Growing up Jewish in a culture dominated by Christmas was always a trying time for me. Christmas festivities, songs, decorations were everywhere - in school, on television, in department stores, in people's homes, in movies - everywhere! It seemed like so much fun, and there I was, on the outside looking in. To be quite honest, I couldn't wait for it all to end and for everything to just get back to normal.
I grew out of it of course and now am coping quite well. But along came the U.S. President's Inauguration and those feelings of being left out have returned. It has been non-stop Inauguration now for at least four straight days. 24 hour television coverage, waving and cheering crowds lining the tracks for the Obama inauguration express, celebrities, balls, concerts, souvenirs, millions of people in Washington and endless analysis and punditry. It goes on and on and on. There is nothing else on television and no-one talks about anything else. We in Canada have absolutely nothing to compare it with, other than perhaps a Royal Coronation, but that does not occur often and it does not even occur here in Canada.
Today is January 20. Thank God!! The formal swearing in and speech are over and now we just have all the balls, galas, and celebrities to deal with. It will soon all be concluded and things can hopefully get back to normal. I know I am Jewish and can't have Christmas. I know I am a Canadian and can't have an Inauguration. I can deal with it. As I did not begrudge my Christian friends their Christmas, I do not begrudge our American neighbours their inauguration. Enjoy the day! But, frankly, January 21 cannot come soon enough for me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So, what's the Grinch's take on Obama and America's Redemtion?
ReplyDeletehttp://theunmaskedanthropologist.blogspot.com/
I enjoyed your piece, Anthropologist, and agree with its tenor. Obama certainly is a symbol - of change, hope and redemption. His main message is that change will come and he will unite.
ReplyDeleteThere are some disturbing underlying worries, however. First, like all agents of change, Obama's message is that Washington is broken, politics has been corrupted, and he is different. This implies that those who have preceded him have been unworthy and unfit. Not a very positive view of his predecessors. Ironically, however, he has sought out these very same Washington insiders and life long politicos and made them a key component of his team. So what is it - change or the same? Unclear.
Second, whether he wanted this to happen or not, race has become the most important part of the Inaugural celebration. I can understand this. But what if Obama,the President ( not the African American President) fails to deliver and to meet the huge expectations? Will he be criticized? And if he is, will the African American community see this as an attack on them? Will the black community see this as an attack on their man? Just like the Rick Warren issue set gays against blacks, will Obama's future decisions have a similar divisive impact, if they are unpopular? Obama tried to run not on race but on change, and I think he was right to do this. But the media and the populace saw the election differently and would not let him.
So we will see. Redemption? Maybe. But maybe not.
Hello ITP:
ReplyDeleteThought you might enjoy these excerpts from an article today in the Politico:
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, though starkly different men, both viewed the presidency as pre-eminently a decision-making job. Clinton often waved away speech drafts bloated with lofty language by saying: “Words, words, words.”
Obama seems to have a different view of the presidency. He thinks that the right decisions can be reached by putting reasonable and enlightened people together and reaching a consensus. He believes his job as president is to educate and inspire, largely matters of style.
He knows he is good with words. He knows he has great style. So that’s why he projects exceptional confidence in his ability to do the job.
We don’t know yet how justified Obama is in his self-confidence — or how naive.
But he is almost certain to face many tests, probably imminently, in which the test will be Obama’s ability to act quickly and shrewdly — and not merely describe his actions smoothly or impress people with nuance. And an unlike a governor — who must decide what’s in a budget and what gets cut, or whether a person to be executed at midnight should be spared — Obama has not made many decisions for which the consequences affect more than himself.
Obama frequently talks of the need to transcend partisanship. And he invokes his support for charter schools — a not-terribly-controversial idea — as evidence that he is willing to challenge Democratic special interest groups.
In fact, there are few examples of him making decisions during the campaign or the transition that offended his own party’s constituencies, or using rhetoric that challenged his own supporters to rethink assumptions or yield on a favored cause.
Has Obama ever delivered a “Sister Souljah speech”? Ever stood up to organized labor in the way that Clinton did in passing North American Free Trade Agreement?
This is not a good sign. By Obama’s lights, the national interest usually coincides with his personal interest. Back to you, Church Lady.
Ah Pundit, when the mouse sleeps with the elephant, every movement, large or small, is noticed. Some of us celebrated WITH our bedmate. And this new American elephant has a strong memory for history, so I am hopeful for a brighter future full of "change, hope and redemption". In reading your blog, why am I reminded of the children's story "The Mouse That Roared"?
ReplyDeleteLewis,
ReplyDeleteI think you have overlooked the fact that Obama's immediate predecessor, at least in the minds of most Obama supporters I think, was an incompetent, crony-prone, warmongering ideologue. Why would he (or I) have a positive view of him? I was amazed that Obama was as restrained as he was in characterizing the Bush government.
And "the very same Washington insiders" Please, that sounds more like Sarah Palin speaking. Are people with experience now to be diminished as "insiders?" And compare Obama's appointments to those of Bush; he has maintained some continuity but overwhelmingly has appointed people with impressive credentials -- not just his old buddies.