Did We Re-elect Hope?

Tom Rosshirt
Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:00:00 -0800
Opinion

An inaugural address has to be the most difficult task in the world of speechwriting.

The address takes place on the most formal occasion in American life. People have high expectations. They want something uplifting. The language and ideals have to be lofty and formal and highly rhetorical, and most of the features of standard political speeches are out of bounds. You can't tell personal stories. You can't tell jokes. You can't (overtly) try to get a political edge for your issues.

Within those limits, the president has to say something fresh and inspiring about the meaning of America, the test of these times and his aspirations for the country.
Updated: Fri Jan 23, 2015

An inaugural address has to be the most difficult task in the world of speechwriting.

The address takes place on the most formal occasion in American life. People have high expectations. They want something uplifting. The language and ideals have to be lofty and formal and highly rhetorical, and most of the features of standard political speeches are out of bounds. You can't tell personal stories. You can't tell jokes. You can't (overtly) try to get a political edge for your issues.

Within those limits, the president has to say something fresh and inspiring about the meaning of America, the test of these times and his aspirations for the country.

Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural was about the Civil War. FDR's first inaugural addressed the Depression. JFK's dealt with the Cold War.

What is Barack Obama's second inaugural going to be about? What is the issue that consumes us today in the way those major forces affected the country when those presidents took the oath?

We hate each other.

Even the seemingly neutral statement "I, Barack Hussein Obama" is politically charged. On the night Obama was elected to a second term, his middle name stopped being a taunt from the far right and became a taunt to the far right.

The preceding campaign and the 112th Congress intensified the bitterness that many had hoped would start to dissolve with the election of Obama in 2008.

In his first inaugural address, Obama said: "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."

In its political divisions, the country is worse off now than it was then. I'm not saying that is Obama's fault. I think he came up against a loyal opposition that was loyal to very narrow party interests. When a media organization asked Rush Limbaugh for 400 words on his hopes for the Obama presidency, Limbaugh said: "I don't need 400 words. I need four: I hope he fails."

Match that with statements by Republican politicians. In 2010, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term." And Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana captured the tea party viewpoint when he said: "I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view."

So I don't believe that Obama is the polarizing force, but he's the president. He needs to try to defuse that force.

In his news conference Jan. 14, a week before Inauguration Day, Obama declared that he will not negotiate spending cuts in exchange for Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling: "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The financial well-being of the American people is not leverage to be used. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

I agree with this implicit characterization. I believe setting conditions for paying our bills is political extortion. One columnist characterized it this way: "Nice country you got here. Shame if something were to happen to it." I also believe that House Speaker John Boehner at this point is not a negotiator who can be counted on to deliver the votes of his chamber.

At the same time, this kind of aggressive language from Obama is likely to increase the antagonism that's at the heart of the problem. So if Obama is forced in urgent circumstances to intensify the antagonism over the debt ceiling debate, what will he do in the future to defuse it?

Transcending old divisions was a theme of his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, his 2008 convention speech and his 2009 inaugural speech. It was a theme of his candidacy. It's the story of his life.

So what is he going to say about it now? Will he leave out that vision completely and just give up? Will he say something high-minded but not really pursue it? Or will he recommit to his core principles and try again — even in these impossible times?

We'll get part of the answer Monday — and the rest over the next four years.