When I was five years old, my mother sat me down in front of the television on a cold January Chicago day and made me watch the inauguration of John Kennedy. I remember the power of his speech, although had I not heard it over and over in the years since, I probably would not have remembered its content. But it didn’t matter. What did matter was that it was an historic moments. A defining speech for a step into the unknown for my parents generation. Kennedy talked of space and sputnik; of service and of dreams, of freedom and its challenges. The times have changed, the mission is slightly altered but the essence of Kennedy’s words still resonates.
Today at noon comes another moment in history. I can sense it; I can hear and see it. I can’t remember the last time people waited with such excitement and anticipation for the inauguration of a new president. Personally, I feel like one HG Wells’ Time Machine Eloi, who having lived in the dark for years, finally emerge into the sunlight of a new day. Eight years of arrogant hubris, of “my way or the highway;” of “you’re with us or against us.” Eight years of a president and an administration, that believes that the Constitution of this great country is fungible upon the whim of an imperial presidency by executive fiat; that confuse disagreement and debate with disloyalty and betrayal. That patriotism equals blind acquiescence.
More than year ago, I wrote my prescription for the next US President (although I have to confess, I was not supporting Obama at the time):
“We need a president who will help us regain our standing amongst nations; who will renew our status as the shining light of freedom; who will enable us to lead, not with our might, but with our spirit; not with our power, but by our vision and creativity.” But ”one who carries in his brief case a (practical and implementable) plan to make that vision come alive. A person who will inspire the children and young adults of a new generation to reach beyond themselves; to instill a sense of engagement with government (their government); but, at the same time, have the street smarts and common sense to make things happen. Not by fear; not through manipulation of the facts; not by fraud and lies. But through honesty, transparency, creativity, and the hard work of bi-partisanship.”
Undoubtedly, as Obama takes the Oath of Office this noon, tears will fill my eyes. As they already have each time someone stops by my office to talk about the inauguration festivities that EVERYONE seems to be watching in a truly shared American experience. Make no mistake. When we wake up tomorrow morning and the next, and the next after that, very little of substance will have changed. The economy will still be in free-fall; terrorism will still loom large; the world will remain on the brink of serious and irreparable climate change; we will still be engaged in two wars. This won’t be easy; but for the first time in eight years, I feel we have a fighting chance.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cindy D
When we wake up tomorrow morning and the next, and the next after that, very little of substance will have changed.
I agree with that.
2 - Brunelleschi
What America gets with Obama is a better mood, great imagery, and a new chapter in history (and the end of Reaganism).
We are going to see a lot of him waving to large, supporting crowds.
Nothing wrong with that in a time of crisis.
Don't expect miracles.
3 - Mary K. Williams
very nice Barbara - and here's to hoping that things of substance will be changing soon.
4 - Orange450
I'm a nursery teacher. Today, right before noon, our principal's voice came over the PA, announcing that our new president would shortly be taking office, and the whole school would be listening live, as he took the oath. We quieted the children - 3 and 4 year olds - and told them what was about to happen. We've been discussing the election for the past few weeks, so they have some semblance of awareness.
I told them that when they are grown up, people will ask them where they were when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, and they should remember that they were eating lunch in Nursery Katom with us, their teachers. Then we listened in silence - the children wide-eyed - to our new president's voice. I had tears in my eyes. I know I'll remember this day forever. I hope they will, too.
5 - barbara barnett
Orange--My office sits across the hall from the nursery school. As I went to join colleagues, the nursery school teachers took the kids down to our youth lounge to be a part of this great day, watching the inauguration on television.
I had tears in my eyes from the opening strains of "Simple Gift" to the closing benediction. It sounds like hyperbole, but I feel we are emerging just now from a national nightmare.
6 - Ruvy
Like you Barbara, Kennedy's inauguration address was the first I ever witnessed - on our black and white TV in the Midwood section of Brooklyn. In those days, a kid could still walk home for lunch, and I did. At noon the TV went on. I had watched the debate between Nixon and Kennedy and I was 9½ when I saw a new president take office.
To be truthful, I did not comprehend the real significance of what was occurring that afternoon. The real significance of what was occurring was that the office was PEACEFULLY transferred from one individual to another.
There are many nations where that is the exception, not the rule. But to return to my thoughts, I could not help comparing the speech Obama gave to the one Kennedy gave and Obama came up short. But what really saddened me was the knowledge of America's limits.
America, a debtor nation with a shrinking economy and a shrinking world presence can only do so much and no more. And in the end, I felt very sad watching this man take office, knowing that even with the best of intentions and the greatest of wisdom, he will not do your nation much good. He can't.
It's all sizzle now. The bankers, oilmen and thieves ate the steak. Obama will be serving up more pain, more sacrifice and not much more of anything else in his tenure in office.
7 - Hope and Change?
Ruvy...well said! But due to the media and hollywood hype around Obama..i think it is going to more like "Paris Hilton (Obama) Goes to Washington"... alot of photo ops and spound bites with little hope and chamge!!
Ameicans wake up...our elected officials got us into this mess...it is up to US....NOT THEM to get out of it!
8 - barbara barnett
Wow, Hope and Change...wasn't that sort of Obama's point?
9 - Jet
"spound bites with little hope and chamge!!"...
Those little pink pills must be wearing off?
10 - Hope and Change?
Barby...rather than be goo-goo over the hype --listen too and read what he ACTUAL says...
"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. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."
This is contrary to everything the Founding Fathers stood for. They understood the need for limited government and feared its growth and power more than anything else. Obama has no such concerns. Just as we have seen when he's gotten testy with hard questions and questioners, what Obama fears most is substantive public dissent.
It is not the governments job to help me find work, feed my my family, establish my income level or plan my retirement!!! Government is broken because it is trying to do things for and to me rather than stay out of the way!
Hope and change?? Really now....
11 - Jet
Unlike you I'm only one Jet Gardner-(unlike you I'm not plaural,) I write my articles by that name and I'm listed in the phone book under that name. I don't need to hide behind aliases
12 - Dr Dreadful
Perhaps he's got you confused with a New York City-based pro sports franchise...
13 - Arch Conservative
"Don't expect miracles."
Why the hell not?
That's what we were promied!
14 - Hope and Change?
Yes Doctor I did! It was rather a simple mistake you see they are both....er....um...you know...losers!
15 - Brunelleschi
Arch-
If Obama "promied" you a miracle, what was it? Give us a direct quote...
#10 H&C-
True, the founding fathers were worried about big government, but you need to understand the context, and understand modern times.
I may write this up and send it in, but a short version-
The Founding Fathers needed a governmental philosophy that protected Founding Fathers-18th century white males of property.
How does a property owner write a government that protects private property in the 18th century? They turned to Locke, an English philosopher who was working on this problem in England. His solution was a government that protected property owners from despots (the King). Protect private property, and you protect the middle class, and get stability and law and order-at least better than "The King decreed it.".
Fine so far.
Righties today are trying to shove 18th century concepts into a new, modern world.
The humble middle class property owners are now tiny compared to huge corporations, which the Founding Fathers didn't foresee. Corporations are allowed to run as entities themselves, with "owners" not personally responsible for screwups, and no morals other than "fiduciary responsibility."
It's a great excuse for putting profit ahead of everything- "I CAN'T do the right thing. I have stockholders to answer to. I have to make as much money as possible, or I will be replaced."
Corporations have become mini-governments themselves, the same thing the Founding Fathers didn't want. But, since they are PRIVATE mini-governments, no one sees it. They have more political power than the middle class, they hold the levers of economic power, and they own the media.
It just took a while for them to work around the constitution and take the King's place.
So next time you revert back to the Founding Fathers to whine about Liberalism or whatever, think of what those same humble middle class property owners would have thought about superpower companies that can wipe them out and not think twice.
The world has changed a lot since the founding fathers met. People trying to use their thinking to justify the present are guilty of taking the past out of context, and when you take something out of context, you change it's meaning.
16 - Cindy D
Nice post Brunelleschi. I hope you write an article on that with more depth.
17 - Roger Nowosielski
"People trying to use their thinking to justify the present are guilty of taking the past out of context, and when you take something out of context, you change it's meaning."
Great thought, Brunelleschi. Keep it on. The world moves on, and those who don't recognize it shall perish. Old conceptions will fade away, and those who hold on to them are doomed.
There's a new vision in the making, a better, more enlightened vision. And it shall prevail. Count on it. Ultimately, we shall overcome.
18 - Brunelleschi
Thanks Cindy and Roger-
Think about that and replace founding fathers with Christianity.
Same problem.
When you base your system on "It is written," you are in deep doo-doo.
The right and Christian right (and Ruvy!) are looking back all the time, just to different eras. I think this is why they are so threatened by what they label as "liberalism" (progress).
I see their point really, at least on the political side. Washington is full of people trying to make progress out of modern realities, and people trying to stop them.
A 200+ year-old document is not a blueprint for progress in these times. It just provides the basics. All people that push for progress can do is pass reforms. Conservatives then fight back with counter reforms. The competition between them has led us to big government, and both sides of the aisle are guilty.
We don't have a clear, modern philosophy of government besides the battle of reforms.
19 - Clavos
A 200+ year-old document is not a blueprint for progress in these times.
Repeal it then.
20 - Brunelleschi
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. It's sloppy to keep tagging on reforms, but it works, and as Dave pointed out, we have had 44 peaceful transitions of power.
First, what are you going to replace it with? What is it based on?
21 - Hope and Change?
Brunelleschi you are condescending [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] ---"you need to understand the context, and understand modern times."
In addition you out yourself a just another racists with your opinion that "The Founding Fathers needed a governmental philosophy that protected Founding Fathers-18th century white males of property."
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] Gee...I am so glad we are in the age of Aquarius -of Hope and Change...
The news reports that King Barry started his day going to a 90 minutes church service this AM to pray!! Where is the media outcry that attacked Bush for seeking Gods help in times of trouble??? No where is sight...
According to the media and the left loons--
Bush asks god for help = he is a moron
King Barry asks for Gods help = hes a genius
Almost a full day...and still no hope and change in sight!
22 - Hope and Change?
Corporations have become mini-governments themselves, the same thing the Founding Fathers didn't want. But, since they are PRIVATE mini-governments, no one sees it. They have more political power than the middle class, they hold the levers of economic power, and they own the media.----
Um....er....for profit private corporations are owned...um....er...by private citizens who put their money and capital at risk for their personal gain....um...er...you know.
"Mini governments" - what kind of left wing socialist crap is ...um...er....you know...that!
23 - Roger Nowosielski
Bru,
You must have gotten something wrong about #18. Where did you get the idea I was even going there?
24 - STM
Oh, now I get it ... hope and change? is most likely a supporter of that failed candidate who wanted to take America back to the era of the coonskin cap as favoured headgear - what's his name, that failed candidate? I've forgotten already.
Hope and change? is one of those folk who can talk ad infinitum about the founding fathers and the constitution, but when a president is elected exactly according to how the constitution lays it out as a democratic process, doesn't like it and wants to take his bat and ball and go home.
Of course, that other (failed) candidate would have delivered real hope and change, right?
Policies that would have taken Americans back to living in log cabins might have come as a bit of a shock though.
25 - Andy Marsh
Davey Crockett!