A Joke Too Far

November 20, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Faith, History, Obama family, Politics, Presidents, Religion | 3 Comments 

A tasteless joke – one that saw earlier popularity during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – has resurfaced across America. It is being told in whispers, emails, and even bumper stickers. During Mr. Clinton’s administration it even found its way into some Sunday church bulletins. And it is really beneath contempt in its lack of respect for the president, the presidency, not to mention the Bible itself.

It goes something like this: “Pray for President Obama. Psalm 109:8.”

At first glance it appears innocuous, even pious. But when time is taken to look up the reference, well, then it’s chortle, chortle time for buffoons:

“Let his days be few, and let another take his office.” – Psalm 109:8 (NKJV)

And the verse following continues the thought:

“Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.” – Psalm 109:9 (NJKV)

Of course, the point of the joke is to show disaffection with President Obama. But the real result is to use scripture in a twisted way and to find somehow funny the idea that our president should, well, come to an ignominious end leaving his family to grieve.

Funny stuff. Real Jackie Gleason belly laugh stuff: Har har hardy har har.

It should be clear to decent, reasonable, reflective, and compassionate people that some things simply aren’t funny. One just has to look back at what happened 46 years ago this weekend to see that. I have no clue if that same joke was around in the days of the Kennedy administration, but I know that the feelings of too-casual contempt it reveals were very much around.

I am a conservative when it comes to politics – a conservative with strong libertarian leanings. I am no fan of much of the political agenda of President Obama and his administration. Sometimes I get annoyed. Occasionally (okay, more than occasionally) I talk back to the T.V. when I hear or see something that, to me, does not pass the test of constitutionality or common sense.

I would probably only vote for Mr. Obama’s reelection if the choice was between him and, say, Harry Reid – or Boss Tweed. I very much believe that the president and his advisors have a socialist bent and that what they are trying to accomplish through Health-Care Reform and Cap-and-Trade machinations amounts to the kind of change Americans really didn’t envision when he was elected last year.

But it needs to be said that a president can be opposed and criticized – even in an animated way – without resorting to the kind of meanness that crosses the line of civility.

I have no problem with partisanship – even a little fiery rhetoric here and there. America is better when our politics are feisty. But, come on – using the Bible to make a joke about the man dying before his term is up?

Seriously?

Think back. Remember John “John-John” Kennedy Jr. saluting his daddy’s casket on that cold November Monday in 1963? Is there anything funny about that? Nope, it was all just very sad. And it bears noting that Mr. Kennedy evoked opinions and opposition from conservative Americans in much the same way Mr. Obama does now.

On the last morning of his life, JFK woke up in the Presidential Suite of the Hotel Texas in downtown Fort Worth, Texas. As he made his way down to the facility’s Crystal Ballroom to speak to a Chamber of Commerce breakfast gathering of about 2,000 people, he encountered a maid by the name of Jan White, who asked him to sign her newspaper. He did – probably the last autograph of his life – writing his name near his picture on the front page of that day’s Dallas Morning News. The headline on November 22, 1963 was: “Storm of Political Controversy Swirls Around Kennedy On Visit.”

The next morning that same paper bore the message: “Kennedy Slain On Dallas Street.”

People mourned. Americans who had not voted for Mr. Kennedy – and never would have – were deeply impacted by the violent tragedy. And, in fact, his days were made few, and another was allowed to take his office. His wife also became a widow and his children were suddenly fatherless.

I’m sorry, but there is nothing funny about that. Nor is there anything funny about using a passage of scripture as a punch line, one that finds sadistic humor in such depraved darkness as to be at all amused at the potential demise of a national leader.

Of course, I recognize that when George W. Bush was in office, the same things were circulated about him by a few on the other side of the political spectrum. But some things are simply not funny. It was wrong when liberals did it – and it is wrong for conservatives to do it.

