Barack Obama's Speech: A Disappointing Hodgepodge

The New Republic

You have read:

0 / 8

free articles in the past 30 days.

Already a subscriber?

Log in here

sign up for unlimited access for just $34.97Sign me up

THE PLANK JANUARY 20, 2009

Barack Obama's Speech: A Disappointing Hodgepodge

Barack Obama has the makings of a great orator, but his
inaugural speech was not a great oration. It was well-delivered, but it
consisted of a hodgepodge of themes, injunctions, and applause lines that did
not speak directly to the crisis that the country faces.

The speech was unusually abstract. It lacked any reference
to people or situations in the present. Obama was most vivid in describing
moments long past--such as George Washington crossing the Delaware. Of course, an abstract speech can
have its use if it is the service of compelling argument. But the concepts, and
the argument on which the speech hung, were neither original nor compelling.

Part of the problem was that much of the argument was
implied; and what was implied did not ring true. Premise: America's
success in the past was based on people who "struggled and sacrificed and
worked." Conclusion: What we need now is a "new era of responsibility." What is
missing is a middle term, and what is implied is that the reason we are in
trouble now is because the present generation has acted irresponsibly. Is that
really at the heart of America's
difficulties at home or in the world? It has the ring of Biblical prophecy, but
not of truth.

There were subsidiary themes that seemed ill-suited to the
occasion. Obama returned to his earlier primary campaign oratory about politics
and partisanship. We need to end "the petty grievances and false promises, the
recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our
politics." Yes, fine, but again: Does that get at the problem now? Is Obama facing
partisan warfare? Is Washington
deeply divided? It may become so, but the evidence of the last month does not
suggest that this is a critical problem.

Obama did hit upon the nature of the challenges facing us,
but I don't think he had anything interesting to say about them. "Our nation is
at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred," he declared.
This strikes me as either boilerplate or an exaggeration of the danger posed by
al Qaeda. It is reminiscent of George W. Bush and his catch-all war on terror.
Obama and the country clearly face grave problems overseas; but they can't be
reduced to a "far-reaching network." The difficulty is more in their
multiplicity than in their individual gravity.

The economic crisis? "Our economy is badly weakened, a
consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our
collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age."
Greed? Yes, but greed condoned and encouraged by government. Hard choices? What
does these refer to? Not enough retrofitting homes? Auto companies making the
wrong cars? Obama doesn't say. And I don't think he could have been specific
without revealing the shallowness of his diagnosis. I have my own view of what
went wrong, but that's not important. It's whether Obama put one across, or whether
he offered the semblance, but not the reality, of a diagnosis.

You can say, of course, that I am treating his speech as a
political argument, and not as a piece of oratory, but the problem is that it
existed in the netherworld between inspiring oratory and political argument. It
had intimations of both, but lived up to the promise of neither. I suspect
Obama chose this ambiguous course partly because of the difficulty of the
occasion. Argument requires pros and cons, truth and falsity, truth-tellers and
misleaders, but an inaugural speech is an instrument of national, and even
international, unification. Thus, some who might have actually qualified as
misleaders and villains (e.g. the greedy) make only a fleeting appearance,
while scorn is heaped upon others (the "cynics... who question the scale of
our ambition") who are inventions of the moment rather than real adversaries.
That's certainly understandable, but it didn't make for good oratory or
argument.

--John B. Judis

Be sure to read Eve Fairbanks' response, "John, You're Too Hard On Obama's Speech,"  Noam Scheiber's response, "Solid Themes, But No Style Points," and Marty Peretz's, "The Great Oration of Barack Obama."

share this article on facebook or twitter

posted in: the plank, war, barack obama

print this article

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 85 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back to Top

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK