I was more remarking that other Americans seemed to be indifferent, whereas the people from our neighbor to the North seem to actually care. That’s kinda sad for Americans, and I think shows that Canada has a consciousness. Most Americans don’t seem to pay attention to ANYBODY’S politics unless there’s an (American) election going on.
In general, I find that Canadians are far more interested in American politics than Canadian ones. Our politicians are uniformly boring, and we narrowly missed having as prime minister someone who could make you fall asleep just by looking at him.
I went to DC to be there, and on our way into DC from Maryland somebody fell in front of a train and they shut down the rails for a bit. We barely got into the city in time to see it at a bar. :\ still cool though, lots of good energy, and everybody at the bar was having a good time.
I ended up watching the inauguration in my college library’s cafe. It was proof that life is inherently ironic - after all the buildup, it gets flubbed!(the Chief Justice put a wrong word at the end, and Obama actually retook the oath quietly yesterday to insure there were no legal complications!).
I think Roberts partially flubbed because of the earlier misstep in the oath with Obama thinking Roberts was stopping for him to recite the oath when Roberts continued on with a little more of the line.
I do appreciate the retaking of the oath. I think this was the third time the oath has been flubbed, and each time it was met with a re-do. Not sure about that. I’ve heard it was flubbed before then retaken, but I don’t know how accurate that was.
I strongly disagree with your assessment of the inaugural speech. I felt that it served critical insight into the challenges that the nation is facing, but most importantly, was marked with honest and pragmatic language. It’s one of the few speeches he’s done which made me nod not in acknowledgment of his rhetorical prowess, but something far more important; his articulation of the tough times ahead and the long road ahead of us and the need for our country to go back to work.
He told the America the truth; he put the present economic crisis not at the doorstep of the government but at the feet of the our own society’s foolish decision making - he noted how America is in decline and that we’re going to have to earn our way back to the place in the world we once had. It was a well-presented and well-manufactured piece of political theater which served it’s purpose of articulating the philosophy of the next Administration.
I thought the persuasive aspect of the address was not only apparent but effective. I disagree with some of Obama’s political points, but I loved the veiled manner in which he attempted ot persuade those who are against the stimulus package; he harped back to the American legacy of exceptionalism not by default but through hard work. He persuaded people to agree with his policies by persuading the American people that we’ve overcome incredible challenges like this before and we can do it again.
His speech on race was great, don’t get me wrong but I honestly think it’s way, way too overhyped. What did he persuade you about? That disowning Reverend Wright would be tantamount to disowning his own grandmother? In that case, the persuasion was a moot point - in the end, he DID disown Reverend Wright and the church in Chicago. It was a very personal and honest speech (which was what was needed to get his campaign through that troubled period) but one that I could kind of just shrug at once I took off the pretty wrapping and looked at the principles of the speech itself; yeah, we have a dark legacy in America when it comes to race and minorities have legitimate grievances; even if some use inflammatory language, you need to understand what’s at the root of that sentiment and approach it with sensitivity.
One of the reasons why that speech failed to get as much appreciation from me as it did from the establishment is because you can’t grow up in America as a minority without understanding all of that already. It’s a truly complicated feeling and it goes unsaid. I give Obama credit for attempting to uncover it a little, but if it wasn’t so rare for politicians to speak to us about race like we have an IQ then this wouldn’t be such a big deal. That speech was so obviously done as a reaction to the Reverend Wright controversy and a way for the Obama campaign to get it’s groove back after the trainwreck. It wasn’t done with some plan for fixing the problems faced by this country. It wasn’t done to articulate some way for us to change the way we view race. It was done as a brilliant campaign move which was trademark Obama - rhetorical flashes imbued with a few grains of truth, but in the end, not really amounting to anything.
Obama only touched race once in the inauguration and from now on you will probably never hear a call about opening a meaningful debate about race. Which is fine. That kind of call isn’t the most important thing right now. I’m just as mad as others about Jena 6 and I can understand why the rioters in Oakland did what they did when that young man was killed by the police. I’m also acutely aware of the fact that very few of the white people who are reading this post may even know what I’m referring too - and while that’s sad, I can accept that because what’s more important is getting this country to believe in itself again and start working again.
