Kausfiles: A mostly political weblog.

O-Day

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Speech: a) Fine. Much better than Bill Clinton's unmemorable inaugurals; b)  Short. Or at least seemed short,** relative to what he could have gotten away with. Made three or four non-obvious points ("hard choices," "patchwork," foreign policy realism, service) and ended it. A Johnny Cash song; c) Creeping SOTUism: Clinton learned that while pundits want grand themes, voters like laundry lists of policy specifics. Now the lists even make an appearance on January 20th--e.g.,"raise health care's quality and lower its cost." Aren't Inaugural Addresses likely to be more powerful when they are pitched entirely at a higher level? d) As in, for example, what I thought was Obama's best paragraph, at least when I heard it:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. 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; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

Now that I'm actually reading it, as opposed to hearing it, the One-Worldiness of the last sentence seems more salient, and potentially controversial--not simply because of the implications for American "sovereignty," but also because it leaves undefined the terms on which this "common humanity" is revealed and expressed. The outgoing President Bush's wildly ambitious second inaugural ("ending tyranny in the world") made it clear whose terms they were--our terms, "liberty" and "self-government." Is Obama's ambition less "hegemonic," as the left would put it--or only less well-defined (which is not the same thing as 'nuanced')? That question was only partly answered by ...e) Best image (because it's trying to convey a potentially uninspiring concept, namely a fairly brutal foreign policy realism):

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.

f) "Programs will end." We'll see! g) You got the impression that the much-touted "service" portion of the speech was less prominent than anchors like Tom Brokaw would have wanted. That's a sign it was a serious speech, no? "Service" is the ultimate Neutral Story Line--a seemingly substantive idea you can push without seeming partisan (and losing potential customers/viewers/readers/advertisers). Who could be against service? (Not me.) ... Update: h)  I suppose "remaking America" is a wee bit grandiose. But it's such a cliched grandiosity it's been drained of meaning. Standing alone, it hints at some deep flaw in the country that demands a makeover. But the context suggests Obama means only responding to the current "crisis" (a "new foundation for growth," etc.)--something like "rebuild" or "renew," not "refashion." The phrase is also followed by reassuring talk of a "return" to "values" that are "old." Yes, I'm making excuses! But they don't seem very upset by it over at The Corner (though Jonah Goldberg finds a few other annoyances). ...

**--As Peter Robinson would predict, I was shocked to learn that Clinton's first Inaugural address was only 14 minutes long. Seemed like forever! ...10:05 A.M.

___________________________

Pre-Oath: Feinstein's little speech seems somehow inappropriate. Why does she get to try to set the tone and talk about "necessary" change? As if that's her role on this day, as opposed to the new President's--as if the audience needs that stage directions read to them. It doesn't help that her words are banal. ... 8:52 A.M.

___________________________.

Conservatives I've met  in D.C. so far have been near-ebullient, not downcast or bitter. Why? a) They know how unhappy they'd be now if McCain had won; b) Obama has not fulfilled their worst fears, or even second-to-worst fears; c) now they can be an honest, straight-up opposition. .... 8:37 A.M.

___________________________

Waiting for Greg Packer

 Monday, January 19, 2009

Warning (from Politico's Josh Gerstein) 'Be Alert. Be Very Alert': From a January 21, 2001 AP story, "Settling into White House, Bush welcomes the public"--

The president and Mrs. Bush stood at the door of the Grand Foyer to greet some of the 3,000 tourists lucky enough to snag a ticket for the afternoon tour. "I just want to remind everybody that this is not our house," Bush said.

"It is the people's house and one of the grand traditions in the White House is to share the people's house with people from all over the country."

The estimated 300 people greeted by the first couple during about an hour of handshaking had obtained their tickets in advance through the inauguration committee and were first in line. The president and first lady had gone by the time the people who got their tour tickets on a first-come, first-serve basis reached the door.

"I'm disappointed, but obviously he can't greet everybody," said Greg Packer of Huntington, N.Y., who camped out for 12 hours to be first in line when Park Service personnel started handing out tour tickets at 7:30 a.m. Sunday. [E.A.]

You know he's out there. ... It doesn't matter if there are 2 million people in Washington for the Inauguration. Greg Packer, the "entire media's designated 'man on the street' for all articles ever written," will not not be quoted. ... You cannot deny him. You can only hope to contain him. ... 2:08 P.M.

___________________________

"Obama on the Auto Bailout: From the 1/15 Washington Post interview--

Reporter: Sir, you have a tough call coming up on the auto industry ..

Obama: Yes

Reporter: ... and I would like to ask you a little bit about how that's developing. In particular, some members of the party, as you know, feel that it is unfair to require as part of this TARP loan that UAW equalize its wages with the nonunion plants in the South. I would like to ask your view on that particular point. More broadly, how far you think we're going to have to go and how much money we're going to have to spend to rescue this industry or whether you have in your own mind some sense of an end point where it is sort of beyond salvation.

Obama: You know, I'm not yet enough of an expert on the auto industry to give you a detailed answer. We have--Larry Summers has put together a working group to focus on autos in anticipation that they are going to be coming back with either a plan for sustainability or not. But either way we're going to have to make some decisions.

So I'm awaiting that report back from them. What I can say in terms of my general views--and this predates the current crisis-- is that we have to build a sustainable business model for these guys or they have to build it.

And I don't think an acceptable outcome is for us to just keep them on their lifeline through taxpayer dollars in perpetuity.  So there is going to have to be a restructuring, and that restructuing is going to have to involve everybody from labor to management to creditors to shareholder, giving something up. ... [E.A.]

Obama goes on to say that the business model "has to anticipate" rising gas prices. ... Anti-UAW reading: He didn't agree with the 'no-equalization" position. He says everyone has to give something up. He says he doesn't want a subsidy "in perpetuity." How can they come up with a "sustainable" business model if they don't match Toyota on wage costs? ... Pro-UAW reading: He didn't disagree. More important, he didn't say he wouldn't support another round of subsidies, as long as they weren't open-ended. (A date certain for withdrawal! The auto bailout sounds more like Iraq every week.)  ... kf reading: Another punt (similar to his card check punt).  Obama injects some pressure, but not the long-awaited fear of God, into the current Detroit-UAW negotiations. ... 1:57 A.M.

___________________________

One of Henry Kissinger's problems at parties, I'm told, was that people used to come up to him and try to tell him personally how angry they were about his conduct of the Vietnam War. I would imagine that George Lucas, who's been seen at various inauguration parties,** has a similar problem. People are probably more scared of telling off Lucas, though. ...

**--Including at Maureen Dowd's remarkable party, where you had to elbow past Tom Brokaw to get to somebody famous. ... 1:22 A.M.

___________________________

After four D.C. parties I'm in such a state of Washington/Hollywood disorientation that when I saw a handsome lantern-jawed man coming down the stairs, surrounded by fawning admirers, I couldn't figure out if it was Matthew Perry or Joe Scarborough. ... I'm still not completely sure. ... 1:10 A.M.

___________________________