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.

At The Guardian, Ned Temko looks at past inaugurals, and writing in New Matilda, Aron Paul observes:

Obama’s inauguration may well promise republican and democratic renewal. Paradoxically, however, this year’s is the most monarchic and imperial inauguration ritual that America has ever witnessed.

I think Adrien is right to observe on a related thread here that we’ve rarely seen so much international interest in, and widespread coverage of such an event. To some degree, I think this is an artefact of the end of the Bush era. Certainly, the symbolism of Obama’s train ride tracing Lincoln’s route to Washington DC, the rhetoric of a “new declaration of independence” and even the significance of the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s speech won’t have the same resonance here as it does for American citizens.

On one hand, I think Obama’s inauguration is to be welcomed heartily (if realistically in terms of what it promises), and the pose of permanent cynicism some like to adopt rejected as a symptom of the failings of Western political systems themselves.

On the other hand, the degree of international attention, I think, obscures the degree to which Obama’s role will be the management of a superpower in decline, both economically and politically. While George W. Bush no doubt accelerated America’s decline, the fact that it will be so difficult for the new President – armed with record popularity, a strong electoral college margin and Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress – to achieve universal healthcare is telling. Healthcare for the middle class traditionally rested on employer coverage, which was in turn dependent on America’s comparative economic dominance. Though the story is more complex than this, the withering away of this hegemony is both cause of and metaphor for many of the travails Obama was elected to address.

In foreign policy too, Obama’s options are probably more limited than they appear. I think we’ll see that in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continuity signalled by the renomination of Robert Gates as Defence Secretary and a panoply of other Republicans to his national security team is significant.

We might do well to remember all this, and whether or not we’re personal fans of the President of Our Great and Powerful Friend, that looking to America to salve all the world’s ills hasn’t exactly been working so well recently. Though Obama will undoubtedly be a much better President than his predecessor, his own commitment to multilateralism (such as it is) might be better served if we in Australia were to rely more on our own resources, even if our politics lacks pageantry and soaring rhetoric.

Update: New post here with links to the speech and commentary on some interesting but probably overlooked angles.

Firstly -

Barack Obama does represent change from the era of the Bush administration. He is the limited change that’s possible within the logic of the current system.

<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/spectrum.jpg"

Image source here.

Secondly – Arianna Huffington:

Judging by where the media are focusing their attention, you’d think the Blago/Burris/Reid and Kennedy/Paterson/Cuomo soap operas are the biggest issues facing the nation — and that little thing about the potential collapse of the world’s largest economy is just a sideshow.

Why have the media shown such relatively little interest in the utter lack of transparency about the bailout?