Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as our president at noon today– Hurrah! … Four hours before that, I and four (mainly Quaker) friends from Charlottesville who slept over in our apartment in Washington had finished our mammoth “survival-dressing” operation and ventured out into the sub-freezing air to start our trek to the National Mall.
As we walked along streets from which, today, all moving vehicles had been banned we merged with other groups and then converged into ever broader and broader streams of humanity. We surged across Constitution Avenue onto the National Mall at around 18th Street and turned left on the Mall so we could get as close to the Capitol Dome end of it as possible. At one point the whole river of humanity had to get over a line of yard-high concrete barricades, which we did by helping each other across.
At our “hoi polloi” end of the mall there were no security checkpoints, though I assume the police were watching people very closely from the few temporary elevated watch-towers I saw, and from the ground. Some of the streets along which we’d walked had National Guard Military Police units strung lightly along them, but the security on and around the Mall was light.
The excitement built as the crowds around us grew denser. We made our way with increasingly difficulty around the northern shoulder of the hill on which sits the vast obelisk of the Washington Monument, hoping to reach at least the east side of 14th Street. But it was not to be. The entire section of the Mall east of 14th Street was already, at 8:45, filled to capacity and they were letting no more people in there. So we were stuck back on the eastern slope of the Washington Monument’s hill– facing the Capitol Building, which gleamed light-golden around 1.3 miles away.
We had a large Jumbotron screen on which we could see the details of what was happening there… and all around us an ever-thickening crush of humanity. A large preponderance of hardy young and middle-aged adults, but several families with kids aged seven or over. (Families with younger kids, and older people, had been warned to think carefully before coming, because of the lengthy waits expected, and the cold, the cold, the cold.)
So from around 9 a.m. through 11:15 we stood there. We got to know the people standing around us a bit– one family had come from Oregon, a young woman and her mother from Washington State. The crowd immediately around us was around 25% African-American and also contained a large group of Latinos. The Jumbotrons replayed the tape of the big concert held at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday, which sparked sporadic waves of singing, swaying, or quasi-dancing among the crowd. A light sun peeked through. But still, it was cold, cold, cold. I pulled on my second pair of gloves and my third pair of legwear. The six layers on my upper body just sufficed.
At around 11:15 the Jumbotrons switched to showing us the things that were happening in real-time, in and around the Capitol Building. Various dignitaries arrived and were announced. A few of us raised a loud cheer for Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter. The Clintons got a louder cheer (but not from me.) The arrival of George W. Bush got deeps boos from our understandably partisan crowd. We saw the Obama daughters; Laura Bush with Michelle Obama… then out came “the President-Elect” to the delight of all.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the administration of the oath of office, but that didn’t seem to matter. After Obama took the oath, many people in the crowd hugged each other, and there were some tears.
We then listened carefully to his Inaugural Address. He started off with a couple of quick grace notes to the man he had now replaced in office (yay!)… But just about all the rest of the speech was a pointed and powerful indictment of the value and policies pursued by Bush– though Obama never mentioned Bush by name during the rest of the speech.
I thought it was a great speech: serious, somber, inclusive. I do still have a problem with mentions of the concept “American leadership”, given the terrible straits into which this concept has led the world over the past 17 years. But it is sort of “boiler-plate” in the official rhetoric of the country at this point. But the main things I liked about the speech were the serious commitment he expressed to restoring the rule of law (“we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”) and its emphasis on fairness, mindfulness, and inclusivity (“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth… “) He made an indirect reference to the formerly enslaved (“We were lashed by the whip”), but I wish he had made a parallel reference to the indigenous people of the country.
But what he said, directly, to the Muslim world and to the people of the world’s low-income nations sounded good, respectful, and serious.
Soon after he finished the address, our group and many others turned to start to leave. Because of the crowds, it took a long while to straggle back to Constitution Avenue. As we walked we heard the chopper carrying the departing Bush fly overhead, and gave a cheer for that departure.
… Anyway, I’m pretty tired right now. I am really happy I was able to be a part of it.
Then I came back to the apartment and saw the new White House website, too. Wow, this is starting to feel real.
So if “inaugurating” is about getting the “augurs”– the heavenly signs; the karma– more rightly aligned, then I think that task has been achieved today. But there’s still a huge amount more work to do.
14 thoughts on “Inaugurating”
Comments are closed.