It was a substantive speech which harkened back to America’s legacy not merely as points of reference but as a means to persuade us that we can truly be great again. That’s the speech of a leader.
…Be careful about assessing Obama’s Congressional support as being as secure as you think. Larry Summers got a wake up call when he talked to Congressional Democrats about the bailout legislation. Obama has already had to cut out the business credit he was going to add to the legislation and he might have had to recall some of the tax cuts that were going to be part of the legislation. The grassroots uproar over bailouts and stimulus packages is legendary; I thought the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 uproar was bad (and a bit unwarranted) but this shrinks that in comparison. It was said that there would be an honest review of every part of the stimulus package in the Congress in order to adhere to the transparency the Obama Administration is calling for; if that happens, congressional members may feel comfortable enough to use up a great deal of political capital to vote for 850 billion dollars to be spent on top of the 350 billion on the other half of the TARP program.
Don’t underestimate how afraid both Democrat and Republican Congressional members are of having to deal with campaign ads connecting them to bailouts in 2010. They care more about thier political survival than Obama’s agenda.
I love politics.
he harped back to the American legacy of exceptionalism not by default but through hard work.
America being the only hard-working nation.
Anyway, I’d think making economic plans to overcome the crisis is compatible with not shooting restrained commuters.
Did I say that America was the only hard working nation? No. If I believed that I wouldn’t imply it, I would just say it. I meant what I said; we find our way as a nation when we are willing to work hard and sacrifice, any nation that does the same can make a difference.
There is acknowledgment of tough times, yes, but not critical insight. I agree that the speech articulates sentiments that are in line with the current national sentiments: like cheerleaders voice sentiments in line with those of a football crowd, or a rock star voices sentiments in line with those of a young & densely packed audience. At best, the speech affirms our feelings about the state of the US, and offers a list of policies that will ostensibly fix the problems. But critical insight, there was not. Let’s go through the speech.
The words [of the oath] have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.
I would castigate this sort of pseudo-poetics in a poem. “Still waters of peace?” “Rising tides of prosperity?” Obama opens with one of the most bland and generic metaphors in all of poetry: the state of the people as the state of the sea. Surely, if Lincoln could come up with the “mystic chords of memory,” Obama can do better than “gathering clouds and raging storms.” I suppose the idea is that we just need to ride out this “storm” like any other storm: accept that times will be tough for a while. Fair enough, but hardly a “critical insight” to the times.
At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
So the <i>people</i> must remain true to our founding documents. Generally, one expects the <i>government</i> to remain true to the Constitution that frames it. Does Obama mean that the people should face opposition with a spirit of rugged independence, as in the Declaration of Independence? Does he mean we should continue to support a government that is intended to “insure domestic tranquility,” “promote the general welfare,” and “secure the blessings of liberty” as the Preamble states? Let’s see how he’ll explain this.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
Wait, what does this have to do with the founding documents and the people? Obama just exhorted us to “remain true to the founding documents” to fix the nation’s problems. Now he’s listing the problems. Maybe next he’ll make the connection?
As a side note, notice how Obama resorts to the blandest and most obvious characterizations of every problem. “Greed and irresponsibility” and “failure to make hard choices” harmed the economy. Obama sounds like McCain here, and he’s missing the same critical point: the same “greed” that politicians now condemn is the “rational self-interest” that they and economists laud for creating a robust market in more prosperous times. Politicians, economists and banks encouraged people to invest in housing because they <i>thought it would pay off</i>, and they had decent reasons for thinking so. For all the reasons we discussed in the Financial Crisis thread, that plan flopped. But to blame “greed and irresponsibility” is a cop-out. Blame the gambler in human nature, that takes risk after risk knowing the self-destructive odds. Blame the lack of <i>foresight</i> that led the government to loosen regulation of risk-taking, and the failure of intelligence that led us to embrace an unwise investment scheme. But don’t invoke morality through words like “greed,” as though some insidious evil were behind our dilemmas.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.
I had hoped we would leave behind this triumphalism with George W. Bush. But I can forgive little pep rallies like this, if they’re supported by substantive reasons. Maybe Obama intends to explain exactly how we will meet future challenges. But I still don’t understand the “founding documents” reference.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, 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. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
No, Obama does not explain our future challenges. Instead, he “zooms out” to avoid being specific. We must abandon “worn out dogmas” and “set aside childish things.” What worn out dogmas? What childish things? Frankly, the worn out, childish dogma I’m tired of hearing from politicians is inspirational Biblical quotations that are vague enough to apply to <i>any</i> situation. It’s <i>always</i> the time to set aside childish things and worn out dogmas. The question is what we need to do now to address the specific problems that confront us. But Obama doesn’t go there.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
Work hard, get your just reward, etc. These banalities don’t get us anywhere. If anything, Obama misses a critical point: that the progress of society has been a result of all the “shortcuts” it found. Technology, and technical language and concepts, are the fruit of enormous labor. But the impulse behind that labor was to find shortcuts. For every investment bank whose shortcut to reliable income failed, there’s a Google or Amazon whose shortcut to efficient use of time & resources has succeeded.
Then there’s the glaring self-contradiction: he says it’s the “risk-takers” who’ve brought us to “prosperity.” What’s the difference between risk-taking and the “irresponsibility” he condemns earlier as the source of our financial crisis? Only the cleverness with which one acts upon that gambling spirit. When it works, it’s innovative risk-taking. When it fails, it’s greedy irresponsibility. So we need to make more clever choices. What specific choices does Obama have in mind? He lists some policies, but hardly explains his choices.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.
“When I was your age, I marched 10 miles every day through waist-deep snow!” etc. Yes, it was soo bad in the past, and if our ancestors could take it, we can too. But what does this tell us that Thomas the Tank Engine couldn’t? This speech offers variations on “I think [strike]I[/strike] we can, I think [strike]I[/strike] we can,” ad infinitum.
The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
This is better. Create infrastructure-related jobs – check. Improve transportation & communication infrastructure – check. Invest in science – check. Hope that science lowers health care cost – check. Build solar and wind power plants – check. Invest in schools – check. This is an elegantly phrased list of policies, and the first substantive information Obama’s offered us. On the other hand, he provides no compelling explanation of why we should, say, invest in infrastructure, rather than provide larger tax cuts for small businesses. Or why we should invest in science rather than industry. Or why we should invest in schools, rather than offer a voucher system to let the market produce the best schools. Don’t get me wrong: I agree with most of these policies. But any kid who plays NationStates can list what policies he thinks are best. The trick is justifying them over other policies.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.
High school economics, day one, tells us this much. At best, Obama suggests our current system favors only the prosperous. What examples does he offer to support this, from the tax code, welfare & social security, or even just historical statistics on wealth? Nothing.
This has gone on long enough. There are decent moments later in the speech, where Obama alludes to torture, the Iraq war & Afghanistan, the Muslim world, developing nations, etc. Each section hints at a future U.S. policy, and gives a couple sentences of justification. There’s also more filler speech about “faith,” “selflessness,” “determination” & “kindness.” Excess of <i>faith</i> in what he felt was right led George W. Bush into the Iraq war. Too much <i>selflessness</i> would be the downfall of businesses that, especially now, we desperately need. <i>Determination</i> to win is what has kept us in Iraq. And excessive <i>kindness</i> is responsible for wasteful government spending on welfare & health care, which only ends up harming everyone. What we need now is for our leaders to think less in terms of vague, sentimental concepts like these, and more in terms of concrete cause and effect. And for all of Obama’s pseudo-poetic flourishes, and satisfying appeals to our sentiments, he fails to explain the causes behind our troubles, or why his policies would remedy the disastrous effects of the previous administration’s decisions.
So when you claim Obama “told America the truth,” maybe you’re right. But only because what he told us was impossible to falsify. He was too vague to present a target for argument. The speech affirmed our sentiments. But it only persuaded me that Obama <i>feels</i> the same way I do. And I wonder whether you found any more in the speech than that.
