That Was Then...

JFK in Berlin
June 26, 1963

A few months before his assassination nearly 62 years ago, American President John F. Kennedy, standing before the Rathaus Schöneberg in West Berlin delivered what many consider his finest speech. In front of a crowd estimated at nearly a half million Berliners, Kennedy shouted out a clarion call of solidarity to the residents of that great city which at the time was an island surrounded by hostile neighbors who built a wall (sound familiar?) completely surrounding it. Here are some excerpts: 

I am proud to visit the Federal Republic (West Germany), with your distinguished Chancellor (Konrad Adenauer) who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress...

Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was "Civis Romanus sum", (I am a citizen of Rome). Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner!"...

Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect. But we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in -- to prevent them from leaving us...

While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system for all the world to see -- we take no satisfaction in it; for it is, as your Mayor (Willi Brandt) has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together...

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

(It would be nearly another three decades before that day finally came.)

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner." *

Twenty four years later in a much different time, a much different American president gave another speech in Berlin. Perhaps not as eloquent as Kennedy's, but it's message of democracy, freedom, progress and especially solidarity with the people of Germany the rest of Europe, and indeed countries all over the world who would be our ally, rang clear as a bell. 

Standing before the most enduring symbol of Berlin, the centuries-old Brandenburg Gate which at the time stood permanently closed just east of the Berlin Wall, Ronald Reagan delivered perhaps his own greatest speech. In the middle of his remarks, Reagan spoke directly to the leader of the Soviet Union:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! 

Then came the money quote:

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

But Reagan's speech that day was more than a collection of aphorisms, among other things it was a history lesson. Here are a few tidbits:

In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. I was struck by the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: "The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world." A strong, free world in the West, that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium--virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded.

Ronald Reagan in front of the Berlin Wall
and the Brandenburg Gate,
June 12, 1987

The American government and their allies learned their lesson after the Armistice following the First World War, where the victors imposed harsh conditions on the defeated, the results of which planted the seeds of World War II.  Realizing that winning the war against Hitler and totalitarianism was meaningless without winning the peace, the Marshall Plan was an initiative of the United States, to contribute mightily in both treasure and manpower, to the rebuilding of Europe, including its vanquished enemy, Germany. A similar plan was in place doing largely the same for Japan. Consequently:

...in West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty--that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.

As Allied victory over Germany appeared imminent in early 1945, the leaders of the "Big Three" Allied powers, the U.S. (Roosevelt), the United Kingdom (Churchill) and the Soviet Union (Stalin) met in the city of Yalta on the Baltic Sea to outline the post-war map of Europe. That map was formalized after the war during another meeting in the German city of Potsdam with Harry Truman replacing the recently deceased FDR. 

In a nutshell, in exchange for Stalin's agreement to enter the war in the Pacific against Japan after Germany's impending defeat, Roosevelt gave in to Stalin's demands that Eastern and most of Central Europe, be brought under the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union, thereby sealing those nations' fate for nearly one half-century. **

It was also agreed that after Germany's unconditional surrender which would took place on May 8, 1945, the country would be divided in four, with each region occupied and governed by one of the main powers that formed the backbone of the alliance, plus France which would be brought into the mix. The capital city of Berlin was also divided into four zones, American, British, French and Soviet. 

Germany's four zones would be tenuously governed as one body by the Allied Control Council, made up by representatives of each of the four powers. However, trouble was brewing as the socialist Soviets balked at the plans of the other three powers to collaborate economically. In addition, the U.S., the U.K. and France all made known their intention to eventually leave the Council, entrusting governance in the hands of the Germans. For their part, the Russians were especially distrustful of an independent, unified Germany, not unreasonable considering the unspeakable devastation the war brought to the people of the USSR.

Another major sticking point became the divided city of Berlin which was located in the heart of the Russian zone. 

The city's precarious location and situation resulted in one of the first volleys of the Cold War as the Soviet Union, wanting Berlin all to itself, blockaded all land and water routes in and out of the city, literally in an attempt to starve its citizens into submission. That act was answered by the Allied nations who organized the Berlin Air Lift, which provided the city with the essential materials, most importantly food, to keep the city alive. It is said that there were nearly 300,000 of these flights in total over the period of one year, working out to about on plane taking off or landing in Berlin's Tempelhoff , Tegel and Gatow Airports every 30 seconds. 

Seeing its futility in light of the resolve of the West Berliners and the Allies, the Soviets ended their blockade in the spring of 1949. But tensions between East and West only ramped up. While the three Western powers would remain briefly as an occupying force, on May 9th of that year, the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany was announced, with its capital city moved to Bonn. In response, on October 7th of the same year, the German Democratic Republic (DDR in German, popularly known as East Germany) became a reality. Its capital would remain in Berlin.

Despite all that, after the blockade and the airlift, Berlin would remain an open city with unrestricted travel between east and west for a decade. This proved to be a dire problem for East Germany as Berlin became the major conduit for the exodus of nearly 3.5 million East German citizens to the West. To stop the hemorrhage, East Germany built its infamous wall that surrounded with city of West Berlin. Construction of the first phase of the Berlin Wall began on August 12, 1961. It's fall coincided with the collapse of East Germany, on November 9, 1989, a little more than two years after Reagan delivered his speech in Berlin. During the existence of the Wall, at least 140 people, but probably more, lost their lives attempting to cross from East to West. 

The post-war tensions created by the Berlin Blockade, the creation of the two Germanys, and especially the division of Europe between East and West, all the foundations of the long-gone Cold War, have ramifications that are still felt today. 

To bolster the defense of the new western alliance against the increasing likelihood of Soviet aggression, 1949 also saw the signing of the North American Treaty, the defense pact originally signed by ten Western European nations, the United States and Canada. The most significant element of the treaty is Article Five which stipulates that all members of what would become the North American Treaty Organization (NATO), would be obligated to come to the defense of any other member nation, should they be attacked. 

While NATO has participated in numerous operations, mostly acting in support roles in European theaters of conflict, in all its years of existence, Article Five was invoked only once, after the September 11 attacks on the United States. 

Today there are 32 member nations, the last of which to date that have been admitted were Finland and Sweden which became members in 2023 and 2024 respectively, in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, itself not a NATO member. 

Finally, President Reagan in his speech in front of the Berlin Wall in 1987 invoked his predecessor: 

When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled, Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe.

Always successful or not, always sincere or not, promoting democracy, freedom and progress over the forces of tyranny, slavery and regression has been the stated goal of the Western Alliance which has held strong with the crucial membership of the United States as both its most powerful member and its greatest beneficiary for the eighty years since the end of World War Two.

Until now.

A couple weeks ago the current vice president of the United States addressed a group of representatives of the Western Alliance at their annual security conference in Munich, whose main concern at the moment was how to best support Ukraine in its ongoing war against Russia. He told them essentially the biggest threat to the world was not Russia, it was them. Then he said this:

In the United States, there's a new sheriff in town. 

But that's a story for another day.

*Once again, I have to point out that the phrase "Ich bin ein Berliner", one of JFK's most quotable lines, unequivocally means exactly what Kennedy intended, expressing solidarity not with a pastry, but with the people of Berlin. Looking like a fool, I learned this the hard way after bringing it up with German friends of mine in Frankfurt, one of whom a Berliner very much around at the time Kenndy delivered his speech. They both assured me the suggestion of the phrase being a malapropism was nonsense, mere urban legend, that no German then nor since, ever got a chuckle from the term having a double meaning. 

Here's the deal: "Ich bin Berliner" without the article "ein", which some suggested he should have said, means "I am from Berlin", which Kennedy obviously was not. 

**The United States' use of nuclear weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, made the Russin invasion of Japan a moot point.

Here We Go Again

About five years ago, I thought I made headway with a friend on the issue of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Like many MAGA devotees, this friend, a real friend whom I have known for more than forty years, could rattle off the names of victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants as if they were his own grandchildren. As you might expect, these names formed the backbone of his argument that all undocumented people in this country should be deported, extenuating circumstances be damned. 

One name he failed to mention, because his story was not reported on Fox News, was that of a relative of mine by marriage, my wife's cousin. He was killed as he was driving with his wife from a wedding in Chicago to their home in suburban Milwaukee, when their car crashed head on with a car driven by a man going the wrong way on an interstate highway as he was being pursued by the police. Fortunately, my cousin-in-law's wife managed to survive the crash, meaning their two young boys who were thankfully home at the time, were not left orphaned. As these things so often go, the perpetrator of this tragedy who was intoxicated, also survived.

He'll have plenty of time to think about his actions that terrible night while he sits in an American prison, before he is sent back to Mexico where he'll most likely have more time on his hands to contemplate. 

I brought this up with my friend just to let him know that I did in fact, have skin in the game when it comes to the subject of undocumented people in this country committing crimes. I wanted to point out to him that despite the unspeakable tragedy of the senseless death of a loving husband, father, brother and friend, I do not hold all undocumented people in this country accountable, only one. 

That's the way it goes with human beings. If you take a representative sample of any group of people, then make a graph that measured the quality of their character, you'll inevitably come up with an enormous bell curve, with a handful of exemplary people at one end, an equal number of despicable people at the other, and a whole mess of people like my friend and me, average folks somewhere in the middle. 

Then I pointed out for every undocumented alien who commits a crime, there will inevitably be at least one who did something remarkable in the service of others. It's just that for some reason, their story doesn't get reported very often, especially on the ultra-right-wing media outlets my friend and millions of folks like him gravitate toward. 

Nonetheless, my friend seemed to get it. That is until our next argument when again he parroted off the names of all the American victims whose story he heard on Fox. 

Well today, you-know-who is about to become president again and he is promising mass deportations starting tomorrow, his first full day in office. With it will come some justice I suppose along with unimaginable human suffering. And I'm willing to bet my firstborn that none of this will do one iota to improve the lives of the American people as promised. 

The new president, the first and hopefully last Felon-In-Chief, plans to start deporting people by the way, right here in Chicago for reasons I can only assume stem from his animus toward this city. I don't know why he hates us so much, one of our largest buildings proudly displays his name so it can be seen for miles around. 

He loves that kind of shit.

But I digress.

