We call it inauguration after the Romans, of course. Beginning at midnight on January 1st of each new year, the priests would take the augurs — the signs and portents — for the two new consuls, the duoviri who would govern the Republic for the next year. The ceremony would end with a long, slow march to the top of the Capitoline hill at dawn, at the end of which the senior consul for that year would sacrifice a bull. Only then would the new consuls and the senators convene in the Curia to take up the Republic’s business for the year.
And Janus, for whom January is named, is the god of doorways, presiding not just over beginnings but also endings. Today marks not just the beginning of Obama’s presidency, but also the end of the Bush era in Washington.
Both Bushes, pere and fils, seemed to me to be fundamentally decent people, quite unlike the man who served between them. But Bush the younger, by being so roundly reviled as president, has nowhere to go but up from here. Someday Americans will have the fortitude to thank this man for calling Islamofascism by its true name: Evil. In the mean time, the bull is no longer his to slay.
I’m less afraid of Obama than I was on election day, but still I fear for capitalism and for individualism. The good news, always, is that socialism cannot work. The bad news, always, is that millions perish in the process of discovering that socialism cannot work. Janus may well be opening the door to a renewed appreciation for classical liberal virtues, but it seems likely that the glorious light we associate with ages of reason may be found at the end of a long, dark hallway.
The one hope I hold today is to be found in the photo at the top of this post: I hope that today is the beginning of a post-racial America. Everything we’ve done about race so far, for four hundred years, has been pretty stupid. I hope it turns out that electing a black president was the first smart thing we have managed to do to bridge this divide.
Augurs and their portents, with or without the animal sacrifices. What signs do you see for America’s future?
Doug Quance says:
Agreed.
I see some hope in that Obama seems to have become more of a pragmatist. I think that once he got a peek at the “real situation” – he started to realize that much of what Bush did regarding terrorism was necessary. He’ll probably still close Gitmo – but he might drag his feet doing it.
While many on the left have never wanted Bush to be successful – I don’t see the same sentiment with those on the right. They seem to want Obama to succeed. Perhaps they realize that when the President succeeds – we, as Americans, all win.
January 20, 2009 — 10:33 am
David Shafer says:
Wow talk about an ironic post Doug. Can’t you not speak ill of the left for a single day?
“While many on the left have never wanted Bush to be successful – I don’t see the same sentiment with those on the right.”
Perhaps those folks who have gone to the courts to “prove” Obama was not born in Hawaii and is not a citizen therefore not eligible for the presidency are really left wingers in disguise.
Oh well, here’s hoping that hope becomes the emotion of the year and our current situation improves!
January 20, 2009 — 12:07 pm
Doug Quance says:
😆
I do not have a daily utterance of ill will for the left, David. But I will call something the way I see it.
As far as those who were working to prove that Obama was ineligible because of his citizenship – that effort was led by Philip J. Berg, a well-known Democrat. That issue has not been resolved to my personal satisfaction – but you won’t find me in the streets protesting over it.
Do you hear anyone on the right claiming that Obama is not their President? Have you forgotten how many on the left kept up that mantra right on through Bush’s second inauguration… and many right on through his second term? Have you ever been to the Huffington Post or DailyKos blogs?
I wish the President to succeed – not for his benefit, but for our country’s benefit. I will support him when I agree with him – and condemn him when I don’t. Meanwhile, I appreciate the milestone this day brings to America.
January 20, 2009 — 12:24 pm
David G says:
“To the muslim world … we seek a new way forward. One with mutual interests and mutual respect.”
Barak Obama, 2/19/2009
When it comes to the middle east, this is the leadership that will be remembered favorably. In my personal experience with terrorism (which is tragically extensive), terrorists only exist to the extent that cowardly tyrants fear and attack them. What history has shown and will show again is that declaring “war on terrorism” is equivalent to admitting defeat to it. Peace and solidarity are quite literally the only weapons effective in disarming terrorism.
January 20, 2009 — 12:38 pm
Greg Swann says:
> terrorists only exist to the extent that cowardly tyrants fear and attack them
Well, that’s a relief. I thought Islamofascism was the result of Qutbism, Wahhabism and fanatical madrasas and mosques. Would you reckon, too, that bug spray causes insect infestations?
I’m pretty sure that what history has taught us about fanatical Caliphists, as distinguished from Muslims, is that they will seek to grow their empire until they are beaten back decisively.
> Peace and solidarity are quite literally the only weapons effective in disarming terrorism.
