I can’t believe what I have been reading in the newspapers today. The Times led on Obama’s inaugural speech, observing that it wasn’t his best. Apparently, he did not rise to the heights of rhetoric we have come to expect.
What sort of pompous irrelevant nonsense is this? I realise that journalists need to adopt observer status, but how detached do you have to be to think that judgement on the entertainment value of his speech is of the highest priority?
Obama faces some of the most difficult and testing crises of any US President in the last century and used his inaugural speech to issue a sobering reality check amid the euphoria surrounding his accession to power. He did the right thing in not winding people up with the inspiring cadences of rhetorical manipulation – had he done so, the same journalists would have criticised him for being triumphalistic or arrogant in the face of the challenges being faced by ordinary Americans and people around the world.
Obama got it right. He was sober and frank. He told people the situation is tough and will be both demanding and costly. He showed resolution and commitment. But he forced people to be realistic and to leave behind the fantasies that have driven the generalities propogated by his predecessor. The times are tough and the situation serious; this demanded a serious and measured initial statement. And that is what Obama gave the world.
Times journalists can think what they want about his speech. They can even give him stars or marks out of ten, if it makes them feel better. But – frankly – who cares what they think when the guy in question is doing the business. It costs the critics nothing to write their judgements on the speech of a man who has just assumed the mantle of overwhelming responsibility. Why don’t the journalists consider the relative poverty of their pontifications and let us make our own minds up?
January 21, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Watching the inauguration, the most telling moment for me was at the beginning, just before Obama came through the doors onto the platform. For a brief moment he hesitated, took a deep breath and squared his shoulders… it spoke volumes.
January 21, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“Obama faces some of the most difficult and testing crises of any US President in the last century …”
With respect, Nick, I don’t think you recall what it was like in the US in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was thrown out of office, or in October 1962 (I was pretty young then too …) – or December 1941. The abiding issue remains Iran and its threat to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons – and the profound instability of Iran itself. Obama can’t and won’t do anything much different from Bush here, however he tweaks the rhetoric.
As for the economy, don’t forget he’s from the party of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I can’t see how increasing borrowing and the budget deficit even more will do other than defer the debt to the next generation, as well as putting more American businesses (and jobs) in Chinese hands.
But that seems to be the ‘solution’ the Britsh government has opted for too.
January 22, 2009 at 10:05 am
I think we should give the guy some time. Comparisons with the past can be misleading. Sorry, Mark B but can you source Iran’s threat. The best I can find is a questionable translation of a phrase by Ahmadinejad which, according to one translation expresses the ‘hope’ that the ‘illegal regime in Jerusalem’ should disappear. This seems to me to accord quite well with many US resolutions. Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal. Iran is not the ‘abiding issue’ but Foreign Policy is certainly up there. Let’s pray he gets it right & acts justly and humbly.
January 22, 2009 at 11:07 am
David C, I’m sure you can google as well as I. Quaerite et invenietis. But it’s worth reading some foreign policy analysts as well (Bay, Hanson, Volokh etc) about what’s happening in Iran.
I suppose India’s occupation of Kashmir is ‘illegal’ as well.