When I told my friend that for every undocumented resident who commits a crime, there is at least another who does something remarkable to help someone else, it seemed so obvious that I just let it rest at that. Now I have something to back it up. Last week as Los Angeles was burning uncontrollably, this story came across the wires. (so to speak). 

Be sure to read it.

In a nutshell, as people were forced to evacuate their homes and their communities for their own safety, another group rushed in to help them. In addition to the first responders who were heroically doing their job, there were many others who volunteered to help put out fires in order to help save homes that hadn't yet caught fire.

Many of these people were undocumented. Here's the money quote. Israel Garcia from Guatemala made this comment as he was in the middle of saving a stranger's home:

I don't know who lives here, I don't know if they had children. But if they did, I'm thinking about what the children are going to feel when they come back and see that their house is gone. And I ask myself, how would I feel?

Interestingly enough, just now as I went in search of an article to share with you, I googled "undocumented immigrants help put out fires in LA." Dozens of articles with the story came up. Not surprisingly, none of them came from Fox. The lone article that popped up from that beacon of "fair and balanced journalism", as they once described themselves (but not anymore), was an article with the headline: "Man arrested near LA fires with a 'possible' blowtorch was an illegal immigrant." I read the article and so far, at least at its writing, the man had not been charged with anything.

And so it goes.

In other news, this month we said goodbye to Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States. Due to circumstances largely beyond his control, Carter was perhaps not our best president but was without question, our best former president. Jimmy Carter was a man of remarkable good will and charity, someone who took to heart the fundamental teaching of his faith, that is to say, love your neighbor, even if he is your enemy. 

Present at his funeral at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C. were all the living presidents, including one current and one future, as well as one recently deceased. These six men, as a representative sampling of Presidents of the United States are a good example of the bell curve of human nature. At the one end, representing exemplary character is Jimmy Carter.

At the other end, well let's put it this way, enjoy the next four years. 

Job Number One

An analyst before the debate said the president had to win the first three minutes or else he'd lose the entire debate. Then the debate started and from my perspective, Joe Biden lost the first thirty seconds. 

Then it got worse. 

Yes, Biden lost the debate, but it would be a stretch of the imagination, a huge one, to say that Donald Trump won. With Trump, especially last Thursday night, fact checkers would have had a much easier time enumerating the things he said that were facts. I watched the entire debate and for the life of me, I still can't think of anything Trump said that was remotely true.

Never mind the verbal stumbles and the occasional losses of train of thought, Joe Biden lost the debate because last week Donald Trump handed him talking points on a silver platter that he failed to take advantage of. 

Warning, here comes another sports analogy:

In ice hockey, when a team has a two-man advantage, that is to say when two players on the opposing team are sent to the penalty box at the same time, it's usually a pivotal moment in the game. If the team with the advantage fails to score during that opportunity, they often lose the game.

Using that analogy, Joe Biden had a two-man advantage for at least half the debate.  

At times he appeared even to have a three-man advantage, something not possible in hockey, yet he failed to score. 

The subject of abortion was Biden's greatest missed opportunity. Unbelievably, Trump once again brought up one of his most egregious lies ever, perhaps even worse that his claim that he would have won the 2020 election were it not for voter fraud. Regarding late term abortions he said this:

(Doctors) will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month and even after birth.

I find it understandable that people would be particularly sensitive to abortions that take place late in a pregnancy when the unborn child has developed beyond a certain point and in our time, might even be viable outside of the womb. 

But using late term abortions to sum up the "pro-life" argument is a logical fallacy, a classic example of the "Strawman", that is, basing an argument upon exaggerated and faulty assumptions. Trump's assumptions here were doozies, not only faulty, but outrageous and shameless, something we've all come to expect from the man.

First of all, everyone agrees that willfully taking the life of a child after birth is nothing short of murder, which has never been legal anywhere in this country. Suggesting otherwise as Trump has done now for at least eight years, needs to be called out for the bullshit it is, unequivocally. 

Biden didn't do that. 

Beyond Trump's reprehensible claim of obstetricians willfully murdering babies outside of the womb, late term abortions need to be addressed for what they really are. These are not cases as Trump suggests of capricious women deciding late in their pregnancy that they can't be bothered with giving birth. 

The most eloquent words I've heard about the subject were spoken by current Secretary of Transportation and former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg:

Let’s put ourselves in shoes of a woman in the situation, if it is that late in your pregnancy that means almost by definition, you have been expecting to carry it to term, we are talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name, women who have purchased a crib, families that get most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about health or the life of the mother that forces them to make an impossible choice.

It would have been nice if Biden could have responded to Trump's stupid, uninformed comment with one tenth of that eloquence. But instead, we got crickets. He even pivoted mid-response from one of the Democrats' most powerful issues this year to one of their least, immigration.

Yes, it was a terrible performance, one perhaps for the ages. Immediately after the debate, one of the TV commentators said that he loved Joe Biden, that Joe Biden was his mentor, but that Joe Biden needed to step down, he's simply not up to perhaps the most difficult job in the world. 

One word immediately came to mind:

Fuck.

