Category: Religion and History
Posted by: an okie gardener
Story here from Reuters.
Hard to be a Christian in a Muslim land. The article's explanation, Turkish secularism, only covers 80 years of the last 1000. At one time all of present-day Turkey was a Christian land. Then Islamic conquests reduced Christians to second-class citizens--dhimmis--and their numbers have dwindled since.
Good luck with that E.U. membership thing Turkey.
Hard to be a Christian in a Muslim land. The article's explanation, Turkish secularism, only covers 80 years of the last 1000. At one time all of present-day Turkey was a Christian land. Then Islamic conquests reduced Christians to second-class citizens--dhimmis--and their numbers have dwindled since.
Good luck with that E.U. membership thing Turkey.
Dan Gerstein, writing on Forbes.com, had it exactly right today: the "real story within the stimulus bill drama is the power jockeying going on within the Democratic family." Put it another way, the unfolding relationship between the Obama White House and the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, provides the key to understanding the course and character of the next eight years. Ironically, as Gerstein points out, this conflict is also the most neglected story in the Federal City right now.
First, how important is the stimulus package itself? Not very. Spending a trillion dollars we don't have is mostly a bad idea, but, nevertheless, one whose time has come. Whether we borrow another trill to sod the National Mall, make Planned Parenthood facilities more available to poor people in need of dignified abortions, or build bridges and roads, none of the details are very important.
We know it will pass. We can also safely assume that it will NOT have a salutary effect on the economy. But we can also predict that the economy will turn upward in the near term unrelated to the massive injection of federal money, the media will happily label the uptick the most astounding economic recovery of the modern age, credit the Obama administration for true genius, and laud the stimulus package as the vessel of our salvation.
2012: Happy Days will be here again. No matter what passes (and, once again, we all know something will pass), President Obama wins in the short term. America likes him. The media adores him. And we all want him to succeed.
But there is one trap he must avoid.
Barack Obama understands his political fortunes are directly related to how far he can distance himself from Nancy Pelosi and her extreme left-wing ideology.
Why?
San Francisco liberalism does not work--nor does it play well among regular Americans. Four years of Nancy Pelosi appearing weekly on Meet the Press setting his agenda is not a recipe for a successful Obama presidency. He cannot succeed politically or substantively, if Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, John Conyers, and Speaker Pelosi set the tone for his administration. She is arrogant, vindictive, and over confident. Her leadership means a punishing tenure for the minority in the House and a continuance of Bush Derangement Syndrome, featuring show trials and unhinged attacks on a villain in absentia. This will fly in the face of the post-partisan image Obama has so expertly crafted. In fact, such a circus might even be enough to blunt the unrelenting tide of disapproval for the beleaguered Forty-Three.
The President is an astute politician. He understands Pelosi is poison. He understands the public crucifixion of his predecessor (and/or our intelligence community) is a sideshow he does not need and cannot afford. Obama cannot allow the Old Radical Left in the House to run amok.
Can this President overcome his own party leadership?
I am encouraged by Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, as Emanuel seems to be the only Democrat in Washington who can stand up to the Speaker. How will they deal with her? A public humiliation of the Speaker at the hands of the Team Obama is highly unlikely; it is not their style--and it causes another set of problems. Nevertheless, there is a significant wrestling match going on right now between Pelosi and the White House, which Obama must win to be successful. He is fully aware of this, and I expect him to prevail.
The stimulus is an important test of this theory. As I say, a trillion dollar stimulus in any incarnation is an ill-conceived notion--but it is going to happen. The test is how much of the old Liberal rubbish Obama is willing to force us to choke down. How much of the most politically embarrassing elements of the package can the Obama forces trim away in the murky cloakrooms of the United States Senate? How well can he co-opt Republicans in order to insulate himself against future attacks.
None of this will be easy. Obama is now forced to make a transition from back-bencher with no real responsibility to the owner of the desk where the buck stops. He no longer has the luxury of blending in with the crowd. Now that he is irrevocably in the spotlight, he really does need to stand up as a "New Democrat" and make a break with the Left Coasters.
Let's see what happens.
First, how important is the stimulus package itself? Not very. Spending a trillion dollars we don't have is mostly a bad idea, but, nevertheless, one whose time has come. Whether we borrow another trill to sod the National Mall, make Planned Parenthood facilities more available to poor people in need of dignified abortions, or build bridges and roads, none of the details are very important.
We know it will pass. We can also safely assume that it will NOT have a salutary effect on the economy. But we can also predict that the economy will turn upward in the near term unrelated to the massive injection of federal money, the media will happily label the uptick the most astounding economic recovery of the modern age, credit the Obama administration for true genius, and laud the stimulus package as the vessel of our salvation.
2012: Happy Days will be here again. No matter what passes (and, once again, we all know something will pass), President Obama wins in the short term. America likes him. The media adores him. And we all want him to succeed.
But there is one trap he must avoid.
Barack Obama understands his political fortunes are directly related to how far he can distance himself from Nancy Pelosi and her extreme left-wing ideology.
Why?
San Francisco liberalism does not work--nor does it play well among regular Americans. Four years of Nancy Pelosi appearing weekly on Meet the Press setting his agenda is not a recipe for a successful Obama presidency. He cannot succeed politically or substantively, if Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, John Conyers, and Speaker Pelosi set the tone for his administration. She is arrogant, vindictive, and over confident. Her leadership means a punishing tenure for the minority in the House and a continuance of Bush Derangement Syndrome, featuring show trials and unhinged attacks on a villain in absentia. This will fly in the face of the post-partisan image Obama has so expertly crafted. In fact, such a circus might even be enough to blunt the unrelenting tide of disapproval for the beleaguered Forty-Three.
The President is an astute politician. He understands Pelosi is poison. He understands the public crucifixion of his predecessor (and/or our intelligence community) is a sideshow he does not need and cannot afford. Obama cannot allow the Old Radical Left in the House to run amok.
Can this President overcome his own party leadership?
I am encouraged by Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, as Emanuel seems to be the only Democrat in Washington who can stand up to the Speaker. How will they deal with her? A public humiliation of the Speaker at the hands of the Team Obama is highly unlikely; it is not their style--and it causes another set of problems. Nevertheless, there is a significant wrestling match going on right now between Pelosi and the White House, which Obama must win to be successful. He is fully aware of this, and I expect him to prevail.
The stimulus is an important test of this theory. As I say, a trillion dollar stimulus in any incarnation is an ill-conceived notion--but it is going to happen. The test is how much of the old Liberal rubbish Obama is willing to force us to choke down. How much of the most politically embarrassing elements of the package can the Obama forces trim away in the murky cloakrooms of the United States Senate? How well can he co-opt Republicans in order to insulate himself against future attacks.
None of this will be easy. Obama is now forced to make a transition from back-bencher with no real responsibility to the owner of the desk where the buck stops. He no longer has the luxury of blending in with the crowd. Now that he is irrevocably in the spotlight, he really does need to stand up as a "New Democrat" and make a break with the Left Coasters.
Let's see what happens.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
As I reflect on this question, I realize that I am defining qualities needed to be a great president. My previous posts:
From Polk: the ability to analyze a situation rationally and act accordingly, the willingness to go against one's own party if deemed necessary, and the steadiness to hold to rational goals. In Farmer's words, "a keen sense for the possible."
From Lincoln: recognize the greatest challenge and hold to the imperative it generates, communicate goals as they evolve in a way that ties them in with our national story, and acknowledge that there is a purpose in history that transcends our own plans.
Today, George Washington, the First and the Exemplary President.
Many, many things have been said concerning Washington. I would like to focus on three.
First, Washington was very aware that his every word and deed would be watched, and would set an example. He responded with thoughtful, careful behavior and speech. Even though no other president is going to set the pattern for office the way Washington had to do, every president is closely watched both by those at home and those abroad. There is no room for the careless word or action. In today's 24-7 cable, radio, and internet era, not only foreign diplomats and members of the federal government, but ordinary citizens will be parsing, interpreting, reading-between-the-lines, of every word and deed.
Second, Washington was committed to the principle that private interest must be subordinated to the public good. He did not govern with a "what is in it for me?" or "what is in it for my group?" attitude. Washington truly wanted to do the right thing for the good of the new nation. We want such an attitude in our presidents; and in the long view of history, only a president that can transcend the desire for personal glory and partisan gain will be judged great.
Third, Washington knew how to quit. He voluntarily set aside the power of office to return to private life. Granted that his health was failing after he left the presidency, I still cannot imagine him trying for a third term, or searching for any way possible to stay in the public eye. He was our Cincinnatus.
From Washington: act according to the knowledge that every word and move will be watched closely and can have far-reaching effects, place the public good over private interest, and know how to leave the stage.
From Polk: the ability to analyze a situation rationally and act accordingly, the willingness to go against one's own party if deemed necessary, and the steadiness to hold to rational goals. In Farmer's words, "a keen sense for the possible."
From Lincoln: recognize the greatest challenge and hold to the imperative it generates, communicate goals as they evolve in a way that ties them in with our national story, and acknowledge that there is a purpose in history that transcends our own plans.
Today, George Washington, the First and the Exemplary President.
Many, many things have been said concerning Washington. I would like to focus on three.
First, Washington was very aware that his every word and deed would be watched, and would set an example. He responded with thoughtful, careful behavior and speech. Even though no other president is going to set the pattern for office the way Washington had to do, every president is closely watched both by those at home and those abroad. There is no room for the careless word or action. In today's 24-7 cable, radio, and internet era, not only foreign diplomats and members of the federal government, but ordinary citizens will be parsing, interpreting, reading-between-the-lines, of every word and deed.
Second, Washington was committed to the principle that private interest must be subordinated to the public good. He did not govern with a "what is in it for me?" or "what is in it for my group?" attitude. Washington truly wanted to do the right thing for the good of the new nation. We want such an attitude in our presidents; and in the long view of history, only a president that can transcend the desire for personal glory and partisan gain will be judged great.
Third, Washington knew how to quit. He voluntarily set aside the power of office to return to private life. Granted that his health was failing after he left the presidency, I still cannot imagine him trying for a third term, or searching for any way possible to stay in the public eye. He was our Cincinnatus.
From Washington: act according to the knowledge that every word and move will be watched closely and can have far-reaching effects, place the public good over private interest, and know how to leave the stage.
27/01: Time to Govern
What do Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt have in common?
I would have voted against every one of them. As a conservative Federalist-Whig-Republican, given the opportunity to cast a vote, I am fairly confident I would have selected John Adams over TJ in 1800, John Quincy Adams over Old Hickory in 1828, Henry Clay over Jackson in 1832, William Howard Taft over Wilson (and Teddy) in 1912, Charles Evans Hughes over Wilson in 1916, Hoover over FDR in 1932, and Landon, Wilke, and Dewey in 1936, 1940, and 1944.
Want to hear something crazy? Even knowing everything I know now, I would still vote the same way given the chance.
What else do Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson and Roosevelt have in common?
They were American heroes and great (or near-great, at the very least) Presidents.
Barack Obama is not out to destroy the United States. Yes. He identifies with the Democratic Party--and that fact of life carries a distinct meaning, but, taken in the long view, hopefully, he is no more a threat to American liberty than the other aforementioned Democratic standard-bearers.
That is, even though Hamilton and Adams felt certain that Thomas Jefferson was a wild-eyed Jacobin who would carelessly squander the hard-won gains of the Revolution, Jefferson's political opponents were wrong. Even though John Quincy Adams sincerely believed that the boorish frontiersman, Andrew Jackson, lacked the refinement or capacity to govern the United States, and Henry Clay genuinely thought that the Hero of New Orleans was a dangerous "man on horseback" along the lines of Caesar, Cromwell, and Napoleon, Jackson's opponents were wrong.
You get my point. In the heat of the battle, we Americans are inclined to believe some fairly unreasonable things about our opponents.
Let's all take a deep breath. The campaign is over. It is time to govern.
Footnote (just for the record): it is possible that I might have voted for Jefferson in 1804.
UPDATE: Thanks to HNN for linking us as one of the "quotes of the week."
I would have voted against every one of them. As a conservative Federalist-Whig-Republican, given the opportunity to cast a vote, I am fairly confident I would have selected John Adams over TJ in 1800, John Quincy Adams over Old Hickory in 1828, Henry Clay over Jackson in 1832, William Howard Taft over Wilson (and Teddy) in 1912, Charles Evans Hughes over Wilson in 1916, Hoover over FDR in 1932, and Landon, Wilke, and Dewey in 1936, 1940, and 1944.
Want to hear something crazy? Even knowing everything I know now, I would still vote the same way given the chance.
What else do Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson and Roosevelt have in common?
