I assume like many Americans and people across the world, I eagerly anticipated President Obama's inaugural address. I have heard him on two memorably past occasions when his words, demeanor and themes--in short, his rhetoric--became transcendent with their possibilities of restoring what he more prosaically calls our "common purpose." With the stream of news reports that as President-elect, Mr. Obama had been studying the speeches from his predecessors, I was expecting at least an effort to attain his previously poetic efforts.
After listening to his speech today, however, I felt a keen sense of disappointment. President Obama referred to issues, but did so sounding like a policy analyst on C-SPAN rather than a President using a platform surrounded by a rapt audience to set a tone for those policies whose details will, of necessity, come later (given our predicaments, tomorrow seems the best time to start). In all his preparation, our new President paradoxically seemed to miss what the best Inaugural Addresses--and other memorable orations throughout history--have achieved.
Namely, how words can define and shape an era. President Lincoln, of course, combined a knowledge of biblical King James poetry, a belief in American destiny--itself arguable, but Mr. Lincoln believed we had it--and a Shakespearean sense of power to mold words that went beyond themselves at Gettysburg and on March 4, 1865. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan captured the tenor of their moments through well-crafted and delivered--in Ford's case, almost by accident--phrases, words and sentiments. Lyndon Johnson also did so as he addressed "the American promise" on March 15, 1865. As President Bill Clinton spoke in Oklahoma City near the first anniversary of the Murrah Federal Building bombing, ending his remarks with the words of a church hymn ("Farther Along"), it did not matter that the theology it suggests is, shall we say, less than intellectually adequate. President Clinton spoke to a theology of the human heart and reduced many of us to tears ( I listened to his words from a hospital lobby after visiting a parishioner).
Today at least, President Obama missed a chance to speak, as it were, to a theology of our common heart. We Americans--and the world itself--know and will look forward to a set of policy proposals that will be for our heads to decipher, discern and debate. No one need remind us that as a result of many reasons over many years, Americans and the world face byzantine problems that seem almost incomprehensible even to the most astute minds. We needed, in short, a poem that resembled a sermon today--or maybe the other way around. Instead, we got a laundry list.
As I listened to the President's speech, I was reminded of something I have understood as "becoming or being Presidential." It is evidently an awareness that the office goes beyond one person or one time and carries with it an inherent call to preserve its position to paraphrase historian Michael Beschloss, as "head of state and head of government." Lyndon Johnson, once he assumed the office, insisted that he deliver his speeches in a "presidential" manner and subsequently did not permit himself to appear relaxed, humorous and even anecdotal in his public addresses. It lessened his chances to effect the types of overall changes that he desired and, at least to a degree, contributed to his downfall in 1968. I am sure there are other instances in which the need to be "Presidential" has inhibited a given person from achieving all he wanted during a given term in the office.
Given, however, the extremely tenuous nature of the country at present, I think even the most disappointed of us will just shrug off President Obama's speech as reflective of his trying too hard, obvious nervousness (so was Chief Justice John Roberts, who was administering his first oath of office today) and awareness of the tasks that we have elected him to address. There will be other chances and, no doubt on some of them President Obama will render unto us the sermonic poetry of which he is capable. If what occurred today--and from what I hear on the radio, I seem to be in a small minority of disappointed listeners--becomes something of a metaphor for the development of his administration, however, President Obama may well be sitting where his predecessor did, but in four rather than eight years. I hope, as it were, that he governs better than I perceived him to have spoken.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"sounding like a policy analyst on C-SPAN rather than a President using a platform surrounded by a rapt audience."
I agree. Obama's strength is his speechmaking; he loses us when he combines Clinton-style "laundry lists" of policy issues with the poetry of singing to the high aspiration of Americans. Clnton was great at policy wonking and his long, long State of the Union addresses normally sounded like a laundry list. But, when the occasion called, he could deliver.
The same can be said of FDR:
People forget he was considered a lightweight mush-mouth by both the Left and the Right in 1932. People voted against Hoover, not FOR FDR. FDR's inaugaural speech seized the American conscience with his fiery determination and sharp focus.
Ronald Reagan: People knew where he stood by January 1981 but he summarized it all in "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."
Even GW, with his forgettable inaugaural addresses, gave a pitch-perfect post 9-11 address to Congress. GW is a poor speaker but he gave the best -- and most appropriate -- speech of his career when Americans were fearful of loose nukes and all the rest.
I'm sure Obama will have his future speechmaking "moments." Even I, no Obama fan, hope he does--but there is always the Jimmy Carter model. God save us from "malaise" and energy conservation as "the moral equivalence of war."
As for me, I'm far more troubled by the idol worship by the same people who abhorred the "imperial presidency," not on principle but because the wrong emperor was in power. We need a reminder:
We are a republic ("if you can keep it," said Franklin) not an Empire. Those who hope for miracles from politicians ought to read Marcus Aurelius (the last "good Roman emperor-philosopher"). Or George Washington who could have had monarchical titles and refused. THAT is the America I hope we recover. And it doesn't cost trillions in fiat currency. lol
Did I miss mention of the (white) mother and (white) grandmother who raised him? I heard him mention his "deadbeat dad about 8 times but it is shameful not to credit one's true parents.
His family demonstrates "content of character," but he would do well to distant himself from those who promote him as the dark-skinned Messiah -- the ceremonies were all about skin color, not content of character.
Moreover, even if one were the "first [whatever] president" keep some humility and perspective. It is a dangerous thing when the media and educated elites believe the King can turn back the ocean waters if he merely will it. Recall the story of King Canute. Stop listening to sycophants or end up as our last president. He, too, was popular in his time.
Post a Comment