But I've had a week to think about it. Quite honestly, I am a little pissed at Biden because I do remember him saying four years ago that he intended to be a transition president and as he would be 81 in 2024, wouldn't intend to seek a second term. Had he lived up to those words, we wouldn't be in this situation today. Of course, the situation could have been worse with another candidate, who knows.

By any reasonable standard, Joe Biden has been a good president. Yes, inflation is still a problem; we're all feeling the pain myself included, especially at the gas pump and the checkout counter of the supermarket. And yes, this is also a terrible time if you want to buy a home for the first time. But the fact of the matter is that's the way of economics, we've been here before and were it not for the selective memory and/or historical amnesia of many Republicans, they'd see it as it is. It's also true as I pointed out in a recent post that the extremely dire warnings made by economists four years ago of an imminent recession did not come true. 

I have to laugh hysterically because if Trump were president now with the current state of the economy, you wouldn't be able to shut him up about how the stock market continues to shatter records, how we're producing fossil fuels in record amounts, and how we have at the moment, the strongest economy of practically every nation in the world. Which reminds me of a line from Bill Clinton, "if you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat."

Biden has also had to face numerous challenges, especially two major wars that threaten to destabilize the world. The current president has remained steadfast in the American tradition of supporting our longtime allies, democracies that are facing existential threats from totalitarian regimes. In contrast, Trump has shown nothing but admiration for those totalitarian regimes, especially those in North Korea, China and Russia.  

And Biden has addressed the issue nearest and dearest to the hearts of the right, namely immigration, by working on a bipartisan bill to stem the tide of immigrants crossing the southern border. That bill was quashed by Trump who insisted the Republicans kill it in order to prevent the Democrats from having another issue they could campaign on against him.

 

By contrast, Trump had few challenges during his first three years in office. He inherited a strong and growing economy from his predecessor, much of which he erroneously took credit for himself. There were also few international incidents for which he also, without any credible evidence, continues to take credit.

In the final year of his term, he had one tremendous challenge that had he done even a slightly credible job of addressing, that is, no better than a C-, he would have won reelection in 2020 handily. Instead of bringing the country together as any good leader does during a time of crisis, Trump used COVID to further divide the country, this time over the proper response to a pandemic, resulting in the United States having one of the highest rates of mortality from the disease of any nation in the world. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Trump supporters died of COVID at a disproportionately high rate.

Yet even that doesn't seem to dissuade his supporters. 

Nor does the fact that he attempted to wage an insurrection in order to overturn a free and fair election. If you disagree with that last part, show me the evidence, not just theories. 

Is Trump the existential threat to our democracy that many people insist? Well I happen to believe that beyond having been a terrible president, he is a threat and has no business of ever setting foot in the White House again.

Naturally in my opinion, it's job number one to beat him in the election in November. Biden's performance last week certainly didn't help in that matter.  

So in that vein, where do we go from here? If Biden should decide to step down, I would support and respect that. But then what? To me the natural replacement for him on the Democratic ticket would be his vice president. Personally, I would vote for Kamala Harris in a heartbeat, in fact I was kind of rooting for her to win the Democratic nomination in 2020. But truth be told as I pointed out in another post, I'd vote for my cat in a heartbeat over Donald Trump. 

But I'm not sure if Harris could beat Trump in the electoral college in November, since many people seem to despise her as they did Hillary Clinton. As an aside, it dawned on me the other day that their hatred of these two women is perhaps not prejudice against strong women as I once thought. Could it rather be a prejudice against smart women? Margorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are both strong women who get a lot of support from the Right. But certainly no one ever accused them of being smart. 

One thing's for sure, I'd sure love to see Kamala Harris debate Donald Trump. Trump would never let that happen though, even he's not that foolish. 

The polls today show that a Democratic candidate other than Biden would do well against Trump. Unfortunately, "Democratic candidate other than Biden" is not going to be a choice on the ballot in November. And I'm afraid that if the Democrats were to go above Kamala Harris's head and select someone other than her for their candidate, that would lead to a lot of hard feelings, with good reason. 

I also think that the Democrats forcing Biden out would be a terrible idea as he is the candidate who was elected by the people, including me, who voted in the Democratic primaries. 

To me the only credible options for the Democrats going forward are for Biden to voluntarily step down, turning over the reins to his vice president, or Biden remaining the Democratic candidate. 

Both options are fraught with risk but frankly I don't see any other option.

Which means for the first time in a long time, the Democrats are going to have to get their act together and unify themselves in unequivocally getting behind their ticket in November. That means if Biden remains the guy, to assure the public that he can do the job and if by some chance he can't, he has a very capable vice president who can easily fill the shoes. 

If Harris is the woman, again, to a person the Democrats will have to get behind her full speed ahead.

In either case the Democrats, and by that I mean every single one of them, will need to be on the same page doing a full court press (how's that for a mixed metaphor?) to show the country the difference between their party and the other one.  

On the bright side, I believe this week, the largely Trump-picked Supreme Court handed the Democrats a tremendous gift in ruling that a president has complete immunity in his or her official acts while in office. Why do I believe it's a gift to the Democrats? 