They were American heroes and great (or near-great, at the very least) Presidents.
Barack Obama is not out to destroy the United States. Yes. He identifies with the Democratic Party--and that fact of life carries a distinct meaning, but, taken in the long view, hopefully, he is no more a threat to American liberty than the other aforementioned Democratic standard-bearers.
That is, even though Hamilton and Adams felt certain that Thomas Jefferson was a wild-eyed Jacobin who would carelessly squander the hard-won gains of the Revolution, Jefferson's political opponents were wrong. Even though John Quincy Adams sincerely believed that the boorish frontiersman, Andrew Jackson, lacked the refinement or capacity to govern the United States, and Henry Clay genuinely thought that the Hero of New Orleans was a dangerous "man on horseback" along the lines of Caesar, Cromwell, and Napoleon, Jackson's opponents were wrong.
You get my point. In the heat of the battle, we Americans are inclined to believe some fairly unreasonable things about our opponents.
Let's all take a deep breath. The campaign is over. It is time to govern.
Footnote (just for the record): it is possible that I might have voted for Jefferson in 1804.
UPDATE: Thanks to HNN for linking us as one of the "quotes of the week."
27/01: John Updike Is Dead
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
John Updike has died of lung cancer. One of the great American novelists whose work should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the United States in the latter half of the twentieth century.
TIME obituary.
Powerline remembrance.
Updike read and was influence by the great Neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth. He even once remarked that Barth's theology "at one point in my life, seemed alone to be supporting it [my life]."
Here is an article from Theology Today that can serve as an introduction to Updike and Barth.
"Updike doesn't preach. He tells realistic stories with symbolic and theological overtones that, in effect, invite us to enter the discussion ourselves. Here we are invited to consider the goodness of our relationship with God. God's partnership with us in the covenant of grace disclosed in Christ does not, as has been said, solve our many problems. Yet, within our bloodsoaked world, it does give us a place to stand. Only goodness lives. But it does live. God is God and may be trusted to fill our lives with radiance and the world with joy. "
Here is another introduction to Updike as a Christian novelist with a Barthian perspective.
The novelist John Updike is a Christian, but not a Christian novelist in the sense that his work forces an explicitly Christian message onto the reader. On the contrary, precisely because Updike is a Christian he believes the novelist should portray the human condition with unsparing honesty, expressing his "basic duty to God" in writing "the most truthful and fullest books" he can.1 One therefore looks in vain for clear, morally uplifting, spiritually stirring messages in Updike's fiction. At the same time, a powerful theological dimension can be seen running through his work: subtle but profound, invisible yet constantly present, giving Updike's uninhibited report of the human condition a specifically Christian perspective.
John Updike, R.I.P.
TIME obituary.
Powerline remembrance.
Updike read and was influence by the great Neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth. He even once remarked that Barth's theology "at one point in my life, seemed alone to be supporting it [my life]."
Here is an article from Theology Today that can serve as an introduction to Updike and Barth.
"Updike doesn't preach. He tells realistic stories with symbolic and theological overtones that, in effect, invite us to enter the discussion ourselves. Here we are invited to consider the goodness of our relationship with God. God's partnership with us in the covenant of grace disclosed in Christ does not, as has been said, solve our many problems. Yet, within our bloodsoaked world, it does give us a place to stand. Only goodness lives. But it does live. God is God and may be trusted to fill our lives with radiance and the world with joy. "
Here is another introduction to Updike as a Christian novelist with a Barthian perspective.
The novelist John Updike is a Christian, but not a Christian novelist in the sense that his work forces an explicitly Christian message onto the reader. On the contrary, precisely because Updike is a Christian he believes the novelist should portray the human condition with unsparing honesty, expressing his "basic duty to God" in writing "the most truthful and fullest books" he can.1 One therefore looks in vain for clear, morally uplifting, spiritually stirring messages in Updike's fiction. At the same time, a powerful theological dimension can be seen running through his work: subtle but profound, invisible yet constantly present, giving Updike's uninhibited report of the human condition a specifically Christian perspective.
John Updike, R.I.P.
Category: General
Posted by: Tocqueville
So warns Tony Blankley of the Washington Times:
President Obama is a beguiling but confounding figure. As he has said of himself: "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” (”The Audacity of Hope.”) It is indeed audacious that he should proclaim this consciously disingenuous attribute. And, as one reads his inaugural address, it is hard not to conclude that it was shrewdly crafted to perpetuate such confusion.
