Obama at the Plate
by billmon
Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 09:51:41 PM PST
Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
Barack Obama
Inaugural Address
January 20, 2009
- billmon's diary :: ::
In the end, maybe the speech didn't matter that much. I think he could have read the first 50 names out of the D.C. phone directory and gotten as much applause and as many approving nods from the babbling heads. Once again, although probably for the last time, who he is spoke louder than what he said.
But, to the extent the words today did matter, they weren't the ones I had expected to hear, which I thought was actually an encouraging sign -- although hardly a conclusive one.
Obama's previous "big" speeches (his coming out address to the 2004 convention in Boston, his acceptance speech last summer in Denver, his brief remarks on election night) had all led me to believe the theme once again would be unity, reconciliation, compromise -- along the lines of Lincoln's desperate appeal to the "mystic chords of memory," or Jefferson's attempt to gloss over partisan differences after the brutal and potentially disastrous election of 1800 ("we are all federalists; we are all republicans.")
But that wasn't it at all. What the supposed cynics like to call "all that Kumbaya shit" (but which the real cynics, like yours truly, suspect is actually a cooly executed strategem to grab the upper partisan hand by monopolizing the bipartisan label) was almost wholly lacking. Gone missing was the by-now customary reference to states that are neither red nor blue, but united. Previous promises to be the president even of those who did not vote for him were not repeated.
Indeed, other than a cursory (and just short of curt) thank you to the incredible shrinking ex-president, and a weary list of the various disasters bequeathed to him (and us) by eight years of Rovian misrule, there was no mention whatsoever of the opposition, loyal or otherwise. But I think they -- as well as his erstwhile allies in the Democratic Congress -- were the intended audience for his remarks, not the million or so crammed into the National Mall, or the millions more watching on TV.
When Obama said "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," I was tempted to mentally add the phrase "or else" at the end -- because to me it almost sounded like a threat. When he said that "our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions . . . has surely passed," the impression I got wasn't of a man looking at his watch, but rather of a boss getting ready to check some time cards. Where the babbling heads saw a "somber" and "serious" new president, I thought I saw a "stern" and, who knows, maybe even a hint of a "steely" one.
I realize I may be reading too much into the words and the tone -- in a speech that may have meant little and mattered less. Maybe I'm just looking for some imaginary fulfillment of my long-frustrated wish for a tough, disciplined progressive leader with the will, the skill and the power to take names and crack heads, if necessary. "Make 'em feel the heat and they'll see the light," Ronald Reagan used to say -- with a toothy smile, but believe me, nobody in Washington during his first term treated it as a joke.
Maybe such an animal -- a tough progressive -- is biologically impossible, like Dr. Doolittle's Pushmepullyou. Even using the words "tough" and "progressive" in the same sentence has a distinctly oxymoronic ring to it, at least in the context of the past eight (or 16 or 32) years in Washington. But it wasn't always so. There was a time when strong, crafty leaders like FDR and the Reuther brothers called the shots, and aggressive, even ruthless, liberal operatives like Tommy "the Cork" Corcoran and Jimmy Byrnes and Joe Rauh cheerfully applied the political brass knuckles, sending pudgy, terrified Republicans scurrying for cover. But that kind of liberal tough-guy political style seems to have died with Bobby Kennedy.
Can it ever be revived? I'd sure like to find out. A president with sky-high public approval ratings and a devoted grassroots following, possessed of a first-rate mind and temperament, in the middle of a financial crisis that has discredited corporate America and virtually disembowled conservative economic dogma, and with some of Chicago's most disciplined ward bosses on his payroll . . . well, you would think such a president would bring a pretty powerful left hook into the ring, right?
That president would let both his allies and his opponents know there is a larger purpose behind his centrist positioning and bipartisan rhetoric, that having pushed his approval ratings into the high 70s -- higher than any incoming president in recent memory -- and walled his most irreconcilable critics up in their own demented conspiracy theories (a ghetto they appear more than happy to live in)he intends to use those benefits to their maximum advantage -- negotiating when the process requires it, compromising when compromise is in the best interests of his overall program, but blasting obstructionists (be they diehard GOP wingnuts or two-faced Blue Dog cowards) to political kingdom come if he can. He might say it politely, or with a smile (ala Reagan) or even wrap it in lofty rhetoric, but the message would be clear.
At this point, though, the message is not clear. I thought I heard what I thought I heard; the talking heads think they heard something rather different -- a moralist scolding Washington for its wicked ways, rather than pragmatist signaling his intention to lower the boom on adversaries who block his path too long or too unreasonably.
Obama, meanwhile, just smiles his enigmatic smile, a sphinx in the desert of his own concealed purposes -- at least for a little while longer. If there is steel beneath that prenaturally calm face, he showed only the barest hint of it at the podium today. Appropriately so, given the occasion and the venue, but this is an arena and a culture that requires much blunter gestures (usually profane ones) to really get a message across.
Delivering that message (and the profanity that goes with it) directly to its intended targets would normally be the White House Chief of Staff's job. There don't seem to be many doubts about Rahm Emanuel's communication skills on that score, even with half a middle finger missing. (If anyone holds the promise of reviving the tough guy liberal mystique, it's Emanuel, which is why I appreciate the guy -- his corporate centrism notwithstanding. If he's a flawed vessel, so is his boss and his entire party, at least from my political perspective.)
But it's still up to the president to make the message credible, by demonstrating both the ability to accumulate power and a willinginess to use that power to hurt people who cross him -- or at least threaten them with political harm. If the "Kumbaya shit" ultimately helps Obama do that, so much the better. Better still if it actually paves the way for useful compromise, making the bully boy act unnecessarary.
But, as the cliche goes, this ain't beanbag. If our new president really aspires to fix a broken economy, provide national health care, find alternative energy sources, restore the rule of law, withdraw from Iraq, win in Afghanistan (we could argue about that last one, but these are his priorities, not mine) and otherwise remake America -- or at least get a start on the process during his first term -- at some point soon he'll need to become a lot more explicit about what he is willing to do to his fellow politicians, as well as with them, to make it happen.
Permalink | 105 comments