Noreen Malone at Slate reports on the varying practices of some early Presidents, notably that conservative fellow, John Quincy Adams:
According to official records kept by the Architect of the Capitol, Teddy Roosevelt is the only president who wasn’t sworn in using a Bible; he took a rushed oath of office in 1901 following the assassination of William McKinley. However, it’s rumored that LBJ was sworn in using a Catholic missal aboard Air Force One after Kennedy’s assassination. John Quincy Adams, according to his own letters, placed his hand on a constitutional law volume rather than a Bible to indicate where his fealty lay. Franklin Pierce “affirmed” rather than swore his oath on the Bible, reportedly because of a crisis of faith following his son’s death. There are no known inauguration Bibles for presidents John Adams through John Tyler; in fact, there’s no concrete evidence that those early presidents used a Bible at all for the oath.
I would rather see the President-Elect place his hand on the Constitution than any other book or paper. He is affirming to uphold it and protect and defend it. He might as well touch the thing so he knows that he is getting into.
“I wept.” – So says Ed Brayton of Dispatches From the Culture Wars, about this lame inauguration. And this is the guy, Heather, who you think we should take seriously? A man who cries over stuff like this?
I know and like plenty of people who cried at the historic moment, whether or not they voted for him or expect to support his policies. If you don’t, Victoria, perhaps you should get out more. And how odd is it in any case to think that would count as a disqualification for putting out a website worth reading?
@Walter Olson
I don’t understand the meaning behind your reply. Are you saying that you, too, cried? I need to get out more if I find it pitiful that grown up men get caught up in sentimental, media-staged hype, and weep?
“sentimental, media-staged hype”
Nonsense. We experienced a peaceful transfer of power, by someone who occupied arguably the most powerful office in the history of humanity, to a political opponent, simply on the strength a shared vision of what it means to live in a good society. If anything, the media, the hype, and the sentimentality are insufficient to capture the enormity of what that actually is.
But we go through this “peaceful transfer of power” on a regular basis. I don’t remember hearing about anyone weeping when power was transferred from Clinton to Bush. Could that be because the media didn’t give a damn about it? By the way, is this a website of rational people?
I must say I had no idea who this Brayton guy was, but after reading some of the comments on his site, in response to his “I cried” post, all I can say is — Oprah rules! It’s been said that the left won the culture war. No, it’s clear, from those drippy, soppy comments, and from a few on this site, that Oprah won that war.
I’ve heard a bit of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity today, an experience which has only confirmed my sense that conservatives have created a monster in right-wing media. Limbaugh and Hannity lack all graciousness, unable to suspend for a moment their profit-driven and hypocritical attacks on Obama. Wouldn’t it be possible, just for a day, to find some common ground? Hannity points out that the Dow has dropped 200 points today, as if that distinguishes the Obama era from the Bush era. They and their callers see in Obama’s inoffensive speech a harbinger of big government bailouts. Apparently, the rewriting of history has already begun. Such petty attacks undermine the validity of substantive criticism.
I would go further than Grant Canyon: Yes, every peaceful transfer of power is awe-inspiring, but are we all too studiously race-blind to acknowledge that it is an astounding thing, given American history, that a majority white nation is now presided over by a black man? The wonderful significance of this election is overwhelming, in my opinion.
Okay. Okay. When you start to bring up creeps like Limbaugh and Hannity, I know it’s all over. Of course, what the Founders produced for this Republic is awesome. I have never needed the media to remind me of this. Okay, as a black, I give up. There is no rationality anywhere, anymore. These last dozen or so years have convinced me that whites have lost their minds. Oprah wins!
@ Victoria,
I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but I was as awed by the Clinton-Bush transition as I am by this one, and for the same reasons.
I don’t know where you get the impression that one is not “rational” if one has emotional responses to things. That’s nonsense. In fact, I know for myself, I have strong emotional reactions when I see the ideas and beliefs that I have arrived at rationally being accepted or put in practice. Being rational does not mean being cold-hearted.
@Heather MacDonald,
I think that your description of those two as “lack[ing] all graciousness” is right on the money. It is nothing but a lack of humanity on display. And I second the notion that it is a wonderful thing that this predominantly white country, with its horrible racist past, is governed by a black man.