Run-of-the-mill politicians try to hide their duplicity. Only the most gifted of that profession brag that they intend to confound and confuse the public. Such an effort is beyond ingenious - it is brazenly ingenuous.
And it is working. Many of my fellow conservative commentators are embarrassingly eager to search Mr. Obama's words, groveling for hopeful signs that he is not a radical intent on changing the face and nature of our republic. Some of our Tory conservatives have clung to his words (”hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism-these things are old. These things are true”) as evidence of a deep conservatism.
Other smitten conservative commentators take false comfort from his reference to George Washington's “small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shore of an icy river.” Free-market conservatives point hopefully - pathetically - to the first clauses of his words: “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.” That “watchful eye” he calls for may be as benign as Teddy Roosevelt's anti-monopoly policies, or it could be as constricting as French Socialism - or worse. Mr. Obama offers philosophical hope to all.
And how easily (willingly?) some of our fellow conservative commentators are seduced to believe the good parts and hope away the bad bits.
(More after the jump . . .)
President Obama is a beguiling but confounding figure. As he has said of himself: "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” (”The Audacity of Hope.”) It is indeed audacious that he should proclaim this consciously disingenuous attribute. And, as one reads his inaugural address, it is hard not to conclude that it was shrewdly crafted to perpetuate such confusion.
Run-of-the-mill politicians try to hide their duplicity. Only the most gifted of that profession brag that they intend to confound and confuse the public. Such an effort is beyond ingenious - it is brazenly ingenuous.
And it is working. Many of my fellow conservative commentators are embarrassingly eager to search Mr. Obama's words, groveling for hopeful signs that he is not a radical intent on changing the face and nature of our republic. Some of our Tory conservatives have clung to his words (”hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism-these things are old. These things are true”) as evidence of a deep conservatism.
Other smitten conservative commentators take false comfort from his reference to George Washington's “small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shore of an icy river.” Free-market conservatives point hopefully - pathetically - to the first clauses of his words: “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.” That “watchful eye” he calls for may be as benign as Teddy Roosevelt's anti-monopoly policies, or it could be as constricting as French Socialism - or worse. Mr. Obama offers philosophical hope to all.
And how easily (willingly?) some of our fellow conservative commentators are seduced to believe the good parts and hope away the bad bits.
(More after the jump . . .)
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Pew Forum has this summary of the results of their 2007 survey on abortion views. There is a strong correlation between religious identification and the position held. The most support for legal abortion comes from those who identify as Jews. The least support comes from Jehovah's Witnesses. Even stronger is the correlation between practice and position, with 61% of those who attend services weekly opposing abortion.
Overall, U.S. citizens polled at 18% favoring legal aborion in all cases, 35% legal in most cases, 24% illegal in most cases, and 16% illegal in all cases.
For those of us on the Pro-Life side, the most heartening statistic is that less than 1 in 5 Americans favors completely unrestricted legal aborion, and 3 out of 4 favor some restriction.
Overall, U.S. citizens polled at 18% favoring legal aborion in all cases, 35% legal in most cases, 24% illegal in most cases, and 16% illegal in all cases.
For those of us on the Pro-Life side, the most heartening statistic is that less than 1 in 5 Americans favors completely unrestricted legal aborion, and 3 out of 4 favor some restriction.
The Pew Forum has a chart listing the religious affiliation of U.S. presidents. Episcopalians are the largest group, way above their proportion in the general population. Presbyterians also are over-represented.
Unitarians also are present in numbers far above their share of the population, though none more recent than Taft. Unitarians are the only non-Christian group present, denying the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ.
Andrew Johnson was our last president without a formal religious affiliation, sharing that category with Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. I am not sure that we would elect someone without church membership to the White House today.
For what it's worth, Bill Clinton and Warren Harding both were/are Baptists.
I am not sure that Andrew Jackson is in the correct category. If I get ambitious tonight I'll try to check on it. UPDATE: According to Robert Remini Jackson's people were Presbyterian. He himself united with the Hermitage Presbyterian Church in 1838, after the White House. Had he been baptized as an infant? Remini does not say.
Unitarians also are present in numbers far above their share of the population, though none more recent than Taft. Unitarians are the only non-Christian group present, denying the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ.