How those we observe observe us:
“As for the speech, I’m struck by the sheer weirdness of American political rhetoric. It reads like something from the nineteenth century or Battlestar Galactica – all Bible quotes and historic mission and shaping our destiny and tested by god. It’s difficult to imagine any New Zealand politician saying anything like this with a straight face – or a New Zealand audience not simply gawping at its purple pomposity.”
Still it was nice to see “This land is your land” once again sung as it was so earnestly written all those years ago. Lovely to see Americans bravely dare to smile again as they sang it, even if the grounds to “believe in change” are so slight, and they didn’t quite know what they were singing.
Who would deny it for their sake or for the worlds?
By the way, Helena Your sight really deserves a logo such as the one you canvassed for a while back. There are really very few blogs these days with no images, and I’m sure you do not intend yours to appear so austere in comparison. If those submitted did not meet your needs please consider seeking donations to commission one!
[Is this true? – Dominic, 2nd attempt]
Separate lives, same nation
The Star, Johannesburg, January 21, 2009 Edition 2
Mary Dejevsky
Everyone who lives in or near Washington – as I did for five years – soon learns, to the metre, where the “front line” runs, where white people do not live, where their children do not go to school, and where to run a red light rather than linger.
In the city centre, the pavements, like the shops, offices and modes of transport, can be minor fields of hostile racial encounters. Black America senses white condescension and entitlement a mile off.
In urban areas whites have increasingly arranged their lives so that – outside work – their paths rarely cross those of black Americans.
Not only do they live in separate parts of town, they shop in separate malls and worship in separate churches. They use separate road systems, bypassing undesirable parts of town.
I once offered to share my taxi with an elderly (white) couple, if they were going the same way. It was at Baltimore/Washington International Airport, the queue was long; they were near the back and I was near the front.
But no sooner were we in the cab, than the woman demanded an enormous detour to avoid the direct route into “white” north-west Washington through “black” north-east. The (black) driver was happy to go directly, the rest of the journey passed in frigid silence, punctuated by whispered racist remarks between the couple … about me.
From: http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4801756 (subscription)
It’s good to hear about what it’s like to be there.
I thought that the Pres said all of the right things. But, as you said, the idea of “American leadership” has been misguided for a long time. At the same time that idea is the central thrust of what we do to others throughout the world.
With that in mind, several other parts of his speech caught my attention. When he talked about the spirit of the country, he talked about all of the values and strengths that can make this a great country. Well, if we apply that same new way of thinking about others overseas, then we may find peace and security.
To me, leadership is identifying the beliefs and abilities of others and then helping them live-out those beliefs and strengths in a way that is constructive. For example, what if a group of people thinks that increasing their wealth is most important? If they believe that, they can try to achieve their priority at the expense of others, or they can choose to create even greater wealth by collaborating with others. Or, take religion: Those beliefs can separate or divide.
I hope that the President uses his leadership abilities to encourage others to follow their beliefs and use their abilities, but they need to be sure to, as he said, “build and not destroy”. We can go either direction with our “American leadership” just as most other countries and groups around the world can go either way.
Bob Spencer
Anybody else notice how the tv pundits lagely aren’t touching this reference:
“And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents…. we will defeat you”
Of course, most will presume he was referring to “terrorists….”
Yet how else would we characterize the recent Israeli strategy towards Gaza? (e.g., as Friedman said, to educate the civilians….)
Picard, you’re the first person other than me that seems to have noticed that part–as I said at Richard Silverstein’s blog comment section (and might possibly say as a guest blogger elsewhere), that part really stuck out, to me at least. I imagine it jumps out at any Palestinian who happens to read it. I doubt very much Obama was empathizing with the Palestinians, however–I think that like nearly all mainstream American politicians, he was pandering to the notion that America fights terrorists, it doesn’t support them or supply them with weapons.
Maybe so — I’d like to know one day how that speech was put together. Anybody read anything on that?
Any chance that somebody slipped “this one” in there…. a classic “Persian” bit of multiple-meanings and application.
However it got in there, it just became a quote for the ages, imho, one I’ll keep in my pocket should it ever appear that Obama becomes just like Bush II — and holds the coat for those who would apply the iron fist to “terrorize” and “slaughter the innocents.”
“I thought that the Pres said all of the right things.”
