There’s probably literally millions of reactions to Barack Obama’s inauguration on the intertubes today, so I wanted to try to highlight some more specific articles and posts which raise some interesting issues which might otherwise get lost in the crowd. [The text is here.]
Two of the more pressing questions since the election in November have been how Obama will respond to the global financial crisis and from what political position he will seek to govern. Both, in a way, have been answered, but hardly definitively. It’s worth observing in passing – and the point is a crucial one for us here in Australia – that the selective invocation of the mantra “there’s only one President at a time” means that we know very little about what the new administration’s stance on global financial regulatory issues and the governance architecture of the world economy will be. Such decisions as are taken – and paths not taken – will probably be of more lasting moment than how effectively and quickly his fiscal stimulus works to turn around America’s domestic economy. But, in that regard, the addition of tax cuts to the infrastructure investment proposed in his domestic package (to corral in some congressional Republican support, or so it’s being framed) reflects a debate about the composition of any stimulus which is important, and to some degree being played out, in our own context as well. Here, I was intrigued to see Andrew Leonard at Salon’s How The World Works blog suggest that a passage in the Inaugural address shows Obama has come down on the Keynesian side of the argument. (And to see Leonard compare Obama’s eloquence with Keynes’, to the former’s detriment.)
Turning to politics, Jonathan Freedland at The Guardian finds solace in Obama’s choice of and approach to themes for the claim that he has indeed set his course on introducing radical measures with conservative appointees. It might equally well be claimed that the repudiation of the Bush era in the speech is part of the post-partisan positioning, so we’ll see. On a related note, Heather McRobbie looks at the influence of the Gaza conflict on Obama’s message to the Middle East and the Islamic world, and isn’t confident words will ring out over the ruins which deeds have recently created. Freedland also examines some of the political pitfalls Obama might face.
On climate change and global warming, Christine Milne sees signs of hope in Obama’s rhetoric of change and collective purpose and his environmental appointments, and writes:
There are certainly a few disappointing nominees in the mix as well, but then there is the factor that, for the first time in living memory, America have a President who, because of the way he campaigned and was elected, is answerable not to the big money and the big corporations, but to the countless millions of individuals who put him where he is. And, furthermore, a President who has built a massive active constituency whom he can mobilise at short notice to campaign on his behalf, spread his message, and bring America with him as he goes.
Again, I hope she’s right, but I think you’d underestimate the power of big business and polluter lobbies – particularly in Congress – at your peril, and I think we also need to wait and see the colour of the Obama administration’s money in global climate negotiations.
Finally, Robert Corr links to an excellent piece from Marc Ambinder on the rhetorical structure of and literary allusions in Obama’s speech.
Update: Some good thoughts from I cite’s Jodi on desperate love for Obama.
Update: As well as writing of his own thoughts on Obama, Andrew Bartlett looks at the fallibility of political predictions, and how few have the good grace to admit when they’ve got it wrong.
It’s stirring stuff. My favourite bit is this:
Which seems to me to be the real question viz govt. After all people like Bush talked up the virtues of small govt but proceeded to build a (more) massive behometh.
.
I just hope that a. He means it, and b. They won’t fuck him over trying to do it.
.
I also hope he is a Keynsian stricly in the sense that he isn’t a slave to some defunct economist – including Keynes.
Definitely an interesting link:
Obama goes Bollywood!
Update: Some good thoughts from I cite’s Jodi on desperate love for Obama.
I think it’s clear that the Salon writer isn’t referencing JMK the policy wonk but rather JMK the down-to-earth philosophy bloke. Keynes’ is a lot like an educated version of Orwell that way–good commonsense Englishness expressed in prose.
I think BHO is merely translating this into midwest Americanese. Only he has to shear it of the obvious pessimism first.
Yep, I think Jimmy Carter showed what happens when you get pinged as a pessimist in America. But surely there’s a golden mean between despair and unrealistic assertion of will?
Adrien
Neocons are agnostic on the government’s role in the domestic economy. From the mid 197080s, they decided (correctly) the intergenerational transfer of welfare dependency was very bad for national security, but would approve of the current massive injections of funds for the same reason. Remember, while the neocons were always anti-communist, they have never been particularly partisan when it comes to economics. They are not rabid ideological free marketeers.
Mark
I’d say the Carter Doctrine which formally set US foreign policy to pre-emptive war to protect the supply of oil was probably close to such a golden mean.
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml
No subsequent president has thought otherwise.
.
Carter spoke of pre-emptive military attacks in response to the Iranian hostage crisis & the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Really?
Does anyone believe that?