Andrew Johnson was our last president without a formal religious affiliation, sharing that category with Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. I am not sure that we would elect someone without church membership to the White House today.
For what it's worth, Bill Clinton and Warren Harding both were/are Baptists.
I am not sure that Andrew Jackson is in the correct category. If I get ambitious tonight I'll try to check on it. UPDATE: According to Robert Remini Jackson's people were Presbyterian. He himself united with the Hermitage Presbyterian Church in 1838, after the White House. Had he been baptized as an infant? Remini does not say.
25/01: Beauty and Sorrow
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Infidel Bloggers' Alliance recently reminded me of a jazz standard I had forgotten: Charles Mingus' beautiful elegy in tribute to Lester Young entitled Good Bye Pork Pie Hat.
This tune touches me deeply.
Here is Mingus himself, leading an all-star group at Montreux in 1975. For those of you unfamiliar with him, Mingus is the one on bass.
Lester Young was a saxophonist who came to prominence in the Count Basie Band. Here is a brief bio intro. Here a bit longer one.
Charles Mingus, the brilliant, troubled and troubling, bassist was one of the great jazz composers.
Joni Mitchell was attracted to his work, and here is her performance of Goodbye Pork Pie Hat.
This tune touches me deeply.
Here is Mingus himself, leading an all-star group at Montreux in 1975. For those of you unfamiliar with him, Mingus is the one on bass.
Lester Young was a saxophonist who came to prominence in the Count Basie Band. Here is a brief bio intro. Here a bit longer one.
Charles Mingus, the brilliant, troubled and troubling, bassist was one of the great jazz composers.
Joni Mitchell was attracted to his work, and here is her performance of Goodbye Pork Pie Hat.
I have much to say about my trip to the Federal City. But, first, let me begin with an overview.
January 20, 2009. High Noon. There I was, standing with 1.8 million of my fellow Americans, wedged on the Mall between the Monument and the Memorial, with the Capitol as a backdrop, watching the 56th quadrennial American Inauguration of the 44th President of the United States.
My journey had been long and circuitous.
My pilgrimage began the day before in a parking lot on the campus of McLennan Community College in Waco, Texas. From there, eighteen of us flew 1200 miles from Austin to Baltimore-Washington International Airport, staying the night in College Park, Maryland, riding the Metro Green Line into the District the following morning, forced by overflow crowds to abandon the subway several stops short of our destination, walking west then north, then west then north again--and again, bellying around closed-off streets, eventually finding a clear artery onto the Mall.
There we stood, finally, on "America's front yard." But that famous pet name for the National Mall falls short of expressing the full power of the place, for the long stretch between Capitol Hill and the Potomac is not just a massive shared lawn--it is consecrated ground. We had arrived at the outer courtyard of the great temples of American democracy, independence, and our conception of justice, sprinkled throughout with shrines and tabernacles to our national accomplishments, sacrifices, heroes, and ideals.
We are suddenly quiet--even in the midst of the din of a million voices. Now we are ready to celebrate the most sacred rite in our political culture: the constitutionally prescribed installment of a popularly elected Chief Magistrate of the United States of America.
For all the rhetoric of bipartisanship, the crowd was primarily Democrats--not surprising and not necessarily unfitting. When Jimmy Carter appeared on the screen, they erupted with excitement and approval. When the Clintons came into focus, the boisterous multitudes screamed with glee. Bush-41 and Barbara: silence. Bush-43: snarling enmity. For the vast majority of these pilgrims, this is not a day to forgive easily or indiscriminately hail presidents in general. They had arrived with a palpable malice toward at least one. Perhaps one day they will feel more charitable toward Forty-Three--but this is not that moment. Again, no real surprise--and no offense taken.
The intermittent chant: O-bam-a. O-bam-a. O-bam-a.
An Aside: there is something unsettling about this brand of personal adulation. If this were a Republican crowd, it would be U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.
Rick Warren's invocation is long--but not offensive to the throng. The moment passes without comment.
Joe Biden becomes vice president. His voice is loud and clear, almost startling over the massive public address system.
There is a moment of high art. Yo-Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, and other musical luminaries play a stringed ditty to sooth the savage beast and prolong the moment of anticipation. Is it live? Or is it Memorex? Memorex, as it turns out.
