- "... all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness" For those readers without an Obama-to-plain English dictionary, this is code for the concept of "positive rights". Social liberals believe that Jefferson's reference to an unalienable right, the "pursuit of happiness", isn't possible in the sense not everyone was born into a family with means, can afford a first-class education, the best health care, etc. "Positive" rights refer to an obligation to action, e.g., the right to a court-appointed attorney if a suspect cannot afford one on his own, free public education, police protection, unemployment compensation, emergency medical care, a "living wage", an old-age pension, etc. In short, this is language consistent with an explicit tax-and-spend agenda, in particular, high levels of domestic social spending.
- "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some..." Scapegoating 101 (the usual straw men: President Bush, lobbyists, deregulators, greedy mortgage lenders, etc.) and Obama's politically convenient and intellectually dishonest oversimplification of the economic tsunami. There are plenty of culprits to go around: the Federal Reserve flooded the system with easy money and didn't act to regulate certain lending practices under its jurisdiction, there was political pressure by Democrats to open the housing market to lower-income people (without a conventional down payment), consumers were outspending their income, voters weren't holding both parties accountable for the need to address solvency problems with social security and Medicare and escalating federal and trade deficits, credit rating agencies and accountants didn't flag the risks in the system, and (yes) homebuyers were buying houses they couldn't really afford.
- "There...is...a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights." No, there's not, but Obama does a fairly good job running down the economy. I do think we are in a much tougher global economy, we have to get our fiscal house in order, we need to improve our infrastructure, and we have to streamline our foreign entanglements.
- "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord...We come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics...the time has come to set aside childish things." Apparently Obama is trying to say if voters voted for McCain or Bush, they were voting on the basis of fear, conflict, and discord. He's also implicitly condemning the consistent Republican message on low federal taxes and spending, minimizing unnecessary federal regulations and paperwork, and protecting traditional values under assault by activist judges imposing their liberal opinions on the Constitution. [There were other reasons, besides a strong national defense, that 46% of American voters chose McCain, including his strong experience, opposition to high government spending, support for traditional values and solid bipartisan credentials over an unqualified opponent with no credible track record or expertise.] The "recriminations" seems to be references to the frivolous allegation that the Bush Administration outed Valerie Plame as a covert spy in retribution for her husband's critical op-ed comments about the Niger/Hussein/yellowcake connection, and purported political nature of certain US Attorney firings under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. What I don't like here is the self-superior tone; who is this guy to talk? He was running on the same failed policies as other liberal Democrats over the past 40 years. He not only refused to be part of the bipartisan Gang of 14 which defused a Senate crisis over Democratic threats to filibuster qualified nominees but, in fact, was ready to filibuster the pick of Sam Alito; he submitted a poison-pill amendment to the 2007 immigration bill and voted for others; he attacked Sarah Palin during the campaign for her Wasilla mayor efforts for earmarks and her gubernatorial campaign support for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere (although Obama himself requested hundreds of nillions in earmarks and specifically voted against stripping funds for the Bridge to Nowhere). When dealing with a narcissist like Obama, you have to pay attention not to what they say, but to what they do, e.g., when Obama reneged on his early campaign pledge to accept public funds for the general campaign.
- "The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth." Wait--does this mean Obama has FINALLY figured out that if you're trying to ignite growth, you need to cut business and investment taxes and stop threatening to punitively tax the job creators, including the small business owners? Let's look at Obama's "brilliant" job creation theory in action; we have proven, untapped oil and gas reserves (including offshore), not to mention among the largest coal reserves in the world. All of these provide IMMEDIATE good-paying jobs with today's ecologically-friendly exploration and production technology and keep more of our energy dollars at home. On the other hand, renewable energy, which has been aggressively pushed by environmentalists over the past four decades, other than hydropower, which has been in production for decades, accounts for less than 3% of consumed energy. Obama see himself as a visionary JFK, whom had successfully challenged the space program to get a man on the moon over the coming decade; he feels if he simply repeats his unrealistic expectations, it will happen. Tell me, when Obama joined his fellow Democrats in politically exploiting embryonic stem cell research back in 2004, cruelly raising the hopes and expectations of desperately ill people, whatever happened to the imminent miracle cures? Good luck trying to sell the American people that a huge spending "stimulus" of partisan Democratic spending priorities will turnaround the economy. When the economy improves, it wil be despite the Democratic Congress and President's best efforts; the Democrats are like a child picking at a scab versus leaving it alone to heal naturally. You don't solve problems like we currently have by throwing money at them or trying to micromanage the economy. Taxes are a business cost; you stimulate business growth organically by doing things like a permanent cut in taxes: that was how WalMart grew to dominate retailers with a consistent discount pricing strategy. Obama and his fellow Democrats are like supermarkets whom heavily promote loss leaders (i.e., tax gimmicks) instead of everyday low prices (taxes), hoping to make up the difference in higher taxes on other things (or people).
