Obama’s Inaugural Speech Was Bold, but Following Through Won’t Be Easy

Rob Carr / Pool / Reuters

President Barack Obama gives his Inauguration Address after being sworn in at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 21, 2013.

It seems like a very long time ago, but try to remember the hopeful spirit of bipartisanship around the time of Barack Obama’s first Inauguration. The 2008 election had been filled with talk of a new, postpartisan politics, driven in part by “Obama Republicans” from Wall Street to the military. On the night of his first swearing-in, Obama held dinners to honor his defeated GOP opponent, John McCain, and the Republican general Colin Powell. He would later dine with a group of conservative columnists. His first Inaugural Address seemed to endorse the theory that his election represented a transformation of American politics: “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,” Obama said.

Alas, the cynics were largely right. Obama made several first-term efforts to negotiate with Republicans, but they all failed. Republicans dug in against the new President, and it became clear, particularly after the 2011 debt-limit showdown, that the GOP’s militant right wing had no interest in compromise. (Many Republicans maintain that Obama never bargained with them in good faith.)

(MORE: What You Missed While Not Watching Yesterday’s Presidential Inauguration)

After months of hewing to the image of a conciliator, Obama finally learned his lesson — and went on the attack. In a pivotal December 2011 speech in Osawatomie, Kans., he linked Republicans to a spirit of “breathtaking greed” and a “you’re on your own” economic philosophy. In April 2012 he attacked the “radical vision” and “social Darwinism” of Paul Ryan’s budget plan. His 2012 campaign was less about building bipartisan bridges than barricading the middle class from the GOP’s social and economic agenda.

With his second Inaugural Address, Obama has replaced his olive branch with a hot poker. He reiterated his campaign themes of equality and fairness, casting himself as a defender of regular Americans against Republican budget cutters and the wealthy interests they serve. “The commitments we make to each other — through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us,” he said. “They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.” He gave unprecedented attention to gay rights (“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law”).  And he signaled that addressing climate change — a condition whose existence many conservatives simply deny — will be a main priority of his second term.

(VIDEO: Obama’s Speech, in 180 Seconds)

Liberals were delighted by Obama’s speech. But they should be careful about developing a giddy new round of expectations. Just as postpartisanship proved a mirage in the first term, Obama’s suggestion in this past campaign that his re-election would “break [the] fever” on the right and induce Republicans to cooperate with him is looking overly optimistic. Leveraging its control of the House and using the filibuster to slow legislation in the Senate, the GOP fought Obama to the brink of the Jan. 1 fiscal cliff and pushed him back from his pledge to raise taxes on Americans making more than $250,000 a year. (Rates will now go up for individuals making $400,000 or more.) And although Republicans have backed down from their game of chicken over the debt ceiling, that appears to be a short-term tactical retreat in the larger budget war. Meanwhile, Republicans are showing no sign of joining Obama’s call to tighten gun-control laws. And if the GOP cooperates on another one of Obama’s chief second-term priorities — immigration reform — it will be a function of the party’s existential panic, not the breaking of a partisan fever.

And climate change? The good news for Obama is that public opinion, after turning against government action to slow global warming, has shifted back in the activists’ favor. But Republicans (along with many coal-country Democrats) remain uninterested in defying Big Business on the issue. Obama will probably have to resort to aggressive Executive action, including a crackdown on existing power-plant emissions. It’s not clear, however, whether that sort of unilateral action would be enough to make a real difference.

Ultimately, Obama’s speech won’t really shift the Washington political dynamic. It was more a reflection of the fact that postpartisanship is dead and buried, with no evident hope of resurrection. Even with his re-election behind him, Obama has resigned himself to nonstop partisan combat. And while his supporters may hope for some kind of tide-turning Normandy landing, it’s just as likely that the future holds more Western-front-style trench warfare. But who wants to hear about that on Inauguration Day?

PHOTOS: Inauguration Day Photo Album: An Inside View of the Pageantry and Parade

113 comments
drudown
drudown

A few thoughts.

As a threshold matter, what does that say about the sway of special interests when GOP leaders "refute the existence" of climate change? How can a voter credibly conclude that, in the end, representations made on other material issues by GOP strategists is, in the end, a "strategy" toward responsible leadership? The world has irrevocably changed in the 40 years of my life. I need no other person's assent to know that the climate is warming, ocean currents are swirling, and the new directions are fraught with unpredictability that present GOP "strategy"seeks to appease by obfuscating what, in the end, truly matters. I'm sure most Americans don't realize how ridiculous the abstract notion that Iran poses a substantial threat to the People under UN Sanctions. Americans, by and large, truly want other people and cultures to have happiness, and our collective reticence towards continued occupations abroad is indirectly History picking itself up and dusting off the outer, "unreal" layer of providing "Freedom" to Arab (or Persian or...) people that have the selfsame privileges and immunities under Natural Law and a right to self-determination. What all people truly desire, whether in the Middle East, the Far East, Greece, or anywhere in between: is an opportunity for a fresh start. If anything, the realities of climate change obviate ancillary and, by necessity of survival, must needs become secondary considerations when it comes to debt- the necessary measures that must be undertaken in the next Presidential term to REORGANIZE debt at the federal, state and/or municipal level- and offer a means for other, participating sovereigns to do so in (literally) nearly every country on every habitable continent. As then candidate John McCain would so frequently remark about his K street Health Care plan: "why not?"

Having a solvent government by the People, for the People that works in good faith with other, newly solvent trade partners is the only chance against climate change we've got.

Action is the only reality worth living; not only reality but means for morality majority as well. Anyone that says "but, you can't do that" obviously needs to look beyond the Constitution to the Founding Fathers' collective intent. Tell me, was the United States not destined to lead in this way? To restructure its debt under the auspices of revamping the tax code and provide lines of new credit to investors, developers and engineers to forge a new reality. That is my thought for the day, Mr. President. Congrats.

"The mind must be loosed. It will be loosed." - John Adams

BrandonJohns
BrandonJohns

Obama's whole speech reeked of Marxism. It wasn't from a liberal standpoint, it was from the standpoint of Karl Marx. Talking about the need for a collective society. A collective society is rule #1 in the book of Marx. Collectivism is communism. We are in big, big trouble.

superlogi
superlogi

Bold?  I would call it insane unless you're a died in the wool Marxist.

SirDonQuixotic
SirDonQuixotic like.author.displayName 1 Like

@superlogi 

Thank goodness neither Obama nor his base are Marxists.

superlogi
superlogi

@DonQuixotic @superlogi Then you agree, it was an insane speech?

superlogi
superlogi

@outsider2011 @superlogi @DonQuixotic No, it doesn't.  As long as government can control a thing, as in fascism and/or Nazi type socialism, or for that matter Norwegian type socialism, it doesn't need to own it.  In fact, even in the Soviet system, that distinction was made (Sovkhoz vs Kolkhoz).  With regard to your absolute definition of Marxism, there are many different iterations, none of which you seem to be familiar with.  Oh, and virtually no one but an absolute moron thinks the ACA is going to reduce costs for medical care.  Even the Congressional Budget Office doesn't.

outsider2011
outsider2011

@superlogi @DonQuixotic 


I think it was more of a misinformed post, personally. 


Marxism means the gov't owns everything. Corporations are still privately, or publicly owned. ACA makes everyone purchase insurance from private companies, etc. 


That isn't Marxism. It's common sense, making people buy, so everyone is covered, and pay less per person. 

Except those who didn't have insurance to begin with - but then showed up for medical treatment anyway, thus driving up the premiums for everyone who had insurance (Because the medical costs had to be offset). 



btt1943
btt1943

Strong in speech, weak in action. Somewhere along the line, he will have to eat his words again -- a talking politician whose decisions have been (and will be) restrained and humbled by the Congress, the very rich, and the powerful lobbyists. Wish him luck.    (btt1943, vzc1943) 

denmarks47
denmarks47

Ok Boys and Girls: Let's all settle down.  This back and forth left right bickering mask the fact that that seems to escape the population:  The vast majority of these political hacks are in DC to get their pockets lined by under the table lobbying etc.  Otherwise they would be making bigger bucks in the private sector.  As far a Bama following through; pleas ekeep in mind the majority of voters selected a Community Organizer / Junior Senator to drive the bus.  Hence, there aint a lot of fertile soil between the ears of the electorate.  All this, including my remarks are academic.  Business drives the bus and it always will.  So go ahead and make great speeches.  They don't mean squat cause businesses world wide drive the bus.

MELEWEB2
MELEWEB2

Following through will not be easy at all. I'm glad Democrats picked up a good handful of seats in 2012, and it looks like the Dems in the Senate have finally grown a spine.  Only time will tell if there is any significant follow through on promises made by President Obama.

paulejb
paulejb

So, those millionaires and billionaires earning $250,000 dollars a year got off scot free due to those dastardly Republicans. What's a poor class warfare mongering, left wing president to do in the face of such intransigence?

aztecian
aztecian

@paulejb poor white rethug can't handle it.  holy shit $250k...you need to pay.  uR a thief...making your money off the backs of hard working labor!

roknsteve
roknsteve like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@paulejb So according to Paulie, Billionaires only earn a quarter of a million dollars a year?  Those poor Billionaires have such bad investments that Paulie feels sorry for them.  

paulejb
paulejb

@roknsteve @paulejb ,

Did you miss the memo, Stevie? Barack Hussein Obama and his merry band of looters and pillagers have been describing families earning $250,000 annually as millionaires and billionaires for years. Do you suppose Barry has trouble with math?

outsider2011
outsider2011 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

@paulejb  

Really burns you that your side lost, eh Paulie?

