Nine Hours Of Daylight

Watch the Obama Inauguration speech again, or if you remember it freshly in feeling and on message don't bother. Then read the text, at least most of it and get a sense of what the words convey in black and white. When you're watching and then later while reading, imagine the speech in the voice of George W. Bush. He's making the exact same speech, and you're evaluating it.

Yeah, I know we're done with him. Just bear with me.

The idea is to yes, get caught up in the sweeping emotion when you're watching Obama's speech it and really feel it. Enjoy it. Be inspired - it's good for the country when people are inspired for sound and virtuous reasons. It's not just about Obama the man or the president, it's about what he represents and the ideas that he articulates, strikingly well. It's hard to watch him and listen to him every time afresh, even after the many, many months of campaigning, and not think that he believes in what he says. So if we're being tricked, this is an elaborate and awful trick, one that makes fools of us for simply believing in the core values of our country and the goodness of people and then electing the one who embodies them purely.

The point of reading the text of the speech and hearing it in Bush's voice is to interpret what the words mean without the emotion, or even with a feeling of antipathy toward the speaker. It's a test of belief in a man I suppose, but also a test of the inherent substance of the speech. What do the words say, without such attachment of the heart?

Sometimes Obama directly contradicts the thrust of the Bush administration when he lofts verbal cannonballs, describing how our country must be protected without sacrificing our ideals. That wouldn't need to be said if those ideals hadn't been so clearly sacrificed by the shameful conduct of the Bush/Cheney crew and what resulted. Bush supporters, and there will always be some, are still supporters mainly because "we haven't been attacked since 9/11." Who am I quoting? Them. What else does he get any credit for other than allegedly protecting the country from more terrorist attacks?

Of course, this notion that we have been protected is false. Our reputation in the world after Iraq and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and torture is wrecked; we only hope it isn't totaled. That and our continued hated presence in the Middle East is what leads to more terrorist attacks. Wiretapping and heightened airport security doesn't prevent them. The hard fanatics find other ways because we have incited fury, and those who are furious are skilled at destruction. They have chosen not to strike in the window created by the time between 9/11 and now, but that's our window, our time frame, not theirs. Even a diminished al-Qaeda is dangerous and strikes on their schedule, not ours.

Play a trick of your own. Imagine it's 2000, but Bush has won the election in the manner he won in 2004: 286 electoral votes (270 needed), 62,000,000+ total votes, 50.8% of total votes, 3,000,000 vote margin of victory. That's a legitimate victory, one that can't be challenged by the Supreme Court. Bush takes this legitimacy and uses it in an attempt to spread good will and unite the country, so he speaks Obama's 2009 inauguration speech.

If you voted for him and believed in him, the same way you feel about Obama now (if you do), you would probably be almost as inspired but maybe not quite, considering Obama's deadly oratory skills - but imagine Bush at his best, not flubbing things, and doing what he did when he was "on", which for him meant clarity and concision and toughness. If you didn't vote for him, would you have believed in him more based on his legitimate victory and impressive speech? Maybe you would give him a chance, or maybe you would at least feel better about the upcoming Bush presidency.

The point is, presidents say a lot of things, as they are politicians who have risen to the apex of success in their discipline. Obama could disappoint us. It's probably a good idea to temper this inspiration with some common sense and a will to criticize honestly. The good feelings associated with this - at the end of the day unbelievable - inauguration are legitimate and the joy is substantive. The man who serves us now in the highest office speaks as if he truly believes in and will uphold our cornerstone ideals. Now it's about how he does it, and if his reach and grasp are equal. His words mean something in that estimation, which won him the presidency and much good will, and so the evaluation of his actions can begin.