Inauguration 2009

[Note: this blog post is an assignment I had for a class recently. Basically we had to do a personal response to a podcasted episode of the public radio show This American Life and post it on a class blog/discussion board.]

This post is about the This American Life episode entitled “The Inauguration Show.” I guess I might as well start out by saying where I'm coming from in listening to this episode---the context is important to my response. I am and always have been a strong and relatively active conservative. In recent years, in fact, I've taken to identifying myself as “conservative first, Republican second.” As a result, this past election offered an unexciting choice to me on the presidential level---John McCain was the first choice of neither myself nor a lot of other Republicans. However, I supported him; and, more importantly, I was and remain firmly opposed to the platform and presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. Unfortunately, however, it is now a reality, so listening to this episode was an interesting opportunity to hear how some other groups look at the new president. The podcast basically takes a look at reactions to the election by interviewing members of various focus groups. The first of these was a group of environmental activists talking about their impressions of a speech that Obama gave in November after his election. The general impression that I got was that many of these individuals had been frustrated by what they saw as an apparent lack of willingness of Obama during the campaign to come out strongly in support of specific environmental policies. Now they were very excited by the message that he gave (in a video recorded speech) about specific environmental policy commitments. I was surprised, despite knowing I shouldn't be, at the response—it is one the proverbial things that “never ceases to amaze” me. Of course Obama was now being more specific. Once you're elected, you can "come out" about radical policies without fear of political consequences, especially when you're riding an immense wave of popular acclaim and adulation like Obama was (and is). What saddened me, more than even the false premise upon which Obama is basing his policy—the idea that the science of global warming is incontrovertible—was the overblown response of this group to a speech that obviously designed to pander to their interests. Quotes like “suddenly the world was a place where countries could come together again,” and “everybody was so enthusiastic that they couldn't help themselves,” tell me that this particular group was not engaging in a whole lot of serious thought or analysis about the then president-elect. By itself, this would probably be understandable. After all, it is natural to get excited when the president you just elected is “your guy” and promising the stars when it comes to your agenda. However, this response was only indicative to me of the widespread lack of critical thought and reasoning regarding the new president and his policies.

The second segment looked at the military viewpoint of the new president, specifically interviews with some U.S. Marines and members of a veteran's organization. This election, as with any presidential election, was very important to most of us in the military/future military community, since we elected our commander-in-chief for the next fours years. As a new member of this community, it was newly significant to me, especially given that we are involved in a global war on terrorism, and the viewpoints of the outgoing and incoming administration are radically different about the ways and means of prosecuting it. As the interviews with the Marines reflected, there is a general sense of pessimism among service members about Obama. Issues like doubts about his overseas courses of action, and widespread opposition to policies such as getting ride of the “don't ask, don't tell” policy for homosexual service members prevents any real enthusiasm for the new president. I think it would be fair to say that he has a lot to prove, as do most new leaders in a position like the presidency. The interviews with the veteran's organization were a surprising contrast, as they were very optimistic based on the way in the incoming administration was already reaching out to them about veteran's affairs and policy. They were expecting a positive change in the way in the government was involved in caring for veterans.

The third segment focused on a school project where students had written letters to the president with advice and requests for things that they hoped he would do in office. The letters obviously reflected an elementary level of thinking and concerns, but I was concerned by the way in which the kids seemed to see the president as a sort of Santa Claus who would fix various “problems” and give out things that they wanted. It saddened me to see the lack of real knowledge of what the president's constitutional role in government is, and the dependence already evident in the students on government to fix their problems. Once again, the messages also reflected the unfortunate level of both national media and individual adulation for an unproven leader.

The third segment highlighted conservatives who were upset over certain conservative pastors who prayed at Obama functions—such as Rev. Rick Warren at the inauguration. Many said that these pastors were traitors, and/or were used by the Obama team as tools in presenting an image of inclusiveness. One pastor, Rev. Joe Hunter, said that the image projected by this sense of unwillingness to even talk to the other side is damaging to the outside view of the Christian faith. He feels that Obama is sincere when he “reaches out” to the conservative side on certain issues, not just politically conniving. Interestingly, Hunter also thinks that it was fine to have openly gay Episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson pray at an inauguration ceremony, saying that we need to have more inclusiveness, and cooperation when it comes to religion and government. I think that it's fine for a conservative minister to participate in the Obama inauguration and government, as long as they “stick to their guns” on the issues. I disagree with Hunter, however, that the Obama administration is sincere in “reaching out” to religious conservatives, and I strongly disagree with him about the need for “inclusiveness” when it comes to people like Robinson. The Obama team is composed of some politically savvy people who know a good move when they see it and are willing to exploit when necessary to project an image. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding—the choice of an incredibly divisive figure like Robinson belies the message of unity that the Obama team is attempting to project, and the promotion of radically pro-abortion, pro-gay rights positions demonstrates a complete rejection of the positions of most religious conservatives.

The fourth segment of the podcast covered a company that had made a very smart and astute business move early in the campaign and contracted to produce buttons, signs, t-shirts for the Obama campaign. The company started out with 30 employees, and jumped to about 500 employees in early November. Ironically, once Obama was elected, business plummeted and the had to release many employees, dropping to about 50 at the time of the interviews. Like President Obama, now that the campaign is over, they have to make some difficult, real-world decisions.

The fifth section was about the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The interview featured a Navy lawyer who had a worked as a defense attorney at Guantanamo who talked about his frustrations with what he saw as a deeply flawed system. I was disappointed (although unsurprised) by the strong bias of the segment toward the “anti-Gitmo” viewpoint, and the complete and obvious disregard for the status of the detainees at Guantanamo as enemy combatants and war criminals who do not and should not enjoy the same legal rights and privileges as American citizens. This is typical of the debate surrounding Guantanamo Bay and other military prisons, and clouds the truth about the purpose of these facilities.

Segment six featured a number of on-the-street type interviews with individuals about their views of the new president as a person, their thoughts on his role in the history of civil rights, and their hopes, doubts, and fears of what his administration means. Of all the segments, I thought this was the most balanced, since it featured a wide range of viewpoints, from the adulating to the unfortunately often-overlooked views of those who have grave doubts about Obama's policies and leadership. This final segment provided a welcome balanced conclusion. While the show was unsurprisingly left-leaning on the whole, I think the ending reflected the views of the country the best. The election of Obama, while historical in the basic fact that he is indeed the first black man to hold the office, is not a watershed, unifying political event. Americans are a diverse group of people, and there are many, thankfully, who still think independently, and are waiting to see if Barack Obama can “produce” and come through on the claims that he made while campaigning. There are quite a few of us who hope that he is unsuccessful when it comes to implementing many of his stated policies. My final thought coming away from listening to “The Inauguration Show” was that for all the campaigning and all the pre-election hype, in the end it is history that will be the best and truest judge of President Obama. Words are one thing, but actions are another, and the coming years will show America, one way or another, just what kind of leader it has placed in the Oval Office, and the effect he will have on This American Life.