One thing to learn from that speech – Obama is adjusting to his new role. He has learned that he must delegate even his own writing, which cannot have been easy. I feel sure that speech was not the personal work of this highly eloquent man. It takes a team of highly trained professionals to produce something quite so flat!
**
Obama aides have been signaling that the speech would be familiar. That was understood to mean that it would echo Obama’s own past words. Instead, it’s familiar because it seems to evoke every oft-expressed thought and repeat so many well-worn phrases. If you have prosaic things to say, better to follow Ronald Reagan’s example in 1981 and use the language of prose. This is a stumble, an over-reach that wishes to be remembered as bigger and better than it was.
**
That passage on terrorism seemed somehow … weak. Our spirit is stronger than that of the terrorists? That’s what’s going to “defeat” them? Not much energy in that declaration, not nearly so much as his promise of assistance to poor nations.
**
A friend to each nation? Unconditionally? What is the United States to be under President Obama? Barney the Purple Dinosaur?
**
The regulatory promise: After disavowing interest in the question of whether government is too big or too small, these lines must represent the most unabashed defense of an expanded role for the state since … I cant think when. 1965 maybe?
**
First Obama promises new respect for science in national decisionmaking. Then he promises to shift to sun, wind, and soil as energy sources. I guess it’s scientifically possible, but hardly rational. No nukes?
**
Khe Sanh – Vietnam integrated into the American story at last. Nice. But otherwise, too much reaching for rhetorical effect for my taste with too little content behind it.
**
War first – economy second – on the list of national concerns. Climate change in the main body of the speech, unprecedented. But what’s this? Not a malaise speech?
**
As Obama repeatedly stumbled over the words of the oath of office, we received the answer to a question my wife & I were debating last night. Does this seemingly supremely confident man feel any jitters today? Answer: yes, sure seems that way.
**
Four minutes behind schedule for the oath of office. Does this mean that Obama enjoys four minutes as president unencumbered by the obligation to uphold the Constitution?
**
The new president’s children look bored with the clarinet & cello interlude. Cant say I blame them. What is this? Atonal theme and variations upon 1980s pop tunes?
**
Aretha Franklin? So much for Andrew Sullivan’s theory that this is the first post-baby boomer presidency …
**
I don’t know if anybody else appreciated the use of Jesus’ Hebrew name by Rick Warren, but I liked it.
**
I’ve lived in Washington through four inaugurations now: 1996, 2000, 2004, and now this. I witnessed two others as a visitor to this city: 1980 and 1988. Perhaps 1992 was different, but I have never seen an inauguration that so excited the city as the one has done. Never such a crowd, never such enthusiasm in the streets. I broke my own rule last night and ventured downtown for an inaugural party. Washington was impassable – frigid – and frenzied. As my wife and I sat entrapped in traffic on Capitol Hill, we spotted little cushions in the windows of the townhouses as the homeowners prepared to watch the next day’s parades. A true moment in history.
32 responses so far
1 Clarence Darrow // Jan 20, 2009 at 9:59 am
David – Thank you so much for this site – It give me hope.
I am a moderate Ayn Rand conservative, highly educated young environmental scientist clean tech entrepreneuer, but also believe in the private sector and small government.
This is the most exciting thing I have seen yet and I hope to become VERY involved with what you are doing.
I want my party back!
2 JJWFromME // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:14 am
I think a Queen of Soul is appointed for life. (I’m not a baby boomer, and I’m comfortable with that.)
3 Bob // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:18 am
I’m a proud liberal, now called progressive, I am here to communicate with conseratives with open minds. I’m here to listen with an open mind. Thanks David.
4 Saltwood // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:23 am
A splendid and necessary project. David you are following in the great tradition of Bill Buckley and we wish you and the site the best.
An observation on America – The oath of office was administered to Biden by John Paul Stevens; The oath of office to Obama will be administered by John Roberts. Two Republican appointees swearing in two Democrats duly elected. It speaks well for the country. We are resilient.
5 Bob // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:24 am
A friend to each nation? Unconditionally? What is the United States to be under President Obama? Barney the Purple Dinosaur?
David, I think that is the thought R. Warren voiced in the invocation, a call for understanding. Do you really want the President to call nations enemies? Please!
6 FredrikN // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:24 am
David, congrats on the new site! Looking good.
