The Inauguration, Outside Looking In
Jan. 20th, 2009 01:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bjarvisI find presidential inaugurations somewhat bewildering. Perhaps it's because I'm not American. I haven't been immersed in awe and deference for the White House since birth. Cheering national institutions comes naturally to most Americans; it's part of the culture. I don't any problem with this except that there is inevitable muddling between symbols and the object itself, between offices and their occupants.
Perhaps it's because I'm Canadian: the idea of investing such huge expectations into a prime minister is perfectly laughable. I'm from a country small enough that I've had the chance to shake hands with many of the men (and one woman) who have been or aspired to be prime minister and I know first hand that they are flesh & blood, mortal, limited, with all the faults to which our merely human minds, souls and body are heir. Culturally, we know the PMs we like and hate are not very different from ourselves. Politically, we know the PM is merely the first among equals, only slightly above other Parliamentarians, provincial premiers and other elected officials. The US president speaks from a podium elevated above the nation, surrounded by security details and the symbols of office; a prime minister speaks from a step-stool from which he can be easily brushed aside by an elderly great-grandmother with a walker.
So while I find the US inauguration process fascinating from an etiquette and protocol point of view --was I the only one more curious about the order of introductions of the dignitaries than Mr. Obama's inauguration speech?-- I find the cheering mobs and faces sobbing with joy somewhat bewildering.
This is the third such event since I moved to Washington DC. Of the three, today's inauguration is by far the largest, most elaborate and celebrated. I suspect this is because the prior two inaugurations were held under the cloud of electoral malfeasance if not outright fraud.
It doesn't hurt that the US is moving out from the shadow of an intellectually lacking, unimaginative, dullard of a president into the light of a man who at least thinks about consequences & costs and who considers facts which don't match his preferred and pre-programmed world view. After the last eight years, almost anyone would be heralded into office as an improvement.
I also think the dark national haze goes back further than Bush II, to the election of Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House of Representatives. To me, that's when the national mood began sliding from confidently building a better tomorrow for all into confidently acting with malice to anyone not white, wealthy, straight and Christian.
Still, despite the desire to be more hopeful and optimistic, I can't help but feel we're all investing too much into one man. There are limits on his office: he has influence but also constraints. He can persuade Congress to support him but he cannot force them. He can pull on the reins of power but he cannot singly remake the entirety of the US federal gov't in even a full four year term. He can talk with and cajole other nations, but he cannot move them by force, especially when the US' economic and political capital are at all-time lows. I wish it were otherwise, but the task is too big and the downward spiral of the past number of years has huge momentum.
Getting rid of the failed old guard is the first, most necessary part of the solution. At least now, there is the possibility of improvement.
Perhaps it's because I'm Canadian: the idea of investing such huge expectations into a prime minister is perfectly laughable. I'm from a country small enough that I've had the chance to shake hands with many of the men (and one woman) who have been or aspired to be prime minister and I know first hand that they are flesh & blood, mortal, limited, with all the faults to which our merely human minds, souls and body are heir. Culturally, we know the PMs we like and hate are not very different from ourselves. Politically, we know the PM is merely the first among equals, only slightly above other Parliamentarians, provincial premiers and other elected officials. The US president speaks from a podium elevated above the nation, surrounded by security details and the symbols of office; a prime minister speaks from a step-stool from which he can be easily brushed aside by an elderly great-grandmother with a walker.
So while I find the US inauguration process fascinating from an etiquette and protocol point of view --was I the only one more curious about the order of introductions of the dignitaries than Mr. Obama's inauguration speech?-- I find the cheering mobs and faces sobbing with joy somewhat bewildering.
This is the third such event since I moved to Washington DC. Of the three, today's inauguration is by far the largest, most elaborate and celebrated. I suspect this is because the prior two inaugurations were held under the cloud of electoral malfeasance if not outright fraud.
It doesn't hurt that the US is moving out from the shadow of an intellectually lacking, unimaginative, dullard of a president into the light of a man who at least thinks about consequences & costs and who considers facts which don't match his preferred and pre-programmed world view. After the last eight years, almost anyone would be heralded into office as an improvement.
I also think the dark national haze goes back further than Bush II, to the election of Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House of Representatives. To me, that's when the national mood began sliding from confidently building a better tomorrow for all into confidently acting with malice to anyone not white, wealthy, straight and Christian.
Still, despite the desire to be more hopeful and optimistic, I can't help but feel we're all investing too much into one man. There are limits on his office: he has influence but also constraints. He can persuade Congress to support him but he cannot force them. He can pull on the reins of power but he cannot singly remake the entirety of the US federal gov't in even a full four year term. He can talk with and cajole other nations, but he cannot move them by force, especially when the US' economic and political capital are at all-time lows. I wish it were otherwise, but the task is too big and the downward spiral of the past number of years has huge momentum.
Getting rid of the failed old guard is the first, most necessary part of the solution. At least now, there is the possibility of improvement.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-20 09:55 pm (UTC)don't kid yourself. It is certainly very significant, for the reasons you state, but it's not the last glass ceiling.
in other circles, I hear regularly "anti-gay sentiment is the last acceptable prejudice". No it isn't. There'll be another one along soon. (my nickel is on Islamophobia).
Mr Obama's inauguration is a huge step along the way, but we're not in the promised land [would that be Utopia?] by any stretch. There will continue to be glass ceilings and prejudices that need to be done away with. Didn't Hillary talk about putting 19million cracks in a glass ceiling for women? those ceilings are still there.
Well, what did you expect anyway from a nation of grown men who paint themselves lurid team colors
hey, *I* come from a country where my ancestors painted themselves blue. It was supposed to scare the invading Roman soldiers, but unfortunately had zero effect.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 12:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 02:11 pm (UTC)