I dunno about you dude, but I didn’t expect critical insight and an laying out of the plans out of an inaugural speech. You expect too much, I think.
Originally Posted by Genericangstyposter
[i]
Quote:[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Rigmarole View Post
Well, you are an important trading partner of theirsThat’s globalisation for you: when America’s home market can impact the rest of the world, it’s no wonder the rest of the world is interested.
I was more remarking that other Americans seemed to be indifferent, whereas the people from our neighbor to the North seem to actually care. That’s kinda sad for Americans, and I think shows that Canada has a consciousness. Most Americans don’t seem to pay attention to ANYBODY’S politics unless there’s an (American) election going on.[/i][/QUOTE]
I blame it on the fact that for the last year and a half we’ve been besieged by the electoral process to the point of burnout. I’m just glad that we can finally put this baby to rest and focus on more important issues (like the Oscars).
Well putting aside all the inaugural stuff, I rather enjoyed Jon Stewart’s look at how FOX is treating Obama after only two days. (Canadian Comedy Network link, may not work for non-Canucks)
You could take clips from the same people who were at FOX seven years ago, remove mention to specific names and just leave in the titles of ‘President’ and etc, and think you were listening to completely different people. Not too surprising that this would happen eventually, but I was thinking FOX would wait at least a few weeks before making with crazy speculation and accusations.
Originally Posted by SpoonyBard
[i]Well putting aside all the inaugural stuff, I rather enjoyed Jon Stewart’s look at how FOX is treating Obama after only two days. (Canadian Comedy Network link, may not work for non-Canucks)You could take clips from the same people who were at FOX seven years ago, remove mention to specific names and just leave in the titles of ‘President’ and etc, and think you were listening to completely different people. Not too surprising that this would happen eventually, but I was thinking FOX would wait at least a few weeks before making with crazy speculation and accusations.[/i]
If they had waited that long they would’ve lost their entire audience. Of course I found TDS’s look at MSNBC’s coverage of MSNBC’s qualifications to cover MSNBC to be even more hilarious.
hate to say it but i felt that the election only had one outcome - mccain + palin were awful. obama was going to win regardless. so conspiracies aside it had to happen anyway
Obama’s secret to success is to be just as insipidly useless as most other candidates, but more aesthetically pleasing while he does it.
The problem doesn’t end at black and white, either; Colorado’s anti-Hispanic (well, it’s more anti-anyone-with-tan-skin-and-dark-wavy-hair-who-we-assume-to-be-an-illegal-immigrant) sentiment, among individuals and within the law itself, is so overt and transparent that only the fact that the popular groundswell is behind it could keep a system so flagrantly discriminatory in place; analyses of Reservation life get worse every year. Incidents are mirrored from across the country; the street across from my grandmother’s house is all-too-routinely vandalized because there are Mexican immigrants inside it, and when they call the police to report the smashed car windows or whatever new indignity has been done to their house, the husband has been taken in twice and held until the police can test the authenticity of his citizenship, so he has cause to be afraid of the people supposed to protect him.
I automatically assume everything out of a politician’s mouth, in public, is bullshit. So I didn’t pay much attention to Obama’s speech. Something I read about it later, though, was heartening: when talking about the different religious groups who are part of America’s tradition of diversity, Obama included the word “nonbelievers”. This is the first time an American president has ever even acknowledged the existence of atheists and agnostics in America, let alone included them in a positive framing of America’s religious diversity. That took balls.
re Obama’s race speech: It was impressive, but sort of pointless. Its not the president’s place to foster discussion. There’s enough of that going on already. The president has to come up with solutions. Its kind of silly for the president to say “we need to talk about race more, because God knows nobody’s got any solutions”. He’s implicitly saying that he doesn’t know what to do about America’s race problems, either. Even though it was honest.
I was just ribbing at the concept of exceptionalism, not at you.
Some of Obama’s rhetoric is disturbingly like Bush’s