A Dawn of a New Era

With a handful of colleagues in a conference room, I watched the inauguration of Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States on a streaming video feed from MSNBC.  As I had mentioned in a posting the day after President Obama's election that while I appreciated the historical significance of his election, I had some misgivings of some of his policies and positions. I felt very much the same way today. As a citizen of the United States, I was grateful that despite me backing the "other guy", the transfer of power was done without a coup or bloodshed.  As a citizen, it was wonderful to behold the enthusiasm of so many people. As a ethnic minority, it was encouraging to see such a large mosaic of people celebrating the installation of a person of color in the highest office of the land.

I had some thoughts on President's Obama's speech, which is full text here.  I thought it was a good speech, but didn't quite live up to some of the lofty expectations as many had anticipated. Was it Martin Luther, Jr.-esque or as memorable as the greatest speech I've seen live, the speech that President Bush gave after September 11th? No.  But it was a speech that reflected well on the reality of our times and his intentions of making us a country which embraces collective cooperation, peace and hope. Naturally as is common with Barack Obama, details were lacking, but this clearly wasn't the time and place for them.

"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." Insomuch President Obama was truly assigning "collective" blame for our present economy, I applaud that.  Were many banks and mortgage lenders responsible for the meltdown? Absolutely. But so were legions of people who wished to purchase and own things beyond their means. The economy is not simply a result of a "Wall Street boogeyman", a lot of people from every part of the economic spectrum can be blamed.  As President Obama said, we're a people that doesn't make hard choices well. As he says:

"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 fainthearted -- 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 toward prosperity and freedom."  Yup. We're a lazy society. Naturally, those who point out some of President Obama's socialist and "big government" leanings with plans to expand Social Security and Medicare probably tore their hair out listening to him talk about hard work.  Hey, he never said that people were going to individually accountable.

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals..." was clearly a thinly veiled shot at President Bush and his policies around fighting the war on terror.  I'm interested in seeing how President Obama navigates through the quagmire of what he's willing to do in order to save American lives.  Is it appropriate to "waterboard" an enemy combatant any circumstances?  One who has information about a bomb on a plane? One who refuses to disclose the disarm code for a nuclear device which is going to level New York City and kill 10 million people?  When does one's right to privacy, which might include a plan to kill thousands of people, conflict with the interests of national security? 

"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. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace." I'm all for peace, but there's much in his language that screams "assimilation" and "uniformity" as opposed to "unity" and "diversity".  Do we want the lines of tribe to disappear? Do our differences need to be eradicated or (as I would argue), acknowledged, respected and self-valued?

On a final note, I'd reckon that in four years, certainly further out in the future, we'll see some moderation on views of Barack Obama and George W. Bush.  Obama will be judged no longer on his optimistic oratory and lofty ideas, but the imperfect ways that he brings them to life as well as decisions which are far more complex and controversial besides, "All who like hope, raise your hand." As for President Bush, he'll never escape the stigma of an economic meltdown, but the lack of an attack on American soil since 9/11 and perhaps a future stability in the Middle East might become a legacy which he'll never be appreciated for in the present time.  Godspeed to both of you - heavy is the burden on the shoulders of the President of the free world.