Check out the new http://www.whitehouse.gov. Judging from all the Barack Obama photos on the website so far, this is going to be the “me me me” presidency…
7 Okhuysen // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:26 am
Hello David. Congratulations on the new site. I welcome it and I hope that the New Majority (to which I want to belong,) will be fiscally conservative, socially progressive, politically moderate, and non-religious. We are all in *this* together…
Take care and I’ll read you often.
8 JJWFromME // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:27 am
A friend to each nation, not necessarily its government. That seems very American to me. If you said, “We are a beacon of liberty, except to peoples we don’t like.” That’s not the America I know.
9 Saltwood // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:31 am
I was surprised by the comparative vacuity of the speech. A few multicultural pieties, and a call on America and the develop world to consume less. Other than that, not much. I had expected more. Mercifully, shorter than any major Clinton address.
10 JJWFromME // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:31 am
As for our spirit being stronger than the terrorists. To quote Martin Luther King: “If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if you enemy has no conscience… then follow Bonhoeffer.” Bonhoffer had spirit too.
11 Collin White // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:32 am
“[A]n over-reach that wishes to be remembered as bigger and better than it was.”
Like most inaugurals. Only grand results can redeem grandiose rhetoric.
12 JJWFromME // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:32 am
As for our spirit being stronger than the terrorists. To quote Martin Luther King: “If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if you enemy has no conscience… then follow Bonhoeffer.” Bonhoffer had spirit too.
13 Saltwood // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:35 am
I was surprised by the comparative vacuity of the speech. A few multicultural pieties, and a call on America and the develop world to consume less. Other than that, not much. I had expected more. Mercifully, shorter than any major Clinton address.
14 echarles1 // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:45 am
Congratulations of the new site. re: the speech, his reach (his speech) exceeded his grasp.
15 ERWjr // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:45 am
Congratulations on the new site/blog. But FYI: It was the Chief Justice that Screwed up the oath… Obama stumble was in reaction to it.
16 bryandhair // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:50 am
David–the new site looks great. I am glad that there is now a place where the ideal of reforming our party is something that is embraced. I enjoyed your breakdown of the speech. I too feel that it was weak and full of fluff and empty statements.
As a former speechwriter, I would invite you to break down the speech line by line and illustrate what you would have done differently, if anything to reach out to the other side. I think he should have referenced President Bush more than with a passing “thanks for your service”…but that’s just me.
Again, congrats on the new site and I am looking forward to watching it develop on the coming months.
17 empirical // Jan 20, 2009 at 10:59 am
Great site!
18 Saltwood // Jan 20, 2009 at 11:10 am
My apologies, I did not intend to double post. Don’t know how it happened.
19 tarazeigler // Jan 20, 2009 at 11:43 am
Hi, David! The site looks great. It is true that the speech was thoroughly disappointing, particularly compared to Obama’s first speeches. He’d have been well-served to write this one himself. I felt that, besides being flat, it was really scattershot. I lost track of the number of themes and that is a bad, bad sign. Even so, this was a historic inauguration and will be remembered in spite of the speech.
20 R. Richards // Jan 20, 2009 at 11:46 am
President Obama pledged government that “works,” that is, effective government. David Brooks has written that Americans want effective government, and that the Bush administration in important ways (such as the Hurricane Katrina response and financial regulation) failed to provide it. Brooks has called on the Republican Party stop running against government, and instead to pledge to provide effective government: limited government, but nonetheless government that can carry out essential regulatory and service functions that no other entity in society can. How does New Majority feel about Brooks’s views on governing?
21 toto // Jan 20, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Is there a way to contact either you or some of your staffers at NewMajority.com? And congrats on the new effort … truly needed!
22 TheBigHenry // Jan 20, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“As Obama repeatedly stumbled over the words of the oath of office …”
What I observed, David, was the Chief Justice stumbling over the prompting. I am more familiar with the Oath than the Chief Justice appeared to be. Let’s try to be fair about our criticisms. I think the Chief Justice should have prepared, instead of winging it. He obviously blew it.
23 Bob Miller // Jan 20, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I don’t mind all that much if the speech was a collage of old ideas put together by Washington veterans. I would mind, though, if Obama’s policies turned out to be that way, too—and it’s not so unlikely! Hot air got him there but more is needed now.
