Unlike John, I thought Obama's speech was thematically coherent, its basic message being: "Our ideals helped us do great things in the past. We took an unfortunate detour these last eight years. But now we're back."
There's very little in the speech that doesn't relate to this theme in one way or another. The direct shots at Bush obviously do ("[w]e will restore science to its rightful place," "a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous," "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," etc.) As do the slightly more veiled criticisms of the last eight years. For example:
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction. ...
Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
You can immediately locate the speech's three key elements here: Storied history (all those sacrifices), tragic interregnum (those years of standing pat), reclamation of our destiny. I thought they were very effective.
To the extent the speech had problems with coherence, they weren't thematic but stylistic. One minute Obama was on top of Mount Olympus ("We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things..."), the next minute he was having lunch in the Brookings cafeteria ("Our health care is too costly ... We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids ... it helps families find jobs at a decent wage ... We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq...") It was like two speeches on the same topic written for two different audiences on two different occasions.
John wanted Obama to tease out his arguments more. I'd have gone the other way--losing the specifics and the arguments and making the metaphors more vivid, the language more lyrical, and the tone more inspirational. All in all, I'd like to have seen something more along the lines of Obama's famous New Hampshire concession speech (especially the second half) than his more earth-bound convention speech. The first priority of an inaugural is to animate a presidency, not lay out its agenda. There are plenty of opportunities to do that down the road, not to mention the campaign we just had.
Why'd Obama do both? I'd guess the speech tried to preempt the same criticism that's been leveled at the inaugural festivies--that they're too lavish and precious for a time when people are hurting so badly. Obama seemed worried that soaring words without a nod to Americans' daily struggles would invite the aloofness charge he's faced before. Which is how we ended up with those rhetorical highs and lows. (For that matter, even the highs weren't as high as we're accustomed to--for the same reason, I suspect.)
Problem is, a single speech isn't like a week of inaugural festivities. You can hold lavish balls one day and service projects the next, and no one suffers for the dissonance. But an inaugural speech needs to hang together.
In any case, I agree with Michelle Cottle: The bleak circumstances make a full-throated celebration all the more important--people need a little uplift and escapism at a time like this, maybe a little something to aspire to. In the same way, down-and-out people are even more starved for lyricism and inspiration--at least when they tune into a symbolic event like an inaugural. Obama should have given it to them and saved the wonkery for his state of the union.
Update: I just watched Obama's speech on television for the first time. I'll stick with my original critique, but I have to concede that the lyrical spots were more lyrical than they seemed in person. One technical problem: Obama tends to play off crowds--he leans into them to generate his rhythm. But even though there was a massive crowd today, the noise was so dispersed that Obama didn't get the usual interaction.
--Noam Scheiber
Print
COMMENTS (10)
-- John wanted Obama to tease out his arguments more. I'd have gone the opposite direction--losing the specifics and the arguments and making the metaphors more vivid, the language more lyrical, and the tone more inspirational. All in all, I'd like to have seen something more along the lines of Obama's famous New Hampshire concession speech (especially the second half) than his more earth-bound convention speech. The first priority of an inaugural is to animate a presidency, not lay out its agenda. There are plenty of opportunities to do that down the road, not to mention the campaign we just had.
Noam Scheiber nails it.
-- John wanted Obama to tease out his arguments more. I'd have gone the opposite direction--losing the specifics and the arguments and making the metaphors more vivid, the language more lyrical, and the tone more inspirational. All in all, I'd like to have seen something more along the lines of Obama's famous New Hampshire concession speech (especially the second half) than his more earth-bound convention speech. The first priority of an inaugural is to animate a presidency, not lay out its agenda. There are plenty of opportunities to do that down the road, not to mention the campaign we just had.
Noam Scheiber nails it.
I want to dissent a bit from John's intelligent critique of Barack Obama's first inaugural. John
I want to dissent a bit from John's intelligent critique of Barack Obama's first inaugural. John
The context has changed. We needed a sober and serious speech that spoke to the central needs of our time. Back in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina - that was a different time due to the fact that it was long before the true wreckage of our cratering economy was fully apparent. Obama provided uplift because that was what was needed at the time. We needed sober and serious, because it is more fitting to the time.
My guess is this - if Obama had soared rhetorically today, you, and a great many other commentators, would pummel him for not recognizing the seriousness of the moment.
The context has changed. We needed a sober and serious speech that spoke to the central needs of our time. Back in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina - that was a different time due to the fact that it was long before the true wreckage of our cratering economy was fully apparent. Obama provided uplift because that was what was needed at the time. We needed sober and serious, because it is more fitting to the time.
My guess is this - if Obama had soared rhetorically today, you, and a great many other commentators, would pummel him for not recognizing the seriousness of the moment.
i can't speak for other commentators. but i feel pretty confident that i would not, in fact, have pummeled him in that case. that's clearly what obama and his team were worried about though.
i can't speak for other commentators. but i feel pretty confident that i would not, in fact, have pummeled him in that case. that's clearly what obama and his team were worried about though.
(that is, getting pummeled by most commentators. not me in particular...)
(that is, getting pummeled by most commentators. not me in particular...)
I am guilty of overstatement, Mr. Scheiber. My apologies.
I would guess that after having a great many folks continue berate Obama for his rhetoric during the primaries and over the summer, as if it were mere 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' charlatanry, I could well imagine that Obama was slightly gun shy. That said, Obama doesn't seem to do anything by accident or in mere reaction to his critics. Perhaps, just perhaps, he wanted to go the sober and serious route because that is what was necessary.
I am guilty of overstatement, Mr. Scheiber. My apologies.
I would guess that after having a great many folks continue berate Obama for his rhetoric during the primaries and over the summer, as if it were mere 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' charlatanry, I could well imagine that Obama was slightly gun shy. That said, Obama doesn't seem to do anything by accident or in mere reaction to his critics. Perhaps, just perhaps, he wanted to go the sober and serious route because that is what was necessary.
The post and most of the comments are gobbledygook - and you have the arrogance to criticize Obama's speech. I remember reading Rex Reed reviewing Fellini and laughing at the absurdity of such an intellectual midget trying to grasp what was far beyond his comprehension. Pretentious and useless.
The post and most of the comments are gobbledygook - and you have the arrogance to criticize Obama's speech. I remember reading Rex Reed reviewing Fellini and laughing at the absurdity of such an intellectual midget trying to grasp what was far beyond his comprehension. Pretentious and useless.
I checked out Eve's take on John's take on Barry's speech:
Sure, partisan passions are at a fever pitch. No one doubts that the vast right wingnut conspiracy is going to become increasingly more transparent in the coming weeks and months.
But what are you suggesting----that Barry will somehow bridge the gap between the red and the blue state narritives?
I'd like to believe that myself because I too am a pragmatist. But I am a center-left pragmatist not a center-right one. And if Barry's transition team could send out signals more blindingly center-right then they did, staring at it would be analogous to staring into the Sun.
Do it long enough and you go blind.
And then there's this:
Eve:
"All ... view full comment
I checked out Eve's take on John's take on Barry's speech:
Sure, partisan passions are at a fever pitch. No one doubts that the vast right wingnut conspiracy is going to become increasingly more transparent in the coming weeks and months.
But what are you suggesting----that Barry will somehow bridge the gap between the red and the blue state narritives?
I'd like to believe that myself because I too am a pragmatist. But I am a center-left pragmatist not a center-right one. And if Barry's transition team could send out signals more blindingly center-right then they did, staring at it would be analogous to staring into the Sun.
Do it long enough and you go blind.
And then there's this:
Eve:
"All I can say is, thank God it didn't contain these references. The fashionable mode in Democratic speechwriting today, exemplified by John Edwards, is to give shout-outs to grim, granular examples of the population's woe, say, a woman encountered on the campaign trail who lost her leg during a feral dog stampede and didn't have health insurance. It's a mawkish tendency."
george:
Maybe I am completely missing your point here, but do you actually believe that democratic speechwriters playing up stories of folks on the campaign trail in dire straits because they lack health insurance becomes mawkish....when? after 5 such stories? 10? 25? 100?
Or will that be measured in time, instead? For every month that passes without Barry taking a significant chunk out their dire straits it becomes less and less mawkish?
And which God are you thanking here, Rick Warren's? George Bush's? Marty Peretz's?
it would be blithe, so bouyant, so chirpy
You are overthinking it as well Scheiber. No where near as badly as Judis did but oddly in the opposite direction. He wanted more details, you wanted more passion.
But this speech was a secular sermon. No I'm sorry but this was no time for spectacularly uplifting rhetoric that makes us all feel special. We've been a bit spoiled for the last 20 years or so. Things have been pretty easy and we lost track of the kind of hard work and values that got us here and made it good. And that sort of caused it to get off track.
So yes, time to put away childish things. When you come up with your why he did it that way you make the classic pundit mistake of assuming that whatever they blather about ... view full comment
You are overthinking it as well Scheiber. No where near as badly as Judis did but oddly in the opposite direction. He wanted more details, you wanted more passion.
But this speech was a secular sermon. No I'm sorry but this was no time for spectacularly uplifting rhetoric that makes us all feel special. We've been a bit spoiled for the last 20 years or so. Things have been pretty easy and we lost track of the kind of hard work and values that got us here and made it good. And that sort of caused it to get off track.
So yes, time to put away childish things. When you come up with your why he did it that way you make the classic pundit mistake of assuming that whatever they blather about in pundit media land is the center of the political universe.
Wrong.
I think he put in specifics to keep it grounded and keep it real. There are actual things to be done and the point was to say he's plans on doing them.
I thought the speech was excellent. Not for the ages, but for the moment. Obama was laying down a marker about governing. If that's too pragmatic for some and insufficiently lyrical for others, too damn bad.
And yes, it is definitely better when you watch it the second time.
I thought the speech was excellent. Not for the ages, but for the moment. Obama was laying down a marker about governing. If that's too pragmatic for some and insufficiently lyrical for others, too damn bad.
And yes, it is definitely better when you watch it the second time.