Not exactly Lincoln
Barack Obama stoked the comparisons between himself and Lincoln, and now the comparisons are being drawn. But not in President Obama's favour -- at least as far as rhetoric goes. I watched the Inauguration on a hospital television set, while visiting my friend Shannon (Get well soon, Shan!), and the new president's speech was good, very good even, but not "great". He made better speeches during the campaign; and his is still, I think, his best.
Lincoln's was indeed great, and is the historic benchmark. FDR's first inaugural is remembered for a single line ("The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"), and JFK is remembered for saying "Ask not what your country can do for you ..." -- again, a single line. Perhaps Obama's will be remembered for his reference to the Muslim world, or his acknowledgment that America includes "non-believers". If a single sentence or paragraph is remembered by history, it may be this:
"The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."
Incidentally, I haven't seen any comment online or in news reports about the phrase "So help me God", which has been used since President Chester Arthur's inauguration in 1881. The words do not appear in the Constitutional oath, and a group of American agnostics has been unsuccessful in having the phrase outlawed by the courts. We understand that Mr. Obama told Chief Justice Roberts that he would like to use the words after taking the oath. Typically, the Justice would say the words, "So help me God", which would then be repeated by the president. In this case, Chief Justice Roberts used the phrase in the form of a question: "So help you God?" To which the new president replied, "So help me God." Perhaps they were both having a little fun at the expense of those who sought to challenge the constitutionality of the words. On the other hand, since this this oath will be remembered for its Bushism-like quality, anything is possible.
And that, dear reader, is my last post on the inauguration.
Comment number 1.
At 21st Jan 2009, brindle123 wrote:I got the impression that it was intentional. I think he was trying to achieve relevant and greater substance rather than give the masses a new presidential slogan.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21st Jan 2009, John Wright wrote:I like to think they were having some fun with it, though that's probably not the case. Roberts was flustered enough, it seems, to make any mistake (as you've pointed out).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 22nd Jan 2009, dennisjunior1 wrote:William:
I think that he was like Lincoln in someways....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 22nd Jan 2009, nobledeebee wrote:It was Lincoln who said in 1858 that negroes should not be allowed to hold office, plus some other fairly unpleasant things, but he was reflecting the orthodoxy of his time and his views did change.Just think how archaic the views of Iris Robinson and other believers will appear in 150 years time!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 22nd Jan 2009, gveale wrote:Will
I'm glad someone else has noted that the speech wasn't a "great". It didn't draw universal lessons from our particular historical circumstances.
Obama has enough charisma to carry around in a bucket. But if he's going to be a "great", he'll need to question something most people across the political spectrum's cherish.
On the other side of the coin, maybe what we need right now is a pragmatist who can persuade the US to do what needs to be done. Maybe a grand vision is the last thing we need.
GV
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)