Shortly before November 22, 1963 – when I was about seven years old – I came home from school one day armed with a joke about President Kennedy. I cannot for the life of me remember the punch line – or the straight line for that matter. But I do remember the moment I decided to let ‘er rip at the dinner table that night. I was sure that I was on safe ground, after all, my parents were Nixon people in 1960 (later Goldwater people in 1964, then back to RN again in ’68) and not big fans of Mr. Kennedy. I know I had heard my dad criticize the president for this or that, though never in a mean way. So I thought he would just love my hilarious joke.

I told it with all the skills of a 2nd grade class clown. Then I waited for the howls of laughter from my parents. And I waited. Then after a moment or two – and I can still see and hear this in my mind – came a powerful rebuke from the head of the table, ending with the unambiguous: “Son, don’t ever talk about the President of the United States like that!”

Tough room.

I learned something about respect that day. It’s something I think about now and again when things heat up politically and I find myself invariably frustrated with politics du jour. And though I sometimes fly admittedly close to the flame of the kind of disrespect that crosses the line between honest disagreement and just plain malice, I am never comfortable with that kind of indignation – righteous or otherwise.

Anger is toxic, often subtly so. Certainly there are times when animosity can give way to constructive change. But while such antipathy can occasionally be the catalyst for ultimate good, it must never be the default fuel. It is ferociously destructive.

By the way, the use of Psalm 109:8 as a joke applied to President Obama is not only a beneath-contempt expression of ugliness, it is also a profoundly ignorant use of the Bible. For when you read further in the good book, all the way through the gospels and into The Acts of the Apostles, you find Simon Peter, the recently redeemed Jesus-denier, quoting that very passage in reference to another Apostle who did something abhorrent – Judas Iscariot.

Peter applied it as an epitaph for Christ’s infamous betrayer, though he must have done so with the humility to think, “there but for the grace of God go I.”

All praying people should fervently pray for President Obama and all those in authority – and not tongue-in-cheek petitions. As yet another Apostle, this one named Paul wrote:

“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone, for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” – I Timothy 2:1-2 (NIV)

Father’s Day At The White House

June 20, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Barack Obama, Holidays, Obama family, Presidents, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Sunday is Father’s Day, and this year marks a century since Sonora Smart Dodd of Spokane, Washington, came up with the idea of making it a permanent holiday. There had been a commemoration of American fatherhood on July 5, 1908, at a church in Fairmont, West Virginia, but this was apparently not undertaken with the idea of making it an annual occurence. It was left to Mrs. Dodd to decide, during a ceremony marking the recently popularized Mother’s Day holiday in 1909, that fathers should be celebrated in the same way. She approached a group of ministers in Spokane and suggested that Father’s Day be held on the birthday of her own father, a Civil War veteran. The ministers decided to make it the third Sunday in June instead. The first celebration of the day was held in 1910, and from Spokane, the idea gradually spread across the nation.

Presidents became involved with Father’s Day at an early stage. In 1916, Woodrow Wilson, during a visit to Spokane, took part in Father’s Day celebrations. In 1924, Calvin Coolidge recommended making it a national holiday. In 1966, Lyndon Johnson signed a proclamation designating the third Sunday in June as Father’s Day, and in 1972 Richard Nixon signed the law making it a permanent national holiday (as I recounted in a TNN post last year).

Father’s Day is sometimes taken for granted. This is not the case at the White House, especially where the current occupant is concerned. As he told millions of readers in his book Dreams Of My Father, President Obama grew up without a father, for all practical purposes; Barack Sr. left Hawaii for Harvard, and then Kenya, when his son was hardly a toddler, and except for a Christmastime visit when the future President was ten, never saw his son again.

This year the President, in a magazine article and in interviews, has repeatedly emphasized the importance of fathers being involved in the lives of his children. To demonstrate that point, today he took his daughters across the Potomac to Alexandria to buy ice cream. It may seem like an ordinary kind of treat, but where parenting is concerned, those are sometimes among the most cherished memories when a child grows up. And undoubtedly, the President is grateful to get the chance to spend the kind of time with his daughters that his father never spent with him.

Bow Wow

April 12, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Nixon family, Obama family, Presidents, U.S. History | 2 Comments 

Wonders of Wonder

March 2, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Entertainment, Music, Obama family, White House | 1 Comment 

Last week at the White House Stevie Wonder was awarded the Library of Congress’ Gershwin Award for Popular Song. (The Award program is recently minted; Wonder is the second in line after Paul Simon last year.)

The program was taped for broadcast by PBS, and the video is of satisfyingly high quality.

The Obamas’ connections with Wonder are warmly felt and long-standing, as the First Lady’s introduction indicated.  (My apologies for the commercial message imposed by CBS, which thus profits from the use of your time.)

Wonder provided a tight performance of his song “Superstition” — which, back in February 1973, became his first Number One hit as an adult. (His first #1 was “Fingertips (Pt. 2)” in 1963.)

The President conferred the Award with a graceful speech and Wonder responded eloquently.

The Ginsburg Slam, Or Meeting The Media

February 4, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, News media, Obama administration, Obama family, Presidents, Public Opinion, Richard Nixon, TV News Personalities, U.S. History, economy | Leave a Comment 

Eleven years and three days ago, when the nation was ten days into the trauma that was l’affaire [Monica] Lewinsky (or Lewinski, as the late Richard Grenier initially spelled her name in his Washington Times column), the personal attorney of the errant intern, William H. Ginsburg, came to the nation’s capital and introduced a new term into the language of broadcasting.

All four major broadcast networks and CNN frantically wanted to get Mr. Ginsburg on the air,  with whatever revelations he might have about his client’s past deeds or future plans.  And he happily obliged them.  Between 9 am and noon EST that first of February 1998, he appeared on Fox News Sunday, Meet The Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Late Edition — not revealing very much, but clearly enjoying the attention he’d garnered for being the keeper of the secrets of the minx sphinx in the Watergate.

The punditocracy was duly impressed, and “a full Ginsburg” afterwards became the chosen phrase to describe one who had managed to appear on the five Sunday morning talking-heads shows on the same day.  For more than two years, Mr. Ginsburg remained the only person who had accomplished this.

Then in July 2000, future Vice President Dick Cheney, shortly after his selection by then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, became the second to do so.  Four years passed, and then a few weeks before Election Day 2004, Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards blessed the airwaves with five different views of the most famous political coiffure before the Age of Blagojevich.

In September of the following year, Homeland Security Secretary Michael  Chertoff managed the elusive full Ginsburg, and in September 2007, Sen. Hillary Clinton, in her final months as President-presumptive, did the same — the only woman to undertake the feat so far, and the last person to date.

In this brave new world, the rules have changed a little.  Last month Late Edition was replaced on CNN by State Of The Union, which concludes one hour after its predecessor did, at 1 pm. Therefore, a full Ginsburg, from now on, will not quite be the heroic achievement it once was.

And another fact which has diminished the luster of the full Ginsburg was that, until now, no sitting President had ever undertaken anything resembling it.  But a variation on the old full G – which I’ll call the Ginsburg Slam – has proven to be yet another in the ever-growing list of the dubious achievements of the Obama Administration.

A little over forty-eight hours ago, as former Senator Tom Daschle sweated before a Senate committee not quite satisfied with his account of how he failed to pay taxes in timely fashion for the services of a limo and driver, the White House was still assuring one and all that no matter what, the President was solidly behind his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

But at 11 am yesterday morning Nancy Killefer, Obama’s choice for the newly-minted post of “Chief Performance Officer,” announced that she was removing herself from consideration because of her own tax troubles, and about two hours later Daschle did the same.  The President and his advisors decided that damage control was the order of the day.  How to handle it?

It would seem that the most logical way to approach the problem would be for President Obama to simply stroll into the White House press room after arranging for a few minutes of airtime, inform the assembled reporters and the nation that he regretted that the decisions of Killefer and Daschle had to be made, wish them well, take no questions, and return to the Oval Office and more consequential tasks.

