Login or Register
Welcome , Settings |  Logout

Obama's Inaugural Address Raises Stakes

Friday, 25 Jan 2013 02:19 AM

 

Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
For the left, this is what winning looks like. President Barack Obama gave a second inaugural address that just as easily could have been delivered by progressive darling Elizabeth Warren.
 
If the president didn't repeat the phrase that Republicans threw back at him so often during the 2012 campaign — "you didn't build that" — the speech was a meditation on the same theme of the limits of individual action.

The address was a paean to collectivism, swaddled in the rhetoric of individual liberty and of fidelity to the founding.
 
He began and ended with the Founding Fathers and threaded the Declaration of Independence throughout. This gave the speech a conservative sheen. He used the words "timeless," "ancient," "lasting" and "enduring."

He sounded like Republican Sen. Marco Rubio in invoking "what makes us exceptional," namely "our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago."
 
But this framing of the speech only served to amplify the ambition of President Obama's larger political project. He hopes to reorient the American mainstream and locate conservatives outside it. He wants to take the founders from the right and baptize the unreconstructed entitlement state and the progressive agenda in the American creed.
 
In Obama's telling, the high points of our national life are found in collective action, in the growth of government, in teachers trained and roads built. "Now, more than ever," he declared, "we must do these things together, as one nation and one people."
 
He presented his agenda as the logical consequence of the Declaration of Independence's enunciation of the equality of all men and our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For Obama, that means equal-pay legislation, gay marriage, and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
 
He included a long passage on the necessity of fighting climate change with transformative energy policies. "That's what will lend meaning," he said, "to the creed our fathers once declared." (One wonders what Thomas Jefferson would have made of the argument that his handiwork is meaningless absent federal subsidies for the likes of Solyndra.)
 
According to President Obama, entitlements like Medicare and Social Security don't merely represent a necessary safety net for the vulnerable. "They free us to take the risks that make this country great," he maintained, in a highly imaginative interpretation of these programs.
 
In a clear slap at Republicans, Obama declared, "We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate."

This smacks of hypocrisy from a politician who gleefully mocked Mitt Romney in the general election and questions the motives of his opponents as a matter of routine. In Obama's mind, though, there is no contradiction. As obstacles to the togetherness that defines America, Republicans are burdened with the taint of illegitimacy.
 
For all their obsession with the founding, he is saying, it is they who represent a break with the American tradition. For all their accusations that he is a radical, it is they who are the extremists. He gives them the implicit choice of getting with his program or getting run over.
 
All of his bows to modesty were formalistic. He mentioned "outworn programs," without even promising to eliminate any. He said we have always had a suspicion of central authority, but of course he didn't endorse it. He said we don't have to settle the debate over the size of government once and for all, while insisting that we keep expanding it on his own terms.
 
All in all, it was a brazen performance, as audacious in intent as it was banal in its expression. He used the founders' authority to advance an expansive conception of American government that would have been unrecognizable to them.

Amid the pomp and the circumstances, Republicans should have heard a direct challenge. The president did them, and everyone else, the favor of enunciating the battle lines and the stakes of the fights to come.
 
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and a variety of other publications. Read more reports from Rich Lowry — Click Here Now.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

© King Features Syndicate

Share:
More . . .
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax community.
Register to share your comments with the community. Already a member? Login
Note: Comments from readers do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of Newsmax Media. While we attempt to review comments, if you see an inappropriate comment you can block it by rolling over the comment, clicking the down arrow and selecting "Flag As Inappropriate."
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
 
Hot Topics
Top Stories
Around the Web
You May Also Like

The Benghazi Patsy

Friday, 10 May 2013 15:25 PM

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula deserves a place in American history. He is the first person in this country jailed for violati . . .

Obama's Red Line Exposes 'Fluff'

Tuesday, 07 May 2013 22:44 PM

Someone had to take the fall for President Barack Obama thoughtlessly drawing a "red line" threatening serious consequen . . .

Abortion's Euphemism Imperative

Friday, 03 May 2013 10:56 AM

President Barack Obama was proud to become the first sitting president to address Planned Parenthood the other day. But  . . .

 
 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved