blame-mongers, there were plenty of shots volleyed at Bush ““ and not just by the audience, Obama promised an end to the “petty grievances and false promises … recriminations and worn-out dogmas” that supposedly mire our politics (not in my estimation).
There was a somber tint as well, as he bemoaned the “conflict and discord” in Washington and stressed the need to “put aside childish things,” those being left to the imagination.
By the time he set in with, “Starting today we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America,” there was no mistaking how he felt. The belief was that America is broken and has to be rebuilt ““ something that was generally accepted by the audience.
That part of the speech ““ the bummer bit ““ was delivered to great praise. The rest of it, though more uplifting, was also more puzzling, and ultimately less crowd-pleasing.
To ingratiate himself with conservatives, Obama looked to the past for inspiration ““ an idea that’s lost on liberal America. He repeatedly recalled the glory days of our founders as a model for the future, and foresaw the return to moral virtue as the way to get ahead.
He was noticeably quiet on the race issue ““ laudably. He must have understood that his presence said more than enough on that subject, though it’s never too much for some people. The message was: If I’m willing to get past our mistakes, others should try to do the same. That was admirable.
Obama could have brought the crowd to its knees by appealing to its vanity ““ saying, for example, that everything is the government’s fault and the government should fix its mistakes (even if it wasn’t our government). He resisted doing that. Instead, the conceit of the speech was the need for people to help themselves. It stressed service over subjection. It framed things less in terms of “we can” than “you must.”
Whether or not he intended to do it, or whether he realized his own limitations, Obama tapped into one of the chief problems facing America ““ the crisis of self-reliance. Obama supporters are sick with a desire to follow their leader. They’re willing to be led, even on the wrong course, by a man they’ve propped up as a kind of medi-messiah. Of course, it’s dangerous to wallow in that mentality. It sucks out the creative energy that was once the life force in America ““ and can be again. For all the talk of “change,” it rests on the public to engender a new spirit ““ and that spirit has not yet arisen in our populace.
Obama seemed to sense that complacency and wanted to fix it. In substance, his speech read a lot like that famous Jonathan Edwards (the preacher, not the politician) sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” that sought to awake people to their moral failings before they found themselves in hell.
The audience at Washington Mall was clearly not expecting the Obama that turned out that day, as evidenced by the sputtering applause that conveyed a begrudging self-awareness. At times, he had to pause as if he was searching for their approval. Thus, the nation is still at sea trying to tell what an Obama presidency will hold. He seems willing to compromise, but there’s not sufficient history to make that judgment. His background is ideological. His speech waxed post-partisan, though it left substantial room for interpretation.
He keeps us guessing.
E-mail Pherson at apherson@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.