Instead, he arranged for face-to-face conversations with ABC’s Charles Gibson, CBS’s Katie Couric, NBC’s Brian Williams, CNN’s Anderson Cooper (take that, Lou) and Fox’s Chris Wallace, informing each of them by turn, and at some length, that he had Screwed Up and was Really Sorry.  The mea culpas, taken together (or indeed separately), do not suggest Camelot redux.  After all, when John F. Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion, he promptly took the blame for it — once – and was rewarded with the highest approval rating achieved by a President before George W. Bush topped him in the weeks after 9/11.

Instead, Obama’s use of several hours of President Time (time that could be employed to work on the economy, or terrorism, or finally choosing a pup for Malia and Sasha, or something) to repeat his regrets five times over and ask for forgiveness isn’t an approach calculated to impress our adversaries abroad, whether Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il or a nameless thug in western Iraq, that the Chief Executive is brimming with determination or resolve.   Rather, it brings to mind some of the unhappier moments of the Carter era.  You have to wonder what’s going to happen when the killer rabbit shows up.

The way in which the Daschle debacle was handled suggests that President Obama has a preoccupation with winning over the media that makes Lyndon Johnson’s agonies over each new Scotty Reston or Walter Lippmann column look almost, well, Nixonian.  It’s 180 degrees removed from the approach of George W. Bush, who may well be concerned now with what the historians will write but, when in office, reasoned that if he did the occasional sit-down with Brit Hume or Tony Snow or Tim Russert, then everything else would take care of itself.

One has to wonder what the future has in store.  Will MTV’s Kurt Loder or the correspondent from Disney Radio be added to the list of people to whom the President must speak whenever a bill fails to pass, or whenever he knocks over an unwary staffer on the basketball court?  It’s time for some realistic thinking about media relations in the West Wing.

The Obamas’ New Souperman

January 29, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Lifestyle, Obama family, White House | Leave a Comment 

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Sam Kass has been named an assistant White House chef.  The 28-year-old  will work under Cristeta Comerford, the Executive Mansion’s newly-appointed executive chef.

The Chicago born Mr. Kass graduated from the University of Chicago.  He trained at a Michelin-starred restaurant in Europe and worked at the fashionable Avec in the West Loop.  In a classic example of doing well by doing good, he set up as a private chef and founded the highly successful Inevitable Table — a business that delivered fresh-cooked nutritious meals based on the best local produce to, let’s get real, the homes of people who could afford them.  

The Obamas were among that fortunate clientele, and Mr. Kass’ services continued and expanded during the campaign and will now continue in the White House.

The Inevitable Table’s website seems to have closed down, but USA Today printed a sample week’s menu.  Mr. Kass’ goal was to enable  “a health lifestyle that focuses on the quality and flavor of food to encourage good eating habits.”

Monday

SALAD — Citrus Salad with fennel, oranges and grapefruit, orange vin
MAIN COURSE — Seared Diver scallops, Middle Eastern couscous and pecans, cavolo nero

Tuesday
SALAD — Mixed greens with radishes, endive and pepito, Riesling vin
MAIN COURSE — Ancho chili rubbed pork loin, rapini and polenta
KIDS — Spagetti with tomato sauce, broccoli
JUICE — Apple-Grape; Carrot Ginger

Wednesday
SALAD — Simple salad of mixed baby greens, radiccio, radishes and shaved fennel with a James Balsamic vinegrette
MAIN COURSE — Braised chicken in maderia with root vegetables and prunes, Himalayan red rice, and sautéed escarole with pine nuts
JUICE — Ginger Carrot; Orange

Thursday
SALAD — Arugula salad, carrots, radishes, almonds, honey Dijon vin
MAINCOURSE — Whole-wheat pasta, soffrito, cauliflower, escarole, currents, pine nuts, green olives, ricotta solata, proscuitto

Friday
SALAD — Frisee salad, cashews, pickled red onions, apples
MAINCOURSE — Thyme and lemon marinated roasted chicken, Swiss chard, fingerling potatoes in persillade
JUICE — Apple Fennel; Carrot Apple

Chef Kass headed the kitchen at the Jane Addams Hull-House Museum when that distinguished institution was re-examining its legacy as a soup kitchen with a series of conferences called Rethinking Soup.  At weekly luncheons in Hull House’s Dining Hall (where Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle) food activists and policy-makers joined the House’s residents to chow down on lunches of Kass-prepared soup and organic bread and talk about nutrition and public policy.

“For the breadth of human history, the poor have always been the face of starvation,” Mr. Kass said.  “In contemporary America, not only is there an unconscionable amount of people [who] remain hungry, there’s even a larger population, mostly poor, who are faced with obesity, diabetes and various other problems from overabundance.”

The New York Times reprints the text of Chef Kass’ speech.  And if the above menu still has your gastic juices flowing, you may want to check out some of his soup recipes (more Chicken Green Garlic Soup with Grilled Asparagus for anyone?) here.

A Day To Remember

January 24, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Bush Administration, Congress, Election 2008, First Ladies, George W. Bush, News media, Obama administration, Obama family, Presidents, TV News Personalities, U.S. History, White House | 2 Comments 

I have lived in Silver Spring, Maryland, since November 1997, and so have been within a twenty-minute subway ride to downtown Washington for the last three Presidential inaugurations. But I didn’t go downtown for either the 2001 or 2005 swearing-in. I was not quite up to braving the crowds, and since I was not invited to witness the event from indoors, I also was not keen on dealing with winter weather for hours.

But this year was different. Thanks to my wife Rene, we were invited to attend the inauguration as guests of a Treasury Department employee, and so, at 6 am, we awoke, met our host and some other guests, proceeded to Silver Spring’s Metro station (already phenomenally crowded at 7 am) and managed to catch a train to downtown.

We emerged at Metro Center, got breakfast, then walked to the Treasury Department’s annex, east of Lafayette Square. After going down an underground corridor, we emerged in the oldest part of the Treasury Building, constructed in the 1830s.

We then went to the Andrew Johnson Suite, got some coffee, sat down, and watched the televised proceedings for a while. This group of rooms is where the seventeenth President conducted the business of the nation from the hour that Abraham Lincoln died on April 15, 1865, until Mary Todd Lincoln moved out of the White House six weeks later.

It was here that Johnson met with his Cabinet, oversaw the concluding stages of the Civil War (such as Johnston’s surrender to Sherman), and read and listened to reports about the manhunt for John Wilkes Booth and the capture of his fellow conspirators. (I thought about this on Wednesday night when I watched a History Channel show on the search for Booth.  These shows are so much more exciting to watch when you’ve been in one or another of the locations being described and depicted.)

After a while, one of the other guests called me to the window, and I watched the limousine carrying the 43rd and 44th Presidents come down the street between Treasury and the White House’s East Wing on its way to the Capitol. That was a powerful moment.

But not quite as powerful as witnessing the swearing-in ceremony itself, with the stirring music of Aretha Franklin and John Williams (as performed by a quartet including Itzhak Perlman and Yo Yo Ma), and President Obama taking the oath of office — even a somewhat botched version that enabled my fellow Indiana native, Chief Justice John Roberts, to become the first man in history to swear in a President twice for the same term.

I watched the swearing-in on a big-screen TV set up in a hallway where nearly every President from Martin Van Buren to the present has walked sometime during his time in office. The sense of history in the making was palpable.

After another hour or so in the Treasury Building, our host told us we were to come outside and sit in the bleachers at the south end of Lafayette Square, almost directly across from the White House. So we braved the cold and proceeded to those seats. In front of us, Al Roker spoke to NBC viewers. A voice came on over the PA speakers set up on Pennsylvania Avenue. It was Charlie Brotman, who has provided commentary to the spectators at every inaugural parade since Eisenhower’s second term began in 1957.

