Inaugural Address Analysis

Inaugural addresses can be inspiring. I hope that Barak Obama's speech inspires Americans during this fiscal crisis and the other challenges we currently face.

First of all, I was glad that Obama chose to be sworn in using his full name, unlike Jimmy Carter, so as to maintain the dignity of the office. The inconsistency, however, is that he and his supporters had forbidden the mention of his middle name during the campaign.

I chose not to view the speech, but read the transcript partly out of curiosity but also so that I could comment upon it for you, my dear readers. On the positive side, Obama's tone was optimistic and confident in America, which might help people accept some economic difficulties. On the negative side, Obama portrayed the State of the Union as negatively as possible so as to make himself look better in comparison with Bush when the economy recovers, for example.

I was also glad that Obama continued the tradition set by Carter of thanking his predecessor. However, his thanks to Bush were as flat as Bush's toward his impeached predecessor. I had hoped that at least Obama would have thanked Bush for the 43rd president's great work in Africa, for which Obama has praised him previously, or for Bush's leadership in the aftermath of the September 11 Attacks.

I suppose it was too much to expect Obama to thank Bush for having kept us safe from a major terrorist attack for seven and a half years. It will be interesting to see if Obama's supporters judge him on the same basis: if there is no attack, praising Obama for preventing one will implicitly praise Bush for also having prevented an attack, but if there is one, Obama's record will contrast negatively with Bush's. As with the economy, the longer something bad occurs into Obama's tenure, the more difficult it will be for his supporters to blame Bush.

Speaking of the terrorists, it was encouraging that Obama sounded hostile to the terrorists --more than once, at that. He twice praised veterans for their service, but graciously praised all those who do good in some way. His message to the Muslim world was right on and perhaps could only have been made as effectively -- I hope -- from one with his background.

Obama made two minor mistakes in his speech. He stated that 44 Americans had taken the oath of office of the presidency. Forty-three have; Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president. The second was his odd inclusion of "curiosity" among his lists of "values" and "truths."

There were several serious negative points in Obama's speech, however. Obama said the "question we ask today is not whether our government is too large or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families finds jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Of course, he answers the question affirmatively. Obama is here trying to suggest that the debate over the size of government, which Bill Clinton had famously stated was settled against big government when he declared "the era of big government is over" has now by his election been settled in favor of it.

Although Obama and his supporters may not ask the question about whether government is too large or small, many of us Americans do. And the answer is clear that it is too big and it taxes and spends too much. Part of the conclusion about the size of government reflects the understanding about its purpose, which, as Thomas Jefferson reminded us in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our rights. It is not the purpose of government to help families find jobs at decent wages, care they can afford or retirements that are dignified. Instead, it is the purpose of government to protect us so that we can attain these things ourselves. The difficulty in attaining them is made greater by the heavy hand of excessive taxation and regulation by government, to the point that we need to be protected from government itself -- just the opposite of what Obama says.

Obama then makes the absurd charge that government policies (Bush's policies) favor "only the prosperous." Although it is typical of liberals to utter such slogans about tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, as well as the middle class and poor, Obama's charge is refuted by his own promise to maintain the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and poor.

Worse, Obama summarized another liberal cliche when he declared that "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," which he intended as yet another repudiation of Bush's policies, which explains why he cannot acknowledge that Bush kept us safe from another terrorist attack. In Obama's liberal mind, Bush's alleged abuses of liberty were worse than September 11. Indeed, liberals hate Bush far more than they hate the terrorists, if liberals even acknowledge the existence of terrorists at all.

There are two major problems with Obama's view. First, there were hardly any true abuses of liberty committed by the Bush Administration, which was remarkable as compared to other presidents who faced threats of various degrees. Obama truly is more concerned with all of the supposed rights of accused terrorists and the perception that such concern will afford the image of the United States, than with protecting us from the terrorists -- even to the point of treating them as "Prisoners of War" under the Geneva Convention, which legitimizes them as soldiers and not as unlawful combatants (who can be summarily shot under international law), which thereby legitimizes terrorism as a wartime activity. In short, we did not trade liberty for security, as liberals often allege.

Second, Obama subscribes to the liberal view that we also traded another ideal that liberals regard as a fundamental part of liberty: the right to privacy. But there is no such thing in the Constitution as the right to privacy. There is only a constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures (although there is no requirement for a warrant, the standard is whether there is probable cause), which was intended as a protection against oppression through harassment by government agents more so than a positive right to privacy. At most, one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but not claim a right to it. Therefore, we did not lose a right that we never had in the first place. We can nevertheless balance privacy and security by sacrificing some privacy, such as being scanned by metal detectors as a condition of entering an airport terminal (in other words, it is not a matter of privacy to enter a public place), but we do not need to sacrifice any liberty. Despite the allegations of liberals, the Bush Administration and its supporters in Congress never made the curtailment of liberty a basis for policy.

Obama's expansive view of the rights of terrorists is dangerous to both our security and liberty and must be one of those matters of principle that the opposition not cede.

In short, although there were some inspirational aspects to Obama's speech, there were few eloquent lines, and a few troubling ones. Most of the speech will be as forgettable as the majority of inaugural addresses. Therefore, he should continue to remind people of America's greatness as a way of helping to restore economic confidence. It would help if he pursued the right policies.