Then there is Aretha--and her hat, which is somehow perfectly befitting in the great collage.
Then the Oath (including the "stumble"). The new President is nothing if not a gracious man--in the big picture, this is very good news for the nation and carries a whole host of positive ramifications.
We are packed in--tighter and tighter as the climactic moment of transfer draws near. By the time Obama raises his hand we are pressed together snugly, straining to see through the smaller and smaller cracks in the wall of humanity. Every time Dianne Feinstein, master of ceremonies, gives permission for the audience to "sit down," the mob on the Mall roars with laughter and Bronx cheers.
Then the address: it is wonderfully traditional, subtlety stressing continuity over change. Inaugurations, of course, were not intended as victory parties; rather, they provide an institutional moment for renewal and re-dedication to the principles of the Revolution and the hard realities of constitutional governance. The lofty rhetoric of the address is properly replete with echoes of FDR and JFK and a host of other former chief executives and ancient Greeks and Romans. The newly remastered words roll over the crowd, plucking "mystic chords of memory connecting every living heart with every patriot's grave," perfectly tailored for ceremonial re-absorption into the collective American canon.
Early on in the speech, I am aware of a man in front of me. He is about my age. He is above-average height, with a relatively athletic build, and white. He is with his wife. They both carry themselves with a confidence that leads me to guess that they are comfortable professionals. I imagine both of them to be alumni of some prestigious institution of higher learning. By the end of the address, they will both be crying--and happily taking digital photographs of their tear-stained faces. But before that, the man is holding a small American flag above his head. Following a few early Obama oratorical high points, the man smiles down at his wife and observes, with great irony, "look at me; I am now a flag-waving American."
A flag-waving American? Who would have believed it--I think I hear him saying. Prior to this moment, the patriotic pose had been for simpletons--the last refuge of a scoundrel. Clearly, this man was much too sophisticated to "wave the flag." Men and women of great intellect had taught him long ago that the emotional exhortations to nationalism were ill-intentioned broad-axes designed to manipulate ignoramuses in Kansas and other backward parts of Red-State America.
But there this man stands, inches away from me, waving his American flag, and wiping away the tears of joy streaming down his face. God Bless America? Could this really be the land of the free? Could it be possible that the creed is NOT merely a lie manufactured and promulgated by rich white men to obscure the issues of exploitation, racism, sexism, and corporate greed.
My most optimistic hope: this really is a new day.
For all the hackneyed talk of "history in real time," this time and place presents Barack Obama with a truly unique opportunity. His presidency has the potential to usher in a watershed moment in our modern national life. Might this be the dawning of a new era in which the several generations of citizens hyper skeptical of the "mythic" American narrative reconnect with a less antagonistic view of the American past?
It is a heavy burden--much too much to ask any one man to carry in our current milieu of ironic detachment. Nevertheless, I choose to believe this President sees the danger of our collective loss of faith and plans on pursuing a rigorous agenda of renewal.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
Are we on the cusp of a New American Patriotism?
"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray...."
My Prayer for US. My prayer for this President:
"With firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in."
May God Bless this President. May God Bless America.
January 20, 2009. High Noon. There I was, standing with 1.8 million of my fellow Americans, wedged on the Mall between the Monument and the Memorial, with the Capitol as a backdrop, watching the 56th quadrennial American Inauguration of the 44th President of the United States.
My journey had been long and circuitous.
My pilgrimage began the day before in a parking lot on the campus of McLennan Community College in Waco, Texas. From there, eighteen of us flew 1200 miles from Austin to Baltimore-Washington International Airport, staying the night in College Park, Maryland, riding the Metro Green Line into the District the following morning, forced by overflow crowds to abandon the subway several stops short of our destination, walking west then north, then west then north again--and again, bellying around closed-off streets, eventually finding a clear artery onto the Mall.
There we stood, finally, on "America's front yard." But that famous pet name for the National Mall falls short of expressing the full power of the place, for the long stretch between Capitol Hill and the Potomac is not just a massive shared lawn--it is consecrated ground. We had arrived at the outer courtyard of the great temples of American democracy, independence, and our conception of justice, sprinkled throughout with shrines and tabernacles to our national accomplishments, sacrifices, heroes, and ideals.
We are suddenly quiet--even in the midst of the din of a million voices. Now we are ready to celebrate the most sacred rite in our political culture: the constitutionally prescribed installment of a popularly elected Chief Magistrate of the United States of America.