Remember that the Supreme Court ruling goes both ways. As Joe Biden is the current president, he could now do all sorts of things including enacting an executive order banning convicted felons (have anyone particular in mind?) from running for president. Heck while we're at it, he could even, thanks to the Supreme Court, take out a contract on his chief political opponent with likely impunity. True he might get impeached by the Republican House but likely won't get convicted by the Democratic led Senate.

By not doing any of that, he's showing the nation that he means business by not wanting to be king or dictator, which six members of the Court seem to have said is his right. 

Assuming these things won't happen, the Democrats will be able to rightfully say that Republicans,  including an obviously biased Republican leaning Supreme Court, not the Democrats, want to increase the powers of the president in ways never imagined in the Constitution. Combined with the 2025 Project, the work of the Heritage Foundation which is effectively the planform of the Republican Party in the upcoming election, the Democrats can rightfully argue that they are the party committed to preserving and protecting the Democratic Republic that has served this nation well for the last 248 years, while the Republicans in what they are calling a "new American revolution" are looking to overthrow all that and return this country to the monarchy it rejected on this day, July 4, 1776, or worse, introduce a type of government that no one in their right mind ever imagined for this country. 

Between that and the Dobbs ruling which overthrew the federal government's protection of a woman's right to choose her own healthcare, the Democrats will have a lot to work with in terms of convincing the American people that they are the party that looks out for the rights of the people and the fights for the preservation of the democracy we have enjoyed for nearly 250 years. 

Of course, all bets are off if the Democrats drop the ball and lose sight of the big picture by letting their personal grievances take precedence and refusing to compromise their more extreme positions. 

I understand that it may not be the best of choices this year, but there couldn't be a more clear choice.

It's a 50/50 chance at best the Democrats and their voters will come together to do that but if they do, I'll bet my firstborn the Democrats will win in a landslide this November, no matter who leads their ticket.

Happy Independence Day, fellow Americans.

Let's not fuck it all up.

Inauguration Day

Every four years, January 20, is a date of tremendous consequence to the American people. It is of course the date set aside after an election, for the inauguration of the president. It is of even more consequence on days such as today, when a new president of a different party takes the oath of office on the steps of US Capitol in Washington DC as it represents the peaceful transition of power, something we take for granted in this country, but shouldn't.

The first such peaceful transition of executive power from one party to another in the United States took place on March 4, (the date originally stipulated by the Constitution to be inauguration day), 1801. During the 1800 election, the Republican (in essence, today's Democratic Party) Thomas Jefferson, defeated Federalist John Adams in what many accounts tell us, was an even more contentious election than the one we just experienced.

In his inaugural address, Jefferson's first job was to heal a nation torn apart. while confirming his own convictions. In doing so, he defined the very essence of our democratic republic.  In that, his first of two inaugural addresses, Jefferson said this:

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions... 

...every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. 

...Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.  

It's easy for us to forget today that the survival of the nation was very much in doubt in Jefferson's time, and those words, along with practically everything else the man ever said or wrote, went a long way to forge the bonds that tie this nation together to this day.

A new president, whomever that person should be, would do well to keep in mind the life and times of this nation, and the struggles of his (and eventually her) predecessors to create and sustain it.

You might think a good place to start one's study of the history of the presidency of the United States would be to look through the inaugural addresses of the presidents. One president, James Garfield, did just that before he took his oath of office on March 4, 1881. I have no idea if anyone knows for certain if our 20th president felt that was time well spent, but the general consensus of most historians is that the majority of presidents' first speeches to the nation are imminently forgettable. President Garfield probably could have done himself a favor by looking elsewhere for inspiration as despite addressing a few noble causes, his own inaugural address, does not rate very well. even among the generally low company it keeps.

Of course there are exceptions, addresses delivered to the nation by extraordinary men in extraordinary times, which constitute some of the most profound utterances in American history.

If I were about to become president, (something the entire nation and world should be deliriously happy will never happen), one of the things I would do to prepare myself before my inaugural address, would be to do something I've done quite often, take a stroll through our nation's capital. In the footsteps of every president who governed from there (with the ironic exception of the man for whom the city is named), inspiration to find the appropriate first words to the nation should be easy to find.

I'd start at perhaps the loveliest monument in town, at least from a distance, the Jefferson Memorial. There you can find inscribed many of the great man's words inscribed inside the Roman inspired temple designed by John Russell Pope. Unfortunately many of those words are taken out of context and made to fit in with the spirit of the time the monument was built. A better place to study the actual words of Jefferson would be a couple miles away at the Library of Congress. On our third president, our 35th president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, while addressing an assembly of Nobel Prize winners said this:

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. 

Jefferson's first inaugural address is on the short list of most historians' best of the best presidential inaugural addresses list. Here you can read the speech in its entirety.

Across the Tidal Basin from the Jefferson Monument, sits the new memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a lovely park setting. This monument, designed by the esteemed landscape architect, Lawrence Halprin, true to the didactic nature of our modern national monuments, depicts many of the enormous historic events that took place during Roosevelt's presidency. I wrote in depth about the monument here.

One of the most famous catch phrases of any presidential speech, comes at the beginning of FDR's first inaugural address when he told a struggling nation well into the grips of the Great Depression on March 4, 1933 :

This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure, as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. 