After a wait that wasn’t especially long but seemed an eternity thanks to the cold and my decision not to wear jeans, the police motorcycles came down the street, followed by bands representing the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and, finally, President and Mrs. Obama and Vice President and Mrs. Biden. We all reached for our cameras. It was as thrilling a moment as I can remember having. Then we went back to the land of crabcakes and orioles and watched the rest of the parade in the comfortable warmth of the Tastee Diner.

I was going to call this “A Week To Remember” and cover some of the other events since Sunday, but the one that comes to mind just now – Caroline Kennedy’s bizarre withdrawal from consideration for the U.S. Senate seat formerly occupied by Secretary of State Clinton – seems a bit anticlimactic after the moments I just recounted. I’ll just note that Time’s “Swampland” blog put up a very interesting timeline of how the Kennedy withdrawal went down. It clearly came as a shock to much of her family and several of them seem to have attempted to get her to change her mind at the last moment, with no luck. And then there was the embarrassing attempt by her “people” to spin the withdrawal as having happened because of Sen. Ted Kennedy’s health, which evidently annoyed him considerably.  This definitely has not been one of Camelot’s more shining moments, though perhaps it was just brief enough to be overlooked when the time comes for another Kennedy to seek office.

Team Of Rivals, Minus One

January 4, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Congress, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Ethics, Obama administration, Obama family, UN | Leave a Comment 

This afternoon New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, President-elect Obama’s onetime competitor in the 2008 primaries and the P-E’s choice for Secretary of Commerce, announced that he was withdrawing his name from consideration. This came after reports in recent weeks that a Federal grand jury is looking into a situation in which a California company, CDR Financial Products, received contracts from the state government of New Mexico totaling almost $1.5 million after making contributions to three political action committees formed to assist Richardson’s campaigns.

Richardson’s relationship with the President-elect was bound to be awkward no matter what; such political visibility as he has on a national scale is due mainly to his close association with the Clinton Administration, in which he served, successively, as perhaps the most undistinguished UN Ambassador since the post was created, and as Secretary of Energy, in which position he accused scientist Wen Ho Lee of espionage, a charge he later had to admit was unfounded (and which resulted in Lee’s receiving a substantial legal settlement).

As a candidate in the 2008 race, Richardson accomplished little except to postpone his withdrawal from it until the day after the New Hampshire primary, which was probably the factor that kept Obama from defeating Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Granite State and wrapping up the nomination on Super Tuesday.

Ever since Richardson was elected to govern the Land of Enchantment (to use the motto on New Mexican license plates), reports have circulated of somewhat dubious doings in that state’s executive branch. With Congress convening tomorrow and the President-elect arriving today to take up residence in the historic Hay-Adams Hotel for the next week and a half, it may be that Obama’s transition team concluded that between investigative reporters looking into the CDR case, and the questions that would probably be raised at Richardson’s confirmation hearings, it was best to decide now whether to fish or cut bait.

With Richardson’s withdrawal comes the question of who to nominate as Commerce Secretary-designate. Obama has one Hispanic American left in his proposed Cabinet, outgoing Colorado Senator Ken Salazar at Interior, so he is not politically required to find another to replace Richardson.

As it happens, while I was writing my previous post referring to the protracted contest between Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken, more votes were tallied in the recount. These ballots, disputed though many of them may be, still manage to raise the comedian-humorist’s lead to a little over 220, and make it very likely that the Senate Democratic leadership will try to seat Franken sometime this week, once the recount is finished and assuming the lead holds. If that happens, and if Sen. Harry Reid and his cohorts in the upper chamber can reach some kind of rapprochement regarding Illinois’s Roland Burris that would permit him to be seated, then the Democratic majority in the upper chamber would stand at 59 for the time being. Might it be worth Obama’s while to look into the notion of putting either of Maine’s liberal Republican senators into the Commerce spot, permitting that state’s Democratic governor to appoint a replacement and secure the magic number of 60?