All those policies that people don't want, gerrymandering failing (though it did help in the short term, despite less seats and far less votes for House Repubs), and lying outright. Not to mention the obstruction, and endangering the country in the name of politics. 

Sucks to be you. 4 more years. 

deconstructiva
deconstructiva like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@outsider2011 @paulejb   Add at least four more additional years of misery for the righties: who will they have to run in '16? Christie might be their best chance but TP's will sabotage that in primaries, or maybe even third-party him if he gets past 'em ala Romney.

Sue_N
Sue_N like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@outsider2011 @roknsteve @deconstructiva @paulejb Georgie Boy's gearing up to run for something (Land Commissioner? he hasn't really decided yet) here in Texas, where the Bush name still holds power. And he's raking in the money.

I doubt we'll see him run in 2016; he's going to have to spend some time in whatever office he finally decides to run for and build up his name and a base. My guess is he'll run for LC in 2014, maybe governor in 2018, and then POTUS in 2020.

However he does it, though, there's definitely another Bush on the horizon.

outsider2011
outsider2011

@roknsteve @deconstructiva @outsider2011 @paulejb  

He is the best option right now. 

Palin is done, and out. 

Rubio is too young, and after his acrobatics over creationism, he doesn't stand a chance. 

Jeb Bush Maybe. Or that other Bush George P Bush; i believe he's Jebs son - he is starting to run at state level. 


But a) he has to get past the bush name, and b) run against either HRC or Biden - who's coming out of the VP looking pretty good (except to those who already disliked him).

paulejb
paulejb

@deconstructiva @outsider2011 @paulejb ,

That is the least of our worries. All of us will be lucky if we are still here in 2016 after four more years of Barry and his merry band of looters and pillagers. 

paulejb
paulejb

@outsider2011 @paulejb ,

It really sucks to be a ward of the state as the state goes bankrupt because of the profligate spending of the most left wing president in American history. Wait till the fools who exist by attaching themselves to the government teat discover that it's about to run dry.

aztecian
aztecian

@paulejb @outsider2011 more like run you out of the country...u bring everyone down with your obstructionist white wing policies.  your time will come...

gysgt213
gysgt213 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

Just remember this. 

“No one is suggesting that what we call our earned entitlements – entitlements you pay for, like payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security – are putting you in a ‘taker’ category,” Ryan said on conservative commentator Laura Ingraham’s radio show. “No one would suggest that whatsoever.”

Paul Ryan 2013

JimSpicer
JimSpicer

Obama already has the 47% so more re-distribution of the nations wealth can only have an overall dilution effect on the economy; more taxes, more regulation, less profit, lower employment and so forth. His agenda is "left turn Clyde" for the sake of his personal ambition to socialize Amercia. What about the Americans who have worked all their lives to get whereever they got to and now have to share it with folks that won't or can't work? This is less about partisan politics and more about bending American citizens to his will. Why do we want to follow someone who never worked and trained his early years in an anti-American militant radical environment? Wake up America...

fitty_three
fitty_three like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 7 Like

@JimSpicer  

We did, and we found you relentlessly uninformed.

JimSpicer
JimSpicer

@53_3 @JimSpicer You're happy now. How will you be when our economy is like Russia circa 1991?

outsider2011
outsider2011 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@JimSpicer @53_3  

Wasn't that the cry for the past 4 years? The right has been wrong, and continues to be wrong. Seriously, Russia 1991? You HAVE to stop watching Fox news, and listening to Beck and Rush. 

If only for yourself.. 

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@JimSpicer @53_3 Our economy is already Russia circa 1991. The rich and connected control most of the wealth and get most of the tax breaks. I'd like to see it come back to America circa 1950 which Obama is pushing for.

HarryKuheim
HarryKuheim

How is yet another Campaign Speach full of vague platitudes "Bold"?