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

The whole truth be told, I've heard rumors that the "fear itself" line was lifted by Roosevelt's speechwriter from a newspaper ad. Nonetheless, FDR's first inaugural went along way to lift the spirit, if not necessarily the pocketbooks, of this nation's citizens.

Here is a recording of entire address:



Not too far from the Roosevelt memorial is a collection of the most enduring and powerful monuments to the American experience to be found anywhere. First you come upon two fairly recent war memorials, devoted to the Korean and Vietnam Wars. You can read about them here. Steps from there is the memorial to perhaps our greatest president (depending upon  the geographical region in which you were born), Abraham Lincoln.

The Lincoln Memorial, designed by Henry Bacon and dedicated in 1922,, is our nation's most recognizable, and thought provoking monument. More than a monument, the building has served as the setting for some of the most important gatherings of citizens since its nearly 100 years of existence. As such the building, and its environs, are for Americans, hallowed ground, the de facto hearth of our democracy.

A testimony to its enduring legacy, you will find four words chiseled into the top step of the Lincoln Memorial, that have nothing, yet everything to do with the 16th president. Those words are "I HAVE A DREAM." Those words refer to a moment in time, not an inaugural address, to a man, not a US president, and to a people, not the whole citizenry of the United States, but a group of people for whom the guarantees, privileges and promises of the US Constitution did not apply. It was from those steps that Martin Luther King demanded that the "promissory note" signed by the Founding Fathers in the form of the US Constitution be cashed in, exactly 100 years after Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Inside the memorial is Daniel Chester French's iconic statue of the seated Lincoln. Flanking him on either side are the texts of two of his greatest speeches. To Lincoln's right, on the south wall of the monument is inscribed his Gettysburg Address, to his left, the text of probably the greatest inaugural address ever given, Lincoln's Second Inaugural.

Abraham Lincoln delivering his Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865

The speech was delivered precisely one month and five days before Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant, effectively ending the Civil War. Rather than gloating on an imminent magnificent victory, Lincoln's speech is one of sorrow and self reflection.  He spoke of suffering and the tremendous price both sides paid for waging war. He spoke of God's judgement on the American people, not just the Confederates, a result of subjecting one eighth of the entire population of the country to slavery:

These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully.

Despite every indication that the war was drawing to a close, Lincoln resigned himself to the idea that we as a nation were helpless before God's wrath:

Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With that in mind Abraham Lincoln closes one of the shortest inaugural addresses in history with these most remarkable words of reconciliation and healing:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Reflecting his desire for reconciliation, Lincoln's Memorial is situated on the banks of the Potomac River which separates the District of Columbia, from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the capital of the Confederacy. Just across the river atop a hill in Arlington, VA, sits the former home of none other than Robert E. Lee. During the Civil War, Lee's property and much of  the surrounding region were occupied by the Union and to spite the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, and chief general of the Confederate Sates, the federal government allocated his land to become Arlington National Cemetery. It would later become this country's premier military cemetery.

Today, to  reach Arlington National Cemetery from the Lincoln Memorial one needs only to cross McKim Mead and White's Memorial Bridge, a structure as symbolic as it is beautiful. Entering the cemetery you are confronted by tens of thousands of gravestones making the final resting places of men and women who served in this nation's armed forces. On each stone is carved either a cross, a Star of David, or a star and crescent, symbolizing the creed of the fallen soldier, sailor, airman or marine. Just below Lee's home is the final resting place of John F. Kennedy. The eternal flame marking his grave can be seen across the river from the Lincoln Memorial at night.

Perhaps no inaugural speech was as moving or as inspiring as Kennedy's. The old world order was rapidly changing and Kennedy, the first president born in the 20th century, grasped that concept, as well as a deep understanding of where we came from, at the outset of his speech:  

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Kennedy pledged to break the bonds of oppression throughout the world...

To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom-and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

...and took the moral high ground:

To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

All the while understanding the risks of all out war in the age of the atom bomb:

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction...
...So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

JFK's inaugural speech, while speaking of the past, continually looked forward:

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And instead of making promises, he made demands of selflessness and sacrifice:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Here's a video of the inauguration address of John F. Kennedy:




The remarkable thing about all great speeches is the way they speak to us today, decades or even centuries after they were crafted.

Here's an interesting piece from the online journal Vox, with a video featuring Professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an expert on political rhetoric and author of the book: Presidents Creating the Presidency: Deeds Done in Words.

In the video, Professor Jamieson lists three aspects that make for a great inauguration speech. In that speech, the newly sworn in  president should aim to: Unify the country, share principles (rather than policy), and perhaps most importantly, affirm limitations.

Check, check and check for the speeches listed above.

Then she gives three pieces of advice to the speech givers: Keep it short, forget the campaign, and use the pronoun "we", rather than "I".

Ditto.

It would seem that her comments might be specifically directed at the man about to take the oath of office today. After some truly reprehensible behavior during the campaign, he showed some promise after the election, being conciliatory, and pledging to be the president of all Americans. Sadly he slipped back into his old, bad habits and spent most of his time as president-elect as if he were still on the campaign trail. Today he finds himself in the unenviable position of having a lower approval rate on the eve of his inauguration, than on the day after the election.