@Victoria
Victoria, in case you have not already fled in horror, you are not alone. Not everyone here is infected with Oprah Syndrome or “White Guilt.” Stick around; the more rationality hereabouts the better. ◄Dave►
I’ll go with excess sentimentality, too. I can understand the symbolism of the moment, it is getting to be bit too much. This is especially so with Obama’s silly channeling of Lincoln. That conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity are playing mirror image to this with the ashes and sackcloth routine doesn’t change that. It just makes for two sets of over-emotional drama queens.
“No, it’s clear, from those drippy, soppy comments, and from a few on this site, that Oprah won that war”.
No. Not Oprah..
They changed the link. Here now.
” . . . in case you have not already fled in horror . . .”
You are funny. But I must admit to being a tad bit horrified.
The important move is to have gotten rid of those monsters who hijacked the government for eight years and have caused who knows how much damage to the country’s attempt at maintaining a constitutional system. Okay, that’s done. I must admit to harboring a dream of seeing Ron Paul strolling down Pennsylvania Avenue today. Okay, that’s over.
But how could any thinking person get caught up in wanting “symbols” to rule over them? Do we go through this emotional routine again, if a woman is elected President next go-round? What difference would it make if the new President were Romney, or Biden, or Edwards? Wouldn’t we be concerned, in their cases, about their prospective policies? What difference would it make if Anglo-Euros were to serve as Presidents throughout the rest of this country’s history — a country founded by Anglo-Euros — if they were individuals we felt were worthy of the office? I can understand The Mob buying anything, but how does a rational, thinking person fall for the notion that even the Presidency is somehow “owed” to blacks? Or to Hispanics? Or to women? And that every ethnic group must get its turn. (When do the Hmong get theirs?)
Since Hispanics/Latinos are the largest minority group, should we all work to make them the next symbolic gesture? This is not regard for an individual. This is sheer nuttiness. I expect little flower-hatted church ladies to be enthralled by the “symbolism” of the moment and to get all teary-eyed. But not thinking people.
We’ve just been through some truly critical stuff that’s not over yet. The only thing that should have been on voters’ minds this past year is electing the most sensible person, not patting themselves on the back for voting in some symbol — or for “making history.”
Once the conversation started getting serious and detailed I tuned out but I want to note that, though I agree with others that there is what to be sentimental about, Victoria’s early comments rule. There’s plenty in existence for people to get sentimental about so it seems odd that most people only tend to get sentimental about things that the large and powerful powers that be tell them to get all teary over. If there’s a fight worth having it’s against the puppeteers who jerk the masses around. At the very LEAST, keep checking yourself to ensure that YOU aren’t a member of said masses.
Amen, brother! 🙂
The only election I’ve ever come close to tears over was when Carter beat Ford. My gut feeling that Carter was a petty mean man has, I think, been proven correct. But still… I never doubted the country would survive. I’ve never endowed any one man with the power to destroy it, but I have wondered if 535 can.
There was way too much senseless symbolic hoopla around the inauguration this week for me, especially because it is such a momentous occasion.
Whew! It is good to see this thread get straightened out. It seemed like the emoters were in ascendancy over the thinkers for awhile. I heartily endorse the last three comments. Speaking of “symbolic hoopla,” I found these comparisons disturbing, to say the least. ◄Dave►
This wasn’t election night; no investor in their right mind was surprised when Obama took the oath of office today. The 200 point drop is due to the common investment strategy of ‘buy the rumor, sell the fact’.
Limbaugh and Hannity are windbags with audiences full of people more concerned with anger and fear than truth.
Victoria, I shared your dream. The people just weren’t ready for the revolution. Maybe in 2012 if Obama lets them down. I don’t think he was elected because he was black, as much as the media likes to mention it. They have a job where they are payed to keep talking, even if there is nothing to say. It is much like watching the Olympics, where an athlete can’t just be great, they have to have a sob story movie about their past. The overcoming adversity thing is just a cheap and easy media tactic. They love to talk about how Biden stuttered as a child. Obama has picked a lot of interesting cabinet members. If I had to pick a term though, I wouldn’t use diverse, I would use inclusive. I doubt this got us the best people for the job, but it may get him the support he needs in order to do what he wants to do, and I’d take the Obama cabinet over the Bush cabinet any day in terms of competency.
“It seemed like the emoters were in ascendancy over the thinkers for awhile.”