I cannot agree with you. For starters, he appears to have been oblivious to the bitter irony of this: “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.” The conflicts sown by the United States (and its mini-me Israel), and blames on others (mainly Muslims) are so much greater in number and magnitude that they dwarf anything “those leaders around the world” have sought to sow. As for being judged by what you can build, not what you destroy, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza come immediately to mind.
“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
Now THAT is downright hilarious, especially when you consider that the very first Arab leaders Obama has extended a hand to are the corrupt, deceitful, dissent-silencers Mahmoud `Abbas, King `Abd Allah, and Hosni Mubarak.
American hypocrisy did not die with the Bush regime.
Shirin, I think most of the people who voted for Obama– along with everyone else around the world– would understand that in the two cases you cite he could well have been referring not only to “others” but also to the actions of Bush’s US and its mini-me, Israel. Especially given the recent-ness of all the ghastly images of mini-me’s horrendous actions in Gaza.
Helena, I cannot say how most people heard that statement, but to me and a number of others (including Jon Stewart), that was one of a number of things in his speech that sounded disquietingly like things Bush has said. And in its full context, as well as in the context of his other statements and expressed positions on Israel, I would not take it as directed at Israel.
“We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.””
That was the Obama quote and he’s not talking about Gazan innocents and he’s certainly not talking about defeating Israeli villains. It was two days after the ceasefire, which was declared not because Israel had achieved some imaginary security goals (they hadn’t), but so as to spare Obama the embarrassment of having to look away during his first days in office while Israel bombed civilians. I have trouble believing that any Palestinian who reads this speech would think much of Obama’s sense of fairness or decency.
Thanks, Donald. That part of the speech was even more objectionable than the part I cited.
I am sure no Palestinian (outside of the puppets of Fatah, of course) would be charmed by this, nor would any Iraqi, remembering how the United States has advanced its aims there by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, nor would many Afghans, nor would any Lebanese who remembers U.S. support of the terror induction and slaughtering of innocents in 2006.
These were unfortunately very disrespectful things to include in a speech along with a promise to deal with Muslims in a spirit of mutual respect.
Obama has never spoken out for Gaza.
WASHINGTON, Jan 8 2009 (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate voiced strong support on Thursday for Israel’s battle against Hamas militants in Gaza, while urging a ceasefire that would prevent Hamas from launching any more rockets into Israel.
The chamber agreed on a voice vote to the non-binding resolution co-sponsored by Democratic and Republican party leaders in the chamber.
In fact, he has spoken against Gaza. A year ago, a letter from Senator Obama to the UN ambassador.
January 23, 2008
Barack Obama wants a U.N. Security Council resolution on the Gaza Strip to mention rocket attacks on Israel.
The Democratic presidential candidate in a letter sent Tuesday to Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, urged the United States not to allow the resolution to pass unless it notes the rocket salvos. The Security Council is in emergency session this week considering Israel’s blockade of Gaza.
“All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families,” wrote Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, in his letter to Khalilzad. “However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this. Gaza is governed by Hamas, which is a terrorist organization sworn to Israel’s destruction, and Israeli civilians are being bombarded on an almost daily basis.” ///
On the one hand we can say that Obama’s inaugural speech was merely a political speech, not unlike others, not much unlike Bush’s 2000 speech, even, and therefore should not be taken too seriously.
On the other hand Obama is supposed to be a smart guy, a man who while he lacks experience is blessed with intelligence and judgment, and an agent of change.
It makes you wonder how smart he really is when he is merely capable of reciting tired propaganda. But he does it with “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” too. It doesn’t look good, does it.
When you read Obama’s 2007 and 2008 AIPAC speeches and what he says on his website, it’s all fairly consistent and not in a good way. He says he wants a peace agreement, but wants to get there on his terms and dictate who gets to represent the Palestinians (he’s proud of the fact that he opposed Palestinian elections because he was worried the wrong side would win). This from the same guy who calls Israel the only democracy in the Middle East. He is much harsher on the Palestinians than the Israelis (would he dare dictate who the Israelis should pick, even if it is Netanyahu?) There’s a very good chance this will be the Clinton Administration all over again.
Maybe the Mitchell choice means he’s fairer than he sounds–that’s the only reason for any hope. But in that case, if he truly means to be fair to both sides, he’s been lying to his Israel lobby supporters for a couple of years, and I’d like to see how he handles that.
Donald, I see a repeat of the Clinton administration as the best case scenario for Obama when it comes to the Middle East and the Muslim world.
Obama knows who butters his bread, and it certainly isn’t the Palestinians.