Despite the vast number of Americans who pledge to do anything but watch the inauguration today, the new president can do himself a huge favor by taking heed of Professor Jamieson's advice. No one expects him to deliver a speech of Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt or Kennedy caliber.

The truth be told, his address today needn't be memorable, in fact, given his nature, and the history of presidential inauguration speeches, it would be far better for him if it were not memorable at all.

The good news for our future president is that he has set the bar remarkably low for himself. All he really has to do today is show a modicum of humility, make at least a token effort to bridge the tremendous chasm he has created between himself, his supporters, and the opposition, and for God's sake let the world know he intends to respect the rule of law and common decency as far as the next four years are concerned.

Now is that too much to ask of the President of the United States?

We've come so far low we cannot possibly accept anything less.

Barack Obama

A friend of ours met last week with Barack Obama at Blair House in Washington DC. She was part of a contingent of folks who either themselves or their loved ones suffer from serious heath issues. They met with the president to discuss an uncertain future under a new president who made a campaign promise of repealing the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Without the ACA many of these folks believe, either they or their loved ones would not have been able to afford the medical treatments that have been responsible for keeping them alive, and any kind of repeal they believe, would do nothing less than put their very lives in jeopardy.

The president told those gathered that day, to fight the good fight, to never let down, and to make their voices heard, using the motto of the State of Missouri "Show Me" as a rallying cry to Congress, demanding they present the citizens of the United States with a comprehensive replacement plan, before they dare to repeal the ACA. Obama assured them that he will do his part, whatever good that will do, to be an advocate, not specifically for the health care program that bares his name, but for any system that ensures that health care is a right that everyone should enjoy.

President Obama obviously leaves behind a very positive legacy for these people. To others however, the word Obamacare is synonymous with government intrusion into the lives of the American people. In other words, Obamacare detractors are the folks who resent having to pay money out of their own pockets to insure that others less fortunate, might be covered.

Barack Obama gave his farewell address to the American people last night. He gave that speech here in Chicago, his adopted home town where he famously (or infamously, depending on your point of view), worked as a community organizer before becoming an Illinois state senator, and later a United States senator. It may not have been a speech for the ages like the address he delivered before the Democratic National Convention in 2004, four years before he was nominated as his party's standard-bearer. In that speech he professed his deep belief in the promise of America, and the basic goodness of its people. Asserting in no uncertain terms what drives progressive ideology, he said this:

It is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work.

We often think that the crux of the dispute between Republicans and Democrats these days, is the argument over the size of government, but that's not really true. There are in fact very few honest to goodness Libertarians around, that is to say people who whole heartedly believe that government should play as small a role in the lives of its citizens as possible. Conservatives who call themselves Libertarians are all for big government when it comes to issues close to their hearts such as national defense, immigration control and law and order, including the enforcement of laws regarding things they don't like such as abortion and flag burning. Sad to say, many Republicans today strongly oppose government handouts to individuals or groups, that is unless those handouts directly benefit themselves. A good example is transportation. Republicans will fight tooth and nail against the funding of public transportation, which they typically don't use, but have absolutely no problem with government funding of our nation's outrageously expensive highway infrastructure.

The real divisive issue separating Democrats and Republicans today is the question, "to what extent am I my brother's keeper?" To Democrats, the answer on the other side would be: "to no extent whatsoever." In contrast, most Republicans would say that your average Democrat favors the assurance of cradle to grave care for all, regardless of need, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Yet there are actually few of us who would go to either extreme; the staunchest conservatives (I would hope), believe that we should care for the most vulnerable in society, while even the bleedingest of hearts appreciate at least to some degree, the value of work and personal responsibility.

But in recent years, we, (myself included), seem to have become ever more entrenched in our own ideological bubbles, scarcely giving folks on the other side the time of day when it comes to expressing their views and logic (flawed as it may be!).

Addressing the perceived ideological rift in this country, Barack Obama gave us this bit of hope, the most memorable line from that speech twelve years ago:

The pundits, like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

Obama's speech last night didn't have any take home lines like that one, rhetorical flourishes meant to garner attention. That was after all the speech that put him on the national map. Instead last night's speech was an effort to cement his legacy, but more importantly, a thinly veiled warning of the administration that is about to take over, and an admonishment for all who despair of the upcoming four years, to work for a change.

The premise of this Obama speech was the four biggest threats, as he saw them, to our democracy. His first point directly addressed the president elect's campaign rhetoric, targeted at white underemployed blue collar workers who came out in unprecedented numbers to support the Republican candidate. Recognizing the vast number of people for whom the American Dream has become a nightmare, President Obama said:

To begin with, our democracy won't work without a sense that everyone has economic opportunity.

But his answer to the problem was much different from his successor's who campaigned tirelessly on the issue of bringing back jobs that were lost to other countries due to bad trade deals. Obama instead emphasized education and the encouragement of involvement in 21st century enterprises such as new technologies, health care and alternative energy, rather than raising unrealistic hopes that long lost industrial jobs will magically reappear. Obama stuck a dagger into the heart of his successor's basic premise by giving us this reality check:

...our trade should be fair and not just free. But the next wave of economic dislocations won't come from overseas. It will come from the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of good, middle-class jobs obsolete.

