I'm not sure why anyone on WoC would give a hoot, but just thought I'd mention that my high school equestrian unit will be marching in the inaugural parade. They have something of a long history in inaugurals, and I rode with the unit for LBJ's inaugural in 1965. I met and talked with the cadets and equestriennes who are in this parade Sunday night, and they're pretty excited. A college friend has a son in the unit who is a squad leader. They'll be toward the end of the parade (which is where they usually put the horses, for obvious reasons) in Group 6, just behind the Merchant Marine Marching Band.
Glad I'm not riding. Brrrr...
My take on the inaugural address is that Obama is on the verge of being seduced by the Great Republic. He made a number of obligatory references to left-oriented talking points, particularly regarding ecology and "global warming" (which I sure wish would hurry up, given how brutally cold it is at the moment in the northeast) but I think there's a chance that we'll pursue pretty much the same strategy, under a different label. A lot of Democrats are convinced that we're about to abandon Iraq, with very good reason, but essentially all they mean by that is that we'll leave the bulk of the fighting to Iraqis, and that's what one would expect. The notion that we'll abandon the "neocon strategy" of promoting liberal democracy behind the threat of a rather capable military seems something of a pipe dream. There really isn't any alternative to that strategy, so it'll just be re-labeled and re-marketed. That's basically what happened when Eisenhower took over the "containment strategy" established by Truman. There just aren't that many ways to skin the cat.
Demo,
I don't think anyone expects or advocates the US to stop promoting liberal democracy. There is some hope, however, that there will be a shift in how we go about promoting it. "Winds of change" means something a little different today.
I have a number of friends entering this administration, and I've yet been able to pin them down on exactly what they claim will change all that much. They tend to mention "soft power," and it's fairly clear that the previous administration didn't place nearly as much emphasis on this as I'd like, but you can't exclusively promote soft power without the credible threat of "hard power," and that'll never change. The other issue is that they think there'll be a new emphasis on "hearts and minds," and they tend to consider the Karen Hughes/DoD foray into that arena as a novice attempt, but the fact is that most of them opposed the previous "hearts and minds" ventures as "propaganda," or even "disinformation."
Frankly, there just aren't that many ways to press this agenda. Maybe they'll get someone to head it up who will have extraordinary expertise, and perhaps the public will me more tolerant of a "propaganda ministry" (whatever you call it). That's just fine with me. But the Winds of Change started blowing in 2001, and as far as I can tell they're still blowing in essentially the same direction. The only real difference that I can see is that the public will tend to be a little more aware of the sectarian distinctions within the Ummah, but that's a good thing. And it's more a matter of increasing knowledge than an ideological shift.
The big changes will come in the arena of the economy and environmental policy. For the most part, however, those changes will be opposed by the public. This is something of a "free ride" for opponents of the Obama administration, since they can ride in opposition without paying a political penalty.
But frankly, I'm mainly concerned about foreign policy... and most of the changes in that arena will be cosmetic.
Demo,
Really? That's very interesting because I see such a stark contrast. It seems to me that the initial groundswell of support for Obama's candidacy was rooted (forgive the mixed metaphor) in his opposition to the Iraq war. Granted, once he captured the nomination, economics replaced foreign policy as the main thrust of the campaign. Still, I think a foreign policy based upon beliefs and principles that can justify an Iraq war is dramatically different from a foreign policy based upon beliefs and principles that cannot justify it. I don't see how you can have a wider divergence between the two and still remain within the basic range of realistically permissible US foreign policies. I think the exclusion of military invasion as a means of promoting liberal democracy is a significant and dramatic change in US foreign policy.
I can feel the winds blowing from the same direction:
Obama today.
I honestly don't know what this means, although I know a lot of the people who nominated Obama think they do. Go back and read the Lincoln/Douglas debates if you want some "justifications" for a patently unpopular (and to most people of the time unnecessary) war. But justifications for war aside (and it's not easy to justify any war) the crux of the foreign policy problem is that we really have but one viable strategy, and that to expand the franchise of liberal democracy by whatever means are required. If there's another option, I haven't seen it. Nor has anyone presented it, including Obama.
The rest are just tactics.
As for domestic and economic policy, the "financial bailout" was probably the most unpopular legislation passed in the last century. Public opinion was running 9 to 1 against. If further efforts are required to shore up the financial industry (and it's fairly clear they will be) then Democrats are going to feel pretty isolated. But that's the price of being in power. You've got to do most of the heavy lifting yourself.
I think most people acknowledge that something must be done regarding health care, but again the devil is in the details. I'd say the best way to tackle that problem is through a series of highly publicized "town meetings," amounting to a kind of national referendum. But the temptation will be to rely on expert scholarly opinion, which is where the Clintons went wrong.
The other problem with any system of "social programs" is that they have to target a constituency. Some of the earliest social programs in the US were passed because they benefited Civil War veterans, and it was probably the single most powerful constituency in the US at the time (or perhaps any time). I don't think there's any analog to that nowadays, so Obama and the Democrats will be forced to cobble something together. That will not be easy.
ANOTHER Culver guy, huh. LOL. My cousin Mark Liggett is a grad ('61), I believe. His roommate, Dep Ewing, was a roommate in AF pilot tng with one of my college roommates, fraternity brother and best friends--"six degrees" and all that. Also of that era at Culver a couple of years back is another good friend of mine from New Orleans, Jimmy Lott. And another close friend of mine, multi-millionaire CEO Craig "Dutch" Duchossios another Culver grad (62) from Chicago (family corp. owns Arlington Park racetrack and Fairgrounds in New Orleans, among other things.) An SMU honors graduate after he got kicked out of Tulane for partying, (contributes millions to SMU--bet Tulane wishes they could reconsider their decision now, LOL.), was in my AF flight in AFROTC boot-camp summer of '65 where I met him and was a good drinkin' buddy of mine--he later switched to Marines when failed AF flt physical and was over in I-Corps with 1st MARDIV at same time I was at DaNang with 366TFW. He contributes big time to Culver--has set up several scholarships there.
I guess they were all just 3 or 4 classes ahead of you, Did you know any by reputation? Anything you can divulge publicly, that is. (heh)
I knew Craig. Was trying to impress his sister during a polobending competition in a gymkhana and fell flat on my behind in front of the entire audience after I'd failed to cinch the saddle tightly enough. Craig went to SMU as well, and I think he was a KE. That was before the "counterculture" beguiled me.
Demosophist:
Perhaps it was a typo on you're part, but Dutch was, I believe, a DKE at Tulane (same fraternity as George Bush). DKE's were--and still are--the wildest hell-raising fraternity at Tulane--and on most other college campii as well, in my experience. The original prototypical "Animal House" fraternity for mostly really smart guys with lots of money who just don't give a damn, is how I would profile
'em. And lo these many year they're still that way. LOL.
Like myself, C. J. never warmed up to the greater joys of the "counterculture." He remains a rock-ribbed Elephant/conservative (As am I) and was a big contributor to the Bush campaign--'course that doesn't mean we won't have a drink now and then with those sociable and undoubtedly _highly intelligent_types like you that went over to the Dark Side. (heh)
BTW, pretty much agree with your original post--reminds me--I've got a GREAT, "more than one way to skin a cat," totally true,
funny, funny story from undergraduate anatomy class days--I'll e-mail, as is more appropriate.
Huey Long used to say you can skin it from the neck down or the ankles up, but the difference is negligible.
My Winds email doesn't seem to work. To be fair, Joe's doesn't work either. Try this: demosophia-at-gmail-dot-com. And someone see if they can fix the email forwarding for winds addresses... I've got no idea what's going on with that.
Oh never mind. It seems to work. It's just slow to forward, which is understandable.
As a '58 grad from CMA, and having marched behind the Troop on several occasions, 'Winds of change" means entirely different things to older, wiser folks like me.
As Seymour Martin Lipset observed in The First New Nation the notion of liberal democracy inspired by the American Revolution has had far less influence on the developing world than the "Rights of Man" approach of the French Revolution. Changing that is critical. The need to calm the world down a bit implies a greater role for the American Revolution example, but that won't happen without some active involvement from the revolutionaries. This is something we can do. If Obama recognizes this, and takes us in that direction, all the better (though he did mention the "rights of man" in his inaugural). If he doesn't, his administration will be part of the train wreck.
BTW, his best shot at a foreign policy victory is with Iran. The "Loudist" Al Faqih have the reigns of a pretty unstable regime, with worsening economics every day. The majority of the country are Shi'ah Quietists, just like in Iraq. Our natural ideological allies have the advantage in the region. If he builds on that he'll be the right President for the times. If we he squanders it, we'll know he's not.
[NM: Corrected typo]