- "Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions...has surely passed." This is a slap at Bush's inability to resolve things like social security and Medicare solvency, the straw man of unfettered business interests, etc. This seems politically convenient since the Democrats refused to negotiate in good faith on social security and immigration reform during Bush's second term. The question of the 2008 election was not over "change" per se--because both candidates had multiple differences with Bush on issues and style--but what kind of change. (Obama offers class warfare "solutions" to resolving tough issues; class warfare solutions effectively kill the geese laying the golden eggs.) Keep in mind Bush had presided over an expansion of entitlement spending (Medicare drug coverage) and a vast, disproportionate expansion of government spending and regulations (something Obama deliberately misrepresented during the campaign, asserting Bush and McCain opposed government regulations). One could easily assert that Obama's expansionist government spending is "more of the same".
- "The question we ask today is...whether our...government...works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." No, it's not. We do not need an expensive, incompetent Big Brother limiting or micromanaging the economic decisions of businesses or American workers and their families, trying to impose elitist, socialistic criteria on just what constitutes a "decent" wage, "affordable" health care, or a "dignified" retirement. For example, politicians have distorted health care decisions by artifically tying favorable tax treatment to employment benefits, limiting competition of policies over individual state-mandated gold-plated benefit coverages, failing to enact legal reforms regarding dubious, frivolous medicial malpractice suits, and mandating no-cost treatment of uninsured or indigent patients, the government-unfunded costs of which must be passed along to other patients and/or their employers. I will also note here that Obama's economic targets are rather arbitrary: which living costs do governments cover? Food, shelter, utilities, transportation, clothing, etc.? It's not just the intrinsic costs, but the bureaucratic overhead and an explosion of government regulations--e.g., what food, how much, methods of preparation, etc. Contrary to Obama's implicit assertion, the issue of health care affordability is not a market-based one, but one deliberately distorted by government intervention into the marketplace. In fact, there are legitimate functions of government in support of the common good, e.g., the national defense, public law enforcement, environment and fire protection, public health safety, infrastructure development, operation and maintenance, and the guarantee of fair contract conditions and enforcement. Before Big Government liberals like Obama seek to expand the role of government in our lives, we must first insist on government fulfilling competently its existing agenda, e.g., no more Hurricane Katrina-type failures of government, no more political pressure on lenders to make risky loans, no more botched post-Iraqi liberation occupations, etc.
- "A nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous." Let me get this straight--a small percentage of high-income individuals and businesses assumes the overwhelming percentage of government cost burden, and it favors "only" the prosperous? If it favors the prosperous, why haven't the prosperous been able to lower their cost burden? Are the prosperous benefiting from food stamps, Medicaid, welfare and public housing? Are the contributions of charities and philanthropies, largely funded by the prosperous, making a difference to lower-income Americans? Do the prosperous get more national defense or infrastructure support than the 40% of American workers whom don't pay a penny in federal taxes (not including payroll "taxes", which are really benefits in which many will receive more than they pay into the system)?