For all the rhetoric of bipartisanship, the crowd was primarily Democrats--not surprising and not necessarily unfitting. When Jimmy Carter appeared on the screen, they erupted with excitement and approval. When the Clintons came into focus, the boisterous multitudes screamed with glee. Bush-41 and Barbara: silence. Bush-43: snarling enmity. For the vast majority of these pilgrims, this is not a day to forgive easily or indiscriminately hail presidents in general. They had arrived with a palpable malice toward at least one. Perhaps one day they will feel more charitable toward Forty-Three--but this is not that moment. Again, no real surprise--and no offense taken.
The intermittent chant: O-bam-a. O-bam-a. O-bam-a.
An Aside: there is something unsettling about this brand of personal adulation. If this were a Republican crowd, it would be U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.
Rick Warren's invocation is long--but not offensive to the throng. The moment passes without comment.
Joe Biden becomes vice president. His voice is loud and clear, almost startling over the massive public address system.
There is a moment of high art. Yo-Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, and other musical luminaries play a stringed ditty to sooth the savage beast and prolong the moment of anticipation. Is it live? Or is it Memorex? Memorex, as it turns out.
Then there is Aretha--and her hat, which is somehow perfectly befitting in the great collage.
Then the Oath (including the "stumble"). The new President is nothing if not a gracious man--in the big picture, this is very good news for the nation and carries a whole host of positive ramifications.
We are packed in--tighter and tighter as the climactic moment of transfer draws near. By the time Obama raises his hand we are pressed together snugly, straining to see through the smaller and smaller cracks in the wall of humanity. Every time Dianne Feinstein, master of ceremonies, gives permission for the audience to "sit down," the mob on the Mall roars with laughter and Bronx cheers.
Then the address: it is wonderfully traditional, subtlety stressing continuity over change. Inaugurations, of course, were not intended as victory parties; rather, they provide an institutional moment for renewal and re-dedication to the principles of the Revolution and the hard realities of constitutional governance. The lofty rhetoric of the address is properly replete with echoes of FDR and JFK and a host of other former chief executives and ancient Greeks and Romans. The newly remastered words roll over the crowd, plucking "mystic chords of memory connecting every living heart with every patriot's grave," perfectly tailored for ceremonial re-absorption into the collective American canon.
Early on in the speech, I am aware of a man in front of me. He is about my age. He is above-average height, with a relatively athletic build, and white. He is with his wife. They both carry themselves with a confidence that leads me to guess that they are comfortable professionals. I imagine both of them to be alumni of some prestigious institution of higher learning. By the end of the address, they will both be crying--and happily taking digital photographs of their tear-stained faces. But before that, the man is holding a small American flag above his head. Following a few early Obama oratorical high points, the man smiles down at his wife and observes, with great irony, "look at me; I am now a flag-waving American."
A flag-waving American? Who would have believed it--I think I hear him saying. Prior to this moment, the patriotic pose had been for simpletons--the last refuge of a scoundrel. Clearly, this man was much too sophisticated to "wave the flag." Men and women of great intellect had taught him long ago that the emotional exhortations to nationalism were ill-intentioned broad-axes designed to manipulate ignoramuses in Kansas and other backward parts of Red-State America.
But there this man stands, inches away from me, waving his American flag, and wiping away the tears of joy streaming down his face. God Bless America? Could this really be the land of the free? Could it be possible that the creed is NOT merely a lie manufactured and promulgated by rich white men to obscure the issues of exploitation, racism, sexism, and corporate greed.
My most optimistic hope: this really is a new day.
For all the hackneyed talk of "history in real time," this time and place presents Barack Obama with a truly unique opportunity. His presidency has the potential to usher in a watershed moment in our modern national life. Might this be the dawning of a new era in which the several generations of citizens hyper skeptical of the "mythic" American narrative reconnect with a less antagonistic view of the American past?
It is a heavy burden--much too much to ask any one man to carry in our current milieu of ironic detachment. Nevertheless, I choose to believe this President sees the danger of our collective loss of faith and plans on pursuing a rigorous agenda of renewal.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
Are we on the cusp of a New American Patriotism?
"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray...."
My Prayer for US. My prayer for this President:
"With firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in."
May God Bless this President. May God Bless America.