Dave, just because one suppresses his emotions doesn’t necessarily make him a thinker. And, conversely, one is not necessarily “not a thinker” simply because he doesn’t suppress his emotions. (One can easily see the truth in that by doing a little observation of human nature and reflecting on that fact. Of course, you can by pass that rationality and jump to the stereotype that people who are “thinkers” are dead, emotionally.)
In my experience, some of the most emotional people out there are also the most thoughtful, while some of the most cold-hearted are the most thoughtless, because they are easily persuaded by facile arguments, dubious conclusions and sterotypes.
No one is claiming that Obama was owed the presidency because of his race, Victoria; he, himself, to his credit, underplayed the race factor, including in his inauguration speech. I am as opposed to identity politics as anyone. But I don’t think that being opposed to treating race or gender as a qualification rules out being amazed at the historical significance of this election, however foolish or, dare we hope, less foolish Obama’s policies ultimately prove to be. It is also significant that the right-wing attack machine is utterly indifferent to Obama’s race, which is a count in its and our favor. That having been said, I reiterate that I fear that the right-wing media has become a poison on the land. I hope that it is as marginal as some commenters believe.
@Dave,
Also, Dave, I wouldn’t be disturbed by the “comparisons” on that site. As someone who, for decades, has taken an amateur interest in political art of the WWII period and the cold war, I can tell you that the techniques of print propaganda, from the use of bold text and simple graphics to the use of flattering portraiture, with the “outward-and-upward, looking toward the future” gaze is nothing exclusive of totalitarian regimes or candidates (and is theorized by some as originating with a cervical deformity suffered by Alexander the Great, if Wikipedia is to be believed…). Some of these elements, like the sunburst behind the poster’s subject, stems from religious artwork of century’s past.
Indeed, one of the more propaganda-ish posters this past election season was from McCain:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections/397590-mccains-saintly-new-poster.html
Good poster, actually. Strong images, clean lines.
Some of the complaints on the site are just stupid, like the “O” symbol being compared to the Nazi swastika and the hammer and sickle. Apparently every roundel in almost every air force in the world is therefore also “tainted” in the same manner.
The Obama poster which is most clearly influenced by the stereotypical view of what constitutes propaganda, a style of iconography which uses high contrast “stencil portrait” images and limited palette, is the “Hope” poster by Shepherd Fairey. Given the fact that his work has long dealt in this type of imagery, and the fact that he has used actual propaganda poster images extensively, it is unsurprising that this connection would be apparent in his work. (Of course, this doesn’t make Obama a Stalin anymore than Fairey’s use of Andrea the Giant in the “posse” project a Stalin.)
But, of course, this is just a rational analysis, not an emotional reaction to a dubious similarity in images. So I’m not sure how useful it will be to anyone other than the “thinkers” on this site… 🙂
That having been said, I reiterate that I fear that the right-wing media has become a poison on the land.
The “right-wing media” actually covers quite a bit of ground. It’s not just Limbaugh and Hannity. You have other more grounded figures out there, like Prager and Hewitt, both of whom feature liberal guests. If L and H continue to be shrill and unfunny, they’ll lose market share. In the end, they’ll only be poisoning themselves.
I need to get out more if I find it pitiful that grown up men get caught up in sentimental, media-staged hype, and weep?
Enough with the negative waves, Victoria! Try to be positive. Why don’t you try to dig the Hope, baby? Why don’t you try to enjoy the Change? Think that the money will be there, and it will.
I’m one of those who is not that surprised that an African American has “finally” been elected President. I think such a thing has been more than possible for at least 30 years now. It’s always been about perceived ( and hopefully actual ) personality and intelligence, and we “finally” got both in Obama.
And, I have vowed to listen to what he says, and watch what he does – and ignore the ridiculousness of some of his supporters. Let’s give the man a chance. I expect him to throw a bone or two to the Far Left, though.
Finally, I thought his speech was excellent, especially when he acknowledged that capitalism’s “power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched”, and then followed that with a correct “however”, noting that it needs to be “watched” lest it run out of control. And his comment ( to the Arab and 3rd world, I presume) that we will not apologize for our way of life was worthy of Reagan.
