Feeling a little embarrassed by my first take on the inaugural address, I'd like to, as they sometimes say on the floor of Congress, ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
In listening to the speech, I spent my energy imagining how unappealing and unpersuasive small-government conservatives and social conservatives and gun rights conservatives would find President Obama's list of big problems and issues government should try to tackle in the next four years. Well yes, conservatives will find that list unappealing and most will be disinclined to help Obama achieve the goals he outlined.
But his list of those problems was a good one, in some cases a brave one. If we ever get to full equality for gays and lesbians, the fact that Obama included that goal in his speech -- that he elevated "Stonewall" to a place of respectability and honor alongside "Seneca Falls and Selma" -- will be remembered as an important milestone.
The worst thing about the way I listened to the speech was captured by E.J. Dionne's column this morning, which said:
Some will no doubt think (and write) that Obama should have sought more lofty and non-partisan ground. The problem with this critique is that it asks Obama to speak as if the last four years had not happened.
Obama spent at least the first half of his first term begging for bipartisan compromise. He got some big things done but but little of it was produced by bipartisanship. He ran on that record and, even more explicitly, he ran against going back to the way things were done under the previous Republican president. His reelection campaign slogan was "Forward," with an almost audible epilogue of "not backward." He won a solid reelection victory, his party held onto control of the Senate and Republicans held onto the House. He doesn't have to worry about reelection and, given the current standing of the Republican Party, they are the ones who need to worry about their political future. Many, if not most, of the goals Obama listed Monday have majority support in the country. That is a big problem for Republicans.
Other than the gay equality stuff (on which he has evolved), Obama's list of goals and attitudes in yesterday's speech were his long-standing goals and attitudes. It's what he is for, and why shouldn't he say what he is for? If Republicans want to suggest compromises that will enable him to accomplish some of those goals in exchange for allowing them to accomplish some of theirs, I'm sure Obama will listen. If not, he will test the limits of executive branch authority and continue to make his case to the country.
In my first reaction yesterday, I quoted Charles Krauthammer's on-air reaction to the speech, which he called "an ode to big government." Today, I'm asking myself whether Obama could have given any vision for the next four years that would not have elicited that reaction from Krauthammer.