GrantMacDonald1
GrantMacDonald1

Being black, left-handed or being gay is just as natural.  It is a sometimes rare occurrence to fall in Love and to hold that person in your heart and be loved in return ... it is something that should be celebrated!   If it’s between two guys or two girls -- all the better.  It takes even more courage to defend that LOVE!

famulla5
famulla5

House Republicans are teeing up a vote this week on a new debt-ceiling bill, marking the first legislative battle of President Obama's second term and one that could determine whether the country once again risks default over a political fight. House leaders, after unveiling the legislation Monday, are planning to hold a vote Wednesday on their plan to allow the government to keep borrowing through May 18. While the short-term increase is getting mixed reviews, the second plank of the legislation -- meant to pressure Senate Democrats to pass a budget -- has also raised questions. Under the proposal, Congress would withhold the pay of lawmakers in either the House or the Senate if their chamber fails to pass a budget by April 15. House Republicans have passed budgets for two consecutive years, but the Senate hasn't passed one since Obama's first year in office. But the so-called "no budget, no pay" provision has run into complaints that it's not constitutional. Critics point to the 27th Amendment, which states: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Monday "it appears that the 27th Amendment does not permit Congress to alter its pay in the midst of a current session." House Republican leadership is defending the plan. A GOP leadership aide told Fox News that members would ultimately get paid, since "constitutionally we have to pay members." The suggestion is that the plan would not violate the 27th Amendment because it would temporarily withhold pay, as opposed to reducing pay. Under the plan, members' pay would be put in escrow starting on April 15 for any chamber that hasn't passed a budget resolution. As for the debt ceiling provision, the legislation does not set a specific limit; rather it would automatically increase the limit by the amount required to fund U.S. government obligations through May 18. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA




famulla5
famulla5

Good folks go fast out of the limelight  US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who came to global prominence after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, gave notice Wednesday that he will not serve in President Barack Obama's second term.Salazar will return to his native Colorado, opening up a spot in Obama's new cabinet in a department with a huge mandate covering natural resources and oil reserves which also oversees tribal and wildlife issues and national parks."Ken has played an integral role in my administration's successful efforts to expand responsible development of our nation's domestic energy resources," Obama said in a statement."In his work to promote renewable energy projects on our public lands and increase the development of oil and gas production, Ken has ensured that the department's decisions are driven by the best science and promote the highest safety standards," Obama said.Salazar, a former Colorado senator who often wears a wide brimmed cowboy hat, shot to prominence outside the United States after the 2010 explosion in the Gulf sparked the largest oil spill in US history.He pledged to "keep a boot on the neck" of BP, which operated the wellhead, during frantic efforts to plug a leak which sent millions of gallons of oil gushing into prime fishing grounds.Salazar said in a resignation statement that he had since initiated the "most aggressive oil and gas safety and reform agenda in US history."Obama is under pressure to add more diversity to his new cabinet after his picks for key jobs including the secretaries of Defense, State and Treasury, Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and Jack Lew, were middle-aged white men. And this is a shame on the new cabinet I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

TheDisclosure
TheDisclosure like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Very nice; now Mr. President; let's act on climate change and renewable energy.

Sue_N
Sue_N like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@outsider2011 And the Texas GOP responds – surprise! – with calls for more guns on campuses. Because, you know, the answer is always more guns.

outsider2011
outsider2011

@Sue_N @outsider2011  

The only way the GOP wouldn't say that, would be if one of their own got shot on campus. Then i bet the story would be different; but i hope it never happens. 

Better for them to talk themselves into irrelevance than for a life be taken for them to understand. 



 

kbanginmotown
kbanginmotown like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

"Liberals were delighted by Obama’s speech. But they should be careful about developing a giddy new round of expectations."

Michael: Was this really you? Or, were you channeling Joe for a minute there...?

(I imagine Mr Klein nodding in approval and thinking: ' Strong in the ways of the Concern Troll is this one...')

MrObvious
MrObvious like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

OT


For everyone that loved Zero Dark Thirty - torture just doesn't work (well at all)..


Mohammed Al-Qatani, the so-called "20th hijacker," who may have been some part of the inspiration for the "Ammar" character who was tortured in the opening scene, might have been the first detainee to mention the name of bin Laden's courier. But as Gibney points out, al-Qatani gave that information up to the FBI, in legit, torture-free interrogations, before he was whisked away to Gitmo for 49 days of torture that included such insanities as forcing him to urinate on himself

The problem with people who argue for torture is the fact that they have to discount all the legitimate interrogation done in this country on a day by day basis that solves all kind of crimes without the need for torture.

Sure - torture is 'macho' but deep down inside it's for revenge and to get even. It's not a useful tool for information.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn like.author.displayName 1 Like

Whether true or not,

Torture = Oscars!

...you didn't know that??