Today, before a crowd of 1.6 million people in Washington, Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office to become the 44th President of the United States. After the oath itself (which was miserably and inexcusably flubbed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts), Obama, unflapped, delivered one of the most moving and poetic addresses of his career. A man known for his oratorical prowess, Obama was under tremendous pressure to deliver a history-making speech, and I believe that he succeeded completely.
I was particularly pleased with three parts of the speech: "For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and nonbelievers....that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity will reveal itself." Especially in light of recent events - the war in Gaza, the terror in Mumbai, the Arabs-on-a-plane fiasco - I believe the world needs a call to conscience and reminder of our common humanity. Also, for the first time, a Presidential Inaugural has briefly alluded to the politically forgotten masses, the millions throughout the country who, though they identify with no religion, hold fast to their values. Continued: Click "Read More"
Second, I appreciated Obama's call to the Muslim world, telling its leaders that "Your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." For the first time since 9/11, America's Commander-In-Chief understands that the Arab states cannot be twisted to fit the label of Evil Empire, that dialogue and cooperation even with those with whom we disagree is still possible.
Third, I appreciated his call to dictators and oppressors, saying that "We will extend our hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
As I watched this ceremony, I was filled with pride for my country. In eight years of Bush, I have witnessed only intellectually dishonest simplifications, an Us-versus-them mindset, and an inability and lack of desire to compromise and build bridges.
Listening to Aretha Franklin sing My Country Tis of Thee, the pieces finally began to fit together. Mere decades ago, Marion Anderson was barred from singing that same song in the same city simply on the basis of her race. This inspired Martin Luther King to lead the march on Washington and leave his prepared script to extemporaneously deliver the greatest speech in American history. Fourty years later, Barack Obama took the oath of office. Looking back, I realize that all too soon these historical dots will be connected and this election will cease to be fresh. Only now, when seen in the context of history, is the monumental nature of this apparent. Yet only now can I appreciate that this election is merely another stop on the road of history, and that, starting at noon today, the purpose is renewed.
This was a message not only for our nation, but also for the world. We need to find and come to terms with our common humanity, now more than ever.
8 comments:
My inaugural musings:
The inaugural address was good, but not earth-shattering. It contained one of only two things I wrote down during the speech, the call to the Muslim world that you mentioned. I noticed the mention of atheists in the speech, and it pleased me, as well.
I was not offended by the fact that Rick Warren specifically was speaking, but rather by the fact that not one but two religious leaders spoke at the inauguration of one of the most powerful secular world leaders, as well as by the prompting of "so help me God" at the end of the Oath of Office. I really wanted Obama to just say, "No. Not 'so help me God'. We're done bringing religion into our government", but I knew that would never happen. Grar.
Aretha Franklin was good, but I honestly couldn't help but think "God Save the Queen" along with the beginning of it. Also, I hate our national anthem. Itzhak Perlman and co. were excellent, though.
Finally, the one other thing I really didn't like: the Chair of the Joint Committee on Inauguration said, "The right of a people to choose its own leaders is the root of liberty". I disagree. I'm probably the only one who cared. Anyway...
What is at the root of liberty, then?
It would have been ridiculous if Obama, at the very end of the oath, has said, "so help me ALLAH! [Maniacal laughter]" Then, after the crowd erupted in absolute mania, he said, "Ha ha. Fooled you."
Would never happen in a million years, but would be priceless.
"What is at the root of liberty, then?"
The right to choose, period. Arguably, choosing a leader is giving up liberty by turning yourself into a follower, willing or unwilling.
But I like elections and voting systems and all the trappings of representative democracy. Where would we be without some contradictions?
Where would we be without contradictions? Social Contract theory, which I know you enjoy, explains the need for a government.
Life in a world without governments would be as Hobbes described it: nasty, brutish, and short. American government from the perspective of liberty is a grand compromise in which citizens sacrifice certain liberties for, among other things, the right not to face retribution from other for practicing the remaining ones.
If there were no laws against murder, you would be free - but there would be no society.
"Life in a world without governments would be as Hobbes described it: nasty, brutish, and short."
This is not necessarily true: it would (I theorize) be possible to build a society without also building a government that sacrifices liberty. Human beings are social creatures. It is true that there should be certain laws (e.g. against murder); however, it is equally possible to have those laws within a Rousseauvian democracy (which, I theorize, would be similar to an anarchist entity) as within an elected aristocracy (our representative democracy).
Combine my liking of Rousseau with my love of Mill plus my anarchist leanings and this is what you get.
My congratulations to Senator Obama:
Even Though I am a conservative (and the only one on this site, and rightly universally loathed) I support our president. But of course, only to the extent that he lives to his campaign promises of a bi-partisan, ethical administration. He is treading in very dangerous waters, between an alienation from the hard-left, or the center-right that have supported him thus far.
We'll see.
(PS. Thought you could get rid of me that easily?)
OK, I admit that I'm kind of late to join in the argument, but anyway:
"It is true that there should be certain laws (e.g. against murder)"
So are you an anarchist or not? Obviously you're missing something if you believe that in a governmentless society there willbe laws. Who will execute them, genius?
Post a Comment