- "Earlier generations...understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please." This is yet another thinly-veiled cheap shot at the Bush administration. The fact of the matter is that Iraq under Saddam Hussein violated the ceasefire terms of the first Gulf War and had refused to honor some 17 UN resolutions; furthermore, Hussein had cut sweetheart deals with nations on the Security Council. Obama ignores the fact that the Bush administration had, in fact, sought international cooperation, not only in dealing with Iraq, but the other members of the "Axis of Evil", i.e., Iran and North Korea. Obama also conveniently disregards important side-effects, e.g., the decision of Libya to renounce its own WMD program, more elections in the Middle East, etc. More seriously, Obama seems dangerously naive about the natural inertia of international cooperation and diplomacy and underestimates the requirement for our nation to assert leadership. The last thing we need is a President raising unrealistic expectations over diplomatic efforts.
- "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world." No, it's not. We Americans have always perceived our responsibilities, domestically and internationally, the latter not just in terms of last century's interventions in the world wars, but, for instance, the Peace Corps, our responses to natural disasters like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and former President Bush's qualitative leap forward in aid to Africa. So it is clear we don't need a lecture from Obama on our moral values and duties. What Obama is really trying to do here is to expand the nature and scope of those duties and in particular the government footprint. There are vital questions to be asked here about what Obama really means--whether, for instance, Obama is prepared to deal away American sovereignty to the arbitrary whims of international courts. In addition, we have to seriously look at the question of moral hazards resulting from government meddling; for example, has a social safety net undermined the stability of the American family if a father feels that his family's economic well-being would be better off by his abandoning it?
- "This is the meaning of our liberty...why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration...why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath." This is the best line of the speech; if there's one thing Obama understands, it's symbolism. The slavery compromise founding our country is an ugly thing, undermining the simplicity of its very ideals of liberty and equal protection. I cannot imagine living in a free country and not being able to fully participate, being judged on different, arbitrary criteria, beyond one's control. I cannot conceive of being asked to serve my country risking all that I have--my very life--and not being able to eat in the restaurants, attend the universities, given a fair chance to work in the best companies that I helped protect, not being able to promise my children a better life, to have to resign myself to the fact of inferior schools, police services, and reluctance of supermarkets and banks to establish a presence in my community. The election of Barack Obama required votes beyond the percentage of people of color in the general population. It constituted a validation of a paradigm shift (as Thomas Kuhn might say) in our political ideals, as an unsustainable patchwork of unconscionable race-based laws and policies collapsed under its own weight. I simply wish that this breaking of the artificial ceiling of opportunity had been achieved by a worthier, more experienced citizen, such as former General Colin Powell or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Final Comments
Personally, I expected Obama to give a more inspirational speech with soaring rhetoric, expressing confidence in our ability to prevail in a tough economy, just as we rose up to face the challenge of fascism during WWII, the spread of Communism and the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01, reassuring us, as did FDR, against economic fear, and calling us, as did JFK, to make hard decisions for the sake of our country instead of ourselves, to fix entitlement funding and our fiscal and trade deficits.
I also expected a more affective, intimate speech; this one seemed almost professorial and abstract. Whereas Obama expressed initial thanks for Bush's generous and graceful handling of the transition, he took several swipes at his predecessor during the speech, which I considered unnecessary and boorish on his part. At points, he comes across as self-righteous, judgmental and condescending, and some passages, e.g., the trials of the colonist army in the winter of 1776, seem remote, forced and out of place. It also seemed to meander and lacked a certain cohesiveness. It also appeared to be oddly inconsistent at points; for example, Obama in one breath pays lip service to traditional values, like courage, hard work, and fair play, but at the same time argues they are not enough. He asserts that we will not apologize for being the strongest, most prosperous nation on earth but then argues self-restraint and international coalitions. He notes that we have seen failure in the public sector (e.g., public schools), but then unconvincingly argues we must expand the government footprint. He praises the productivity and successes of our private economy but then insists that government can do what profit-seeking veteran private industry and investors haven't or won't, build a vibrant, profitable, job-creating green power industry.
Finally, it seems as if he is attempting to emulate the substance or style of others (e.g., Abraham Lincoln) rather than trying to find his own voice. While he asserts the inevitability of our success, it's almost as if he's trying to convince himself as much as the average American citizen. I don't believe he succeeds.