Monkeytalk. The memes you’re looking for are reason and capitalism. But that implies that the war on terror really is a war on Islam, to the extent that Muslims prefer divination and the afterlife to rationality and real life. The way things work, for now, is that the various types of Caliphists take new territory by terrorism and conquest and the Muslim faithful retain that new territory by their presence and by their very high birth rates. The implication — so far unrealized in policy — is that for reason and capitalism to survive, we have to take their children, much as the forces of reason and capitalism undermined the fanatical Christianity of the Middle Ages.
That’s a long process, assuming we have the will to undertake it. I think it’s a good idea to hang onto your bug spray for now.
January 20, 2009 — 1:24 pm
Greg Swann says:
Plus which, Obama was much better than you give him credit for:
Not bad.
January 20, 2009 — 1:41 pm
David Shafer says:
Doug to answer you question, yes their are already many folks (have no idea where their politics are) who are not interested in claiming Obama as THEIR president 3 hours after he began. But only partisan eye’s see these folks as only being leftist!
That was the point I so inartfully was making.
January 20, 2009 — 1:19 pm
Teri Lussier says:
On a very basic and emotional level, I do see signs that certain people who have spent the past 8 years clinging bitterly 😉 to their anger and unhappiness, have finally given themselves permission to be joyful again. A welcome relief, for which I thank Obama.
January 20, 2009 — 1:33 pm
David Shafer says:
Yes, excellent and he did warn that folks who thought they could outlast us, would be sadly mistaken and defeated. Hamas as a duly elected government of the people of Palestine as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon would do well to listen to his words and change their approach. Unfortunately history has taught us that for this issue the choice in invariably to be terrorist and destroy rather than build something of value. But one can hope…….for a change of heart.
January 20, 2009 — 3:11 pm
Doug Quance says:
>David: I have not yet seen anyone who has stated that Obama is NOT their President – so I can only tell you what I have observed.
I take many issues with Republicans and Democrats alike. As a Libertarian, I tend to be more fiscally conservative than both parties – and more socially liberal than most Republicans. I part ways with the Libertarians when it comes to national security – which happens to be an area where I part ways with the Democrats, as well.
I certainly hope that those who you report are already claiming that Obama is not their President are few in numbers.
January 20, 2009 — 4:13 pm
Dylan Darling says:
Left… Right… We all have our differences. Hope is something we all have in common. Lets hope we learn from our mistakes and change for the future.
I’m hopeful that Obama will do whats best for the people, without influence from lobbyists.
January 20, 2009 — 4:56 pm
Joe Lane says:
"Everything we’ve done about race so far, for four hundred years, has been pretty stupid. I hope it turns out that electing a black president was the first smart thing we have managed to do to bridge this divide."
"What signs do you see for America’s future?"
January 20, 2009 — 6:32 pm
Tom Vanderwell says:
I spent about 45 minutes after supper tonight watching the news about the inauguration with 7 and 8 year old. They were fascinated and excited by it. Why?
They were born in Haiti and they are black.
The fact that someone who isn’t white is in a leadership position is something that even at the very young age of 7 and 8 years old they can grasp and appreciate.
Do I believe in everything that our new president stands for? No, I don’t. But I do think the fact that a black man was elected president is a big step for America.
How that will play out remains to be seen. The honeymoon will end tomorrow morning and the real work will start.
May God bless America and may God bless President Obama.
Tom
January 20, 2009 — 7:02 pm
David Shafer says:
Tom, excellent. I watched it with my six year old (he watched if live in school) and he asked excellent questions and was fully versed on the reasons why this was historic. But I truly believe Obama is a tranformative figure, one that through a combination of personality and historic circumstances will bring us to a place we could not have imagined. FDR and Kennedy are probably the most recent examples of transformative presidents. I think people who think through the lens of ideology are missing the forest for the trees. Listening to him today, made me proud and happy to be alive at this historic juncture.
January 20, 2009 — 7:22 pm
Tom Bryant says:
Greg:
A simply terrific article that expresses beautifully (for the language-impaired like me) some of the conflicted feelings this day brings. My 14 year old asked for the newspaper today so he can save the front page. And this old, cranky conservative proudly searched the house, and encouraged him to put it in a safe place.
January 20, 2009 — 8:16 pm
Greg Swann says:
Beautiful comments, all of you. Bless you. Give a look to Juan Williams in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.
January 21, 2009 — 7:56 am
Anonymous says:
“at the end of which the senior consul for that year would sacrifice a bull.”
Greg: Well written.
They took the liberal bull, Sen. Kennedy away on a stretcher at yesterday’s luncheon.
January 21, 2009 — 9:02 am
Dylan Darling says:
As far as the WSJ article goes- I agree that the newly appointed president needs to be judged like any president of the past. I believe he can take it, and the people won’t play the race card. I also agree with some the article talking about the way that the press handled the election. They new history was in the making, and let that overshadow some of the “real issues”. But that is done now and the press should treat him like any of our past presidents.
As the press has been saying this morning, “the honey moon is over, and its time for the new president to get to work”. Obama has high expectations from most of the country, only time will tell how those expectations are met.
January 21, 2009 — 9:10 am
Greg Swann says:
Another one: Andy Levy’s “To Don’t” list:
January 21, 2009 — 9:42 am
Kevin OBrien says:
The good news, always, is that socialism cannot work.
I think that single sentence sums up my frustration with the new emperor of the world. As far as I can tell he is an ardent believer in varying forms of socialism. How much do we need to continue to destroy to realize it does and cannot work?
January 21, 2009 — 10:01 am
Jeff Brown says:
Yeah, race based thinking is gone. Was I the only one who listened to the prayer offered by the elderly minister? Are you kidding? It might as well have been written by Jesse Jackson at the peak of his power.
It literally asked, (HIs words, not mine – paraphrased) for ‘white America to do the right thing’. Uh, Pastor? Are those the same folks who just swept your guy into office?
To those who think ideology doesn’t matter, I have no answer. The depth of ignorance professed by that belief almost literally stuns me.
There are two irrefutable principles that will not be mocked, but which will unfortunately be tested as we move forward.
1. Peace is always traceable to military victory.
2. Collectivism is fatally flawed and is forever doomed to abject failure. Ask the USSR, Mao’s China, Cuba, etc. etc.
I wish America’s new president, MY new president, wisdom, courage, and long term success. He’s now in my daily prayers, as was his predecessor. Now we’ll see exactly how ‘hope’ translates in the real world.
January 21, 2009 — 10:38 am
genuinechris johnson says:
I’ve got a little political experience; first as a liberal at George Washington University, and then more recently for Owens2008.com. And what I will say about Obama’s connections is this: most people are radicals. Not just with the Con-Party folks that I hung my hat with, but most staffers have violently strong (dare I say nutty) opinions. So the company he keeps doesn’t concern me.
My concern is his ability to let the media fawn over him. They’ll turn on him someday and he’s not got the capital to wag his finger at them when they do because he’s ‘believing his own hype.’
January 21, 2009 — 11:14 am
David Shafer says:
Ideologues start with the assumption they are right and their opposition is wrong. With that filter, it is easy to get to the point of saying we behave correctly and the opposition doesn’t. See statements like this: “While many on the left have never wanted Bush to be successful – I don’t see the same sentiment with those on the right.” You just filter out all the opposing evidence to your assumptions. Also see the link Gregg left for us to look at for evidence. This behavior happens to those who are right, left or even in the middle. If I had a dime for evertime I hear someone tell me how virtuous the middle class is or how middle class values are, or how we should take the middle way……!
No, it’s not that ideology doesn’t matter, it just that it functions as a filter further reinforcing one’s views and allowing for the demonization of the other! By making it explicit, we can work on opening up that filter to allow for the possibility of us learning we are not as right as we thought we were or at least people we disagree with might also be right!
As for my view that Obama will become a transformative figure, it is only a prediction based on some social/psychological experience and with a $1 worth a cup of coffee!!!!
Long live the opposition, because without it what would we be!!!!
January 21, 2009 — 11:52 am
Karen Highland says:
I, too, wish our new president success. I believe, however, that success for our nation is only in sound, conservative fiscal policies (which we have not seen in many years.)
I’m not wishing him any success in any policies that are not going to restore capitalism, but are going to empower government intrusion in our markets further than they already have.
And these policies, that have failed in the past, (but because of our nation’s ADD, we seem doomed to try again with each generation), have nothing to do with a person’s skin color.
January 21, 2009 — 11:59 am
Jeff Brown says:
Ideologies are not exactly, but somewhat akin to scientific beliefs — some tested through rigorous experimentation, some still in the untested theory stage.
The belief in gravity can be filtered in any way one wishes, but it won’t change the consequences of its application — good or bad.
For example, those who believe victims of terrorism can regain a sense of safety and peace by ‘understanding’ the terrorists are descendants of the folks who applied the same ‘ideology’ to Hitler. Ask Poland how that worked out. It didn’t work then, it’s never worked in the past, and it won’t work now or in the future. Only the believable threat of eminent violent death works with those who would obtain their goals through deadly violence against those who oppose them.
Ideas based soundly upon proven principles are what matter — period. The rest is purposefully nebulous hope and change.
January 21, 2009 — 12:19 pm
Michael Cook says:
“2. Collectivism is fatally flawed and is forever doomed to abject failure. Ask the USSR, Mao’s China, Cuba, etc. etc.”