@Ivan Karamazov
“Let’s give the man a chance”. I’ve heard this from a number of conservative commentators. And while I understand the desire to be gracious and not appear petty, I think this assertion assumes that change is gradual and can be undone if we don’t like it. I assume that nationalized health care is a top priority of Obama, and once it’s here, it’s not going away. Look at what happened to Bush’s attempt to make the most minor reforms to Social Security.
Why should we not accept his campaign promises at face value?
When electric lights first became widespread, people would spent extraordinarily amounts of time turning them on, then off, then on again.
Immediate power over light and darkness! How could that not be awe-inspiring to someone whose experience never before included such a thing?
Then people got used to it.
If you’re awestruck at a Presidential inauguration, that indicates two things: first, that you don’t understand where the actual power of government resides, and second, that you’ve abandoned yourself to maudlin sentimentality.
And while I understand the desire to be gracious and not appear petty, I think this assertion assumes that change is gradual and can be undone if we don’t like it.
No, the assertion rests on the fact that there really isn’t sh*t they can do to stop him. I mean, he has a large majority in the House and (with McCain, Specter, Graham and the Maine sisters) a filibuster proof majority on most issues.
@Polichinello
“Enough with the negative waves…dig the Hope, baby?”
Do you really think that Obama supporters talk like this? 🙂
@Polichinello
“If you’re awestruck at a Presidential inauguration, that indicates two things: first, that you don’t understand where the actual power of government resides, and second, that you’ve abandoned yourself to maudlin sentimentality.”
Nonsense. First, to be awestruck at a presidential transition IS to be aware of where the actual power of government resides and its historical fragility.
Second, dismissing feelings of patriotism as merely “maudlin sentimentality” might suffice for cynics frequenting coffee-houses and the like, regular people recognize that watching our political ideals and beliefs put into practice is a perfect time for patriotic feelings.
Do you really think that Obama supporters talk like this?
Only Chris Matthews.
For those not familiar with the words, I’m riffing on Donald Sutherland’s character from Kelly’s Heroes.
Second, dismissing feelings of patriotism as merely “maudlin sentimentality” might suffice for cynics frequenting coffee-houses and the like…
When a national figure like Tom Brokaw is going on about how this is analogous to the “Velvet Revolution”, it’s clear there’s been a bit of slipping loose the bounds of reality.
@Prof Frink
Precisely! The best commentary I saw yesterday came from Robert Ringer, in a piece entitled, “The World’s Silliest Question,” where he rightly asks what is meant by those on the Right wishing Obama a “successful” presidency. Do we really wish him success at accomplishing what he promised the Left in his campaign? ◄Dave►
Polichinello
Son of a gun, I was going to mention Donald Sutherland from Kelly’s Heroes, but truth be told I haven’t seen it in decades, and didn’t know how many people would get the reference…
“When a national figure like Tom Brokaw is going on about how this is analogous to the ‘Velvet Revolution’, it’s clear there’s been a bit of slipping loose the bounds of reality.”
Okay, then it would be fair for you to criticize Brokaw. It’s not fair, however, to cover me and others like me with that same paint. I feel awe at this inauguration and every inauguration, but I, too, think that Brokaw’s statement was loopy.
I feel awe at this inauguration and every inauguration…
Sorry, but I have to giggle at that, too.
I’m an incurable cynic, I guess.
I’m an incurable cynic, I guess.
That’s okay. I see myself as an incurable patriot, and if it makes you giggle, that’s no skin off my nose.
Rats. messed up the formatting… oh, well.
The best thing about the inauguration is that the President-elect’s last name was neither Bush nor Clinton. That cozy dynasticism was a worrying trend, and still is.
That’s a good point. That there was no Bush or Dole on the Republican side, for the first time since 1972 was a nice change of pace…
I found the GOP replacement even more distressing. McCain had every bad tendency found in W., and some of his own flaws, like a hostility to free speech in campaigns. There was some hassenfreude in watching him suffer under his own laws last year.
Man, some folks are jaded. As I’ve noted before, I’m a liberal, but I did indeed marvel at the peaceful transition from Clinton to Bush, which was profoundly impressive given all the election uncertainty — in many other countries, such events would have sparked riots or even civil war.
And I think that, whatever one’s political stripes, it is hard not to see Obama’s election as indicating a profound maturation of the US, considering that not that long ago a civil war was fought over whether people of his skin colour could be owned. In a sense, his election is the real end of that war.