Obama's second stated threat to democracy was racism. His detractors have labeled Obama the great divider, especially when it comes to race issues. He certainly made those people chafe yesterday when he pointed out quite rightly that:

For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn't suddenly vanish in the '60s, that when minority groups voice discontent, they're not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness. When they wage peaceful protest, they're not demanding special treatment but the equal treatment that our Founders promised. 

Obama also brought up the vital role immigrants have played in the history of this country, pointing out that the same words used to describe Mexicans, Muslims and other ethnic groups trying to enter this country today are the exact words that were used to describe Irish, Italians, and Poles immigrants over a century ago.

Conservative critics of the president's speech were quick to point out their perception of Obama's anti-white sentiment in those statements, but somehow seemed to miss this prescient bit of self reflection:

For blacks and other minority groups, it means tying our own very real struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face -- not only the refugee, or the immigrant, or the rural poor, or the transgender American, but also the middle-aged white guy who, from the outside, may seem like he's got advantages, but has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change. We have to pay attention, and listen.

Bringing us back to his theme of our lack of national solidarity, President Obama pointed out that:

For too many of us, it's become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or on college campuses, or places of worship, or especially our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. The rise of naked partisanship, and increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste -- all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it's true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there. 

And this trend represents a third threat to our democracy. But politics is a battle of ideas. That's how our democracy was designed. In the course of a healthy debate, we prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them. But without some common baseline of facts, without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent might be making a fair point, and that science and reason matter -- then we're going to keep talking past each other, and we'll make common ground and compromise impossible.

Notice that at no point here is Obama pointing fingers at any single ideological group. These same criticisms can be leveled at liberals as easily as conservatives. 

To both groups, Obama gives us this simple and brilliant solution:

If you're tired of arguing with strangers on the Internet, try talking with one of them in real life.

President Obama's final stated threat to our system of government, perhaps the most insidious, is the taking of our democracy for granted. To that point, the president quoted from George Washington's own farewell address where our first president warned of the many forces that will conspire to weaken our conviction that our democracy "is the underpinning of our safety, prosperity, and liberty."

If we are to lose our integrity and values, Obama implies, all else falls by the wayside. Here in perhaps his most ominous warning about the coming administration, Obama brings up American values that in our history, resisted facile solutions to difficult problems:

It's that spirit -- a faith in reason, and enterprise, and the primacy of right over might -- that allowed us to resist the lure of fascism and tyranny during the Great Depression; that allowed us to build a post-World War II order with other democracies, an order based not just on military power or national affiliations but built on principles -- the rule of law, human rights, freedom of religion, and speech, and assembly, and an independent press. 

While he trumpeted the gains made during his administration, Barack Obama took pains to make sure the credit for those successes went to the people of the United States, not to the guy sitting in the White House or the members of his administration. Compare that to the words we heard in Cleveland this summer when the Republican nominee for president proclaimed that only he, and he alone could "fix" this nation's problems.

In my book, there in a nutshell is the difference between the president of a republic and a dictator. Not one word out of the mouth of the president-elect has convinced me that he understands the difference, or cares.

Barack Obama, like all good presidents, all good leaders for that matter, has a strong understanding and appreciation of history, which made it possible for him to lead us eight years ago into an uncertain future. He inherited challenges that few of his predecessors faced, namely a war on two fronts and a tremendous economic crisis, not to mention a completely intransigent Congress who from the outset was committed to nothing other than his downfall.

Like all administrations, Obama's had it's successes and failures. You wouldn't know it from listening to most of his detractors who fed by whatever bug is up their ass, refuse to see the Obama administration as anything but an abject failure. Some would suggest that the irrational animosity toward Barack Obama is fueled by racism. I for one have not seen any evidence to dispute that claim. Regardless of one's personal ideology, whether you agree with President Obama's policies or not, and yes, there is plenty to criticize, any rational judgement of the man would have to conclude that he performed his job with insight, integrity, intelligence, grace and eloquence that few of his predecessors could match. Most important, I can't for the life of me believe anyone could seriously question his commitment to make life better for all Americans, regardless of their race, creed, or ideology.

I stated before in this space that Obama's legacy most likely will be split along ideological lines, but it's not that simple. People will judge Barack Obama largely on the basis of self-interest. They will ask themselves as Ronald Reagan asked the American people in 1980. "am I better off today than I was at the beginning of this administration?"

Clearly the majority of folks who voted for the Republican candidate this past election, answered no to that question. No one should be surprised by that fact alone, seldom in this country's history has one party controlled the White House for two or more subsequent administrations.

What's different of course is the man for whom they voted. With practically zero understanding of history, the next president promises to bring this nation back to a glorious past that never really existed. It's hard to tell right now whether he will lead this nation to ruin or he will merely be an insignificant burp in history.

In his speech last night, Barack Obama let us know in no uncertain terms that the work of government is the work of the people, not the work of one man. And that one man cannot destroy our nation and our democratic republic, unless of course, we let him.

Barack Obama reminded us last night that while we have a lot of work to do in the coming four years, in the end we'll be OK as a nation.

Thank you Mr. President. You have made me proud to be an American.