You mean the same China that can buy us, twice over??? Or the China that will surpass us in GDP in the 20 years??? Or the China that doesnt have a huge ballooning deficit owed to other countries??? History is written by the winners, so in 20 or 30 years we might be singing the praises of communism…
January 21, 2009 — 2:41 pm
David Shafer says:
Confirmation bias; the distortion produced by experiments that are designed to seek confirmatory evidence instead of trying to disprove the hypothesis.
Subjective validation — perception that something is true if a subject’s belief demands it to be true.
“Human judgment and decision making is distorted by an
array of cognitive, perceptual and motivational biases.
Recent evidence suggests that people tend to recognize
(and even overestimate) the operation of bias in human
judgment – except when that bias is their own. Aside
from the general motive to self-enhance, two primary
sources of this ‘bias blind spot’ have been identified.
One involves people’s heavy weighting of introspective
evidence when assessing their own bias, despite the
tendency for bias to occur nonconsciously. The other
involves people’s conviction that their perceptions
directly reflect reality, and that those who see things
differently are therefore biased.”
Just saying…..
January 21, 2009 — 3:17 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Michael — Are you saying Mao’s China dominated us? 🙂
Or are you agreeing with me that collectivism failed in China, evidenced by their strong move toward capitalism?
Huge debt is incurred by nations for many reasons. Collectivism has always died, but often lived longer than it should’ve due to outside support of capitalist sources. The USSR is the last huge example.
Bottom line though — are you defending collectivism here? No hedging — yes or no.
The US is having many problems exactly because we’ve abandoned our own principles.
Do you prefer collectivism or capitalism?
January 21, 2009 — 4:41 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Got to love Michael Cook… Just strollin’ by and kickin’ the hornet’s nest. 🙂
January 21, 2009 — 8:06 pm
Brian Brady says:
“History is written by the winners, so in 20 or 30 years we might be singing the praises of communism”
Oh, brother. Surely you can’t be serious.
MC, I saw you complain about your hourly wage this year, comparing your contribution to what you might have made had you chosen a union card over a Big Red sheepskin. While I chastised your short-term memory, I understood your frustration.
Should a man with a quarter of a million dollars and thousands of hours of study invested expect to have an unfair advantage over the masses who trade the false security of collectivism for earnings potential?
More importantly, will the “collective” goal of a nation-state benefit from a society that doesn’t reward that financial and academic commitment?
No answer required. I’ve accepted Sean’s observation.
January 22, 2009 — 6:15 am
Michael Cook says:
Didnt expect that reaction from the crowd. Perhaps I did…
Jeff,
I dont think either works for the record. True, free market capitalism, does not work. Putting too much wealth in the hands of a few, regardless of how it is earned has always been and will continue to be a recipe for revolution. Additionally, there are collective services that need to be provided. True free market capitalism fails there as well.
Also, Jeff, for the record I recall from our “podcast” that has mysteriously disappeared that you were advocating more market regulations to everyone’s surprise. Perhaps you didnt want that little tidbit getting out to the masses???
I know how most feel here, so I wont labor on those points. Communisum nor socialism work well either. Like Sean said, I was just throwing China up as a poke at the collective capitalistic love being displayed here. Too much agreement stifles critical thinking. China is an interesting case study. Their combination of capitalism and communism is still in its infancy, so we will see how they fair when they mature as an industrial nation. Forunately for them, they have a lot of space, resources and people, so they might have taken over the world before that happens.
January 22, 2009 — 8:51 am
Jeff Brown says:
Michael — Crackin’ me up as usual. Don’t know what happened to that podcast, but would love to see it broadcast. Everyone present knows exactly regs to which I was referring.
Revolution only rears it’s head when opportunity is choked down to almost nothing, which is exactly what collectivism accomplishes. I’d revolt too.
The combination of the communism and capitalism in China will be interesting to watch? They have space, lots of people, and resources? That’s rich.
Behind the face of capitalistic ‘opportunity’ is what most folks call slaves, or at least servants. Space and resources are almost completely government owned.
They haven’t earned the honor and privilege to be addressed as even a kinda sorta capitalist country.
Communism and capitalism? Sure, like rape and a romantic evening.
January 22, 2009 — 10:57 am
Brian Brady says:
“Didnt expect that reaction from the crowd. Perhaps I did…”
Haha. I always love when you show up.
“Also, Jeff, for the record I recall from our “podcast” that has mysteriously disappeared that you were advocating more market regulations to everyone’s surprise”
Mea culpa; I haven’t figured out how to download it and FTP it to Greg (too large a file to e-mail). The 4.5% refi rate has had me humping. I’ll try to make time this weekend.
It’s a good podcast
January 22, 2009 — 3:44 pm