Obama has to be aware that it’s not the best start to a new era in governance to have a Cabinet controversy before one’s Cabinet choices have even come before the Senate for confirmation, or to have a pitched battle within one’s party over an appointee to the Senate who is unlikely to remain there for more than a year or so. No doubt he has a lot on his plate already, what with selecting a puppy and getting the young’uns settled in a new school, but he surely knows the above issues just can’t wait until after Inauguration Day to be resolved.

The Barack Ballad of Abraham, Franklin, And John

January 1, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Economic issues, History, International Affairs, Obama family, Presidents, U.S. History | 1 Comment 

With apologies to Dion and his now 40-year-old song – Abraham, Martin, and John – I see the ghosts of three past presidents standing slightly off stage as the nation watches the approach of inauguration day.

The ancient Israelites tended to name-drop a patriarchal hat trick when they wanted their rhetoric to stick. Crying out about, “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” was enough to speak with authority. For a politician these days, especially the highly successful one who will have to settle on seeing the White House from his Hay-Adams Hotel room window before actually moving in, there is no better political triumvirate to invoke than the really big three: Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy.

President-Elect Barack Obama’s inauguration will certainly be one to remember. Anticipation alone exceeds anything in recent memory. The convergence of historic imagery and the fact that so many challenges await our 44th president, make this transition something that rivals only a few such moments from our nation’s past.

The inaugural prayer has become a source of controversy, and now the oath itself – at least the suffix “so help me God” – is under fire. I am sure Mr. Obama hopes what he has to say in his maiden address as our new president will be so resounding that any other pre-inaugural firestorm will fade into distant memory like that burning space heater on the platform in January 1961.

From the start, the Obama campaign dispensed with any pretense of subtlety as it sought to conjure up and identify with images of past presidential greatness. He announced his candidacy surrounded by all things Lincoln, solidified political support at a key primary point by tapping into the still apparently potent power of Camelot, and raced to the November finish line sounding a lot like Mr. New Deal.

His cabinet complete, his team now in place, and his much deserved (and no doubt needed) Hawaiian vacation over, the next event on the calendar is the inauguration itself. And all pre-inaugural controversies notwithstanding, central to that event will be the speech. The new man from Illinois has already demonstrated the ability to come through during big speeches – but this one is the granddaddy of them all.

No doubt he has been reading up for a long time on the inaugural addresses of his ghostly trio. But will he be able to deliver something that will rise to the standards they set?

When John Kennedy was working on his inaugural address, he charged speechwriter Theodore Sorenson with studying Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. JFK was very conscious of history. When he died, his widow commissioned a quick review of our 16th president’s funeral to use as a working model for her assassinated husband’s sad and somber farewell.

Of course, Franklin Roosevelt’s 1933 address is probably the most famous – largely because he entered office just as the nation’s economic outlook was at its bleakest. One thing Mr. Obama needs to remember though, if finding inspiration from FDR, is that when the 32nd president took office things were much worse than they are today.

Those who advocate a New Deal-like approach to the current economic situation would do well to read up on their history. If there is any parallel to what has happened recently and the events of The Great Depression, what should be remembered is that we are only a few months in, following a market tumble.

In Great Depression terms this is 1930 – not 1933. In January of 1930, the market had rebounded and there was little indication that things were going to get much worse. In fact, a case can be made that it was the actions Herbert Hoover and the Congress took in 1930 – things like the Smoot-Harley Act (protectionism), raising taxes, and attempts by the government to manage the economy – that led to a continued downward spiral. Add to all of this the fact that more than half the nation entered a period of sustained drought that year (timing is everything), and we had the makings of what became a long national perfect storm.

Then FDR came to town and kicked it up a notch. Thus began a frenetic period when the “best minds” made things up as they went along, content that they simply knew better because they were running things.

I once heard it said that a fanatic is someone who, when faced with the clear failure of a plan of action, determines to work harder and redouble the efforts.

Reading the entire speech Mr. Roosevelt gave on March 4, 1933 – beyond the “fear itself” stuff – is, in fact, quite chilling. In true populist fashion, the new president railed at the enemies that would become his usual suspects for more than a decade: business leaders and those he called “money-changers.” He used his words as a scourge to drive the culprits out of town:

“The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.”

He called on the nation to fix the “overbalance of population in our industrial centers,” suggesting migratory “redistribution.” Pack your bags and go west, or south, young man. Roosevelt talked of extensive “national planning” and unprecedented governmental “supervision” of major sectors of the economy (and the country itself).

And Franklin Roosevelt threatened that if the Congress did not bend to his will on these things, he would seek “broad Executive power to wage war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

Ray Moley was one of the men tasked with helping FDR craft the speech, and in his handwritten notes the word “dictator” appears (though without any elaboration). Possibly this was bounced around as a word fitting for that whole “broad Executive power” idea.

It is known that many on the left in those days saw virtue in the “strong man” approach to leadership. A movie (funded by William Randolph Hearst) was produced at the time called Gabriel Over the White House, starring Walter Huston, and extolling the virtues of “benevolent” despotism.

FDR loved the movie – even offering some suggestions about the script.

Mr. Obama would be wise to put the FDR speech away, however – there is not much there that really applies to current reality. At least, let’s hope not.

That leaves us with the ghost of Old Honest Abe. Like Mr. Obama, he came to the presidency with a somewhat unimpressive resume. But he also knew a thing or two about speech making. His address at New York’s Cooper Union in February of 1860 paved the way for the Republican nomination. Before that he had gained fame and a reputation for effective rhetorical argument during his legendary debates with Stephen Douglas.

We think of Lincoln these days as a great communicator (a traits most of our more effective presidents have in common). His address at Gettysburg is still studied. His Second Inaugural was a classic with lines like “with malice toward none and charity for all.”

But can anyone quote a line from Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural?

He put in a plug for the postal service: “The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union.” Inspiring stuff.

Regarding slavery he “boldly” said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” He was, as Winston Churchill once described a political foe, “resolute to be irresolute.”

He, of course, did elaborate on the Constitutional idea “to form a more perfect union,” probably the most memorable portion of the speech. But beyond that, the fact is that Lincoln’s first inaugural was a bomb. What he had to say was important – and he spoke against the backdrop of perilous times. As a speech, however, it was not memorable and no one studies it much these days. It was too long – more than 3,600 words and delivered in about 45 minutes. And he tried to cover too many bases; a big mistake in inaugural addresses.

There is a reason why JFK had Ted Sorenson study the Gettysburg Address, not Lincoln’s first inaugural. The speech at the cemetery in 1863 was a mere 278 words long. Kennedy’s inaugural was 1,364 words long and delivered in slightly under 14 minutes.

FDR flirted with long-windedness – his 1933 address came in at about 1,900 words. But, his tag line, the one that is remembered, was right at the beginning. It was all down hill from there.

John F. Kennedy knew, like Abraham Lincoln grew to understand throughout his presidency, that brevity was the soul of wit. When a speech is shorter, a great line even toward the end will resonate – as did the “ask not” part.

So, before this column becomes ironic, let me simply suggest that President-Elect Obama follow sage advice ministerial students and seminarians have heard for years as they study how to preach: “Stand Up – Speak Up – Shut Up.”

Or in the great African-American pulpit tradition: “Start Low – Go Slow – Rise Higher – Catch Fire – Retire.”

OK – one more and I promise I am done. An old – and somewhat cheesy – “preacher joke” has the clergyman’s wife whispering in his ear as he goes to the pulpit “K.I.S.S.” This stands for “Keep It Short, Stupid.”

On January 20th, I will keep an eye on Michelle.

Which Denomination Will Obama Rescue?

December 4, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Episcopal Church, Faith, Obama family, Presidents | Leave a Comment 

Washington, D.C.’s pastors are wondering who will get the bailout.