24 TheBigHenry // Jan 20, 2009 at 2:02 pm
On a technical note: One’s comment is repeated when the page is simply reloaded; something wrong with the implementation of the software.
25 loganwc // Jan 20, 2009 at 2:22 pm
The Presidents speech was excellent – hopeful, inclusive, to the point. Your readers are suffering from the realities of the irrelevant republican brand and sour grapes. How wonderful that our new President is a man of honor, intellect and vision.
26 JJWFromME // Jan 20, 2009 at 3:37 pm
There’s a lot of business to be done. I thought the speech was appropriate to that. Following the issues that I’ve followed in recent years, I was happy to hear just about everything addressed.
27 TonyComstock // Jan 20, 2009 at 4:56 pm
RE: Effective Government
Last Summer I heard McCain on the Dian Rheem show sounding lucid. Paraphrasing:
“We can have a debate about how big government should be, what government should or should not do. We can have that debate and reach a concensus. What we cannot do is have more government than we’re willing to pay for.”
Shortly after that he named Palin as his running mate and locked my vote for Obama.
Ultimately I don’t know how big our government should be. Sweden seems like too much. Somalia seems like not enough, but I’m not stupid enough to claim that my answer to where the right middle ground is is “the right answer.” I’d like to trust the process of politics to find the middle ground.
What I do know is that the political process has failed to deliver government we can afford. On that point it’s not nearly so important to me how big the government is, as it is that however big it is that we, as a nation, be willing to pay for it. If people want more social services, or a bigger military, or more whatever than I want, is that’s the consensus, fine; so long as we pay for what we want. In that respect, Republicanism has been a terrible disappointment. I can only hope that President Obama can do better. In my view, wishing for anything else would be unpatriotic.
28 Thernstrom // Jan 20, 2009 at 7:08 pm
David– Perfect. As I just wrote to Danielle on Facebook, we had to bow out of your party tonight because instead of going into the District, we went out to Andrews Air Force Base to witness another corner of this extraordinary inauguration. Totally exhausted; eight freezing hours in an airplane hangar. And am also nursing two op-eds; can’t leave the house. But, again, total agreement with your take on the speech. And love the idea of the New Majority. All congrats.
best, Abby
29 dsapp // Jan 20, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Where was the eloquence that all have discussed? The speech seemed disjointed and without focus. The delivery was halting and almost shrill at times.. I thought that he had a gifted speech writer.
30 sinz54 // Jan 20, 2009 at 7:33 pm
As to this issue of “smaller government” versus “effective government”: Conservatives don’t have to give up their dream of shrinking the size and scope of government–as long as they are prepared to make that government work effectively all through the process of its eventual downsizing.
That’s what hard-core conservatives since 1992 have been largely uninterested in doing. They see their job as dismantling, not streamlining, much of government. For example, as long as their long-range goal was the eventual elimination of the Cabinet Department of Education, they really didn’t care if the Department wasn’t helping any Americans get educated in the meantime. And those who favor a “Fair Tax” don’t care if the IRS is doing its job properly right now.
What conservatives failed to grasp was that Americans want their government to function effectively at all times, whether it’s growing, shrinking, or remaining static. The argument “Who cares if Agency XYZ is a mess, it’s going to disappear someday anyway” has turned out to be a political non-starter.
31 erasmuse // Jan 20, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Good post. One reason for the excitement is that not only are liberals enthusiastic, about the Obama of this spring, but conservatives are in hopeful suspense, wondering if Obama will betray those liberals now that he’s gotten elected. The address gave some comfort to both– I noticed Khe Sanh too– but I’m afraid the key sentence may have been this one:
” The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.”
This sentence says a lot. Obama thinks that the purpose of government is to help you find a job and cheap health care and make you be dignified in your retirement (what he means, of course by, “a retirement that is dignified” is not a dignified retirement, free of internet porn, pant suits, and trips to Las Vegas, but a wealthy retirement). In the past, Americans would have thought that government was for things like crime prevention and national defense, and that a government worked if it just managed not to *prevent* your from finding a job or cheap health care.
32 Neo // Jan 20, 2009 at 11:03 pm
“oft-expressed thought and repeat so many well-worn phrases”
You said it. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show intermixed Obama’s speech with those of Bush saying the same thing.
You must log in to post a comment.