Aggressive Integration? President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address
–by Svea Burmester
January 31, 2013
Four years ago, everything was change: Barack Obama was more than the first AfroAmerican president of the United States, he was everything but George W. Bush. Americans
lingered after new politics and a head of state to be proud of (see: Marschall 2009). Representative to a new generation, Barack Obama confidently won the Primaries as well as the Presidential Elections. The question remained if he had any idea by then about the enormous responsibility that would come along with the world’s most powerful office.
Besides accomplishing the executive charge of the presidential office, the most important job of the President of the United States is to integrate his people. A society as diverse
and as big in numbers needs a common ground to stick together, a shared identity which is far
more than a political community of purpose. Research on the political culture of the United
States copes with the magnitude of the presidential office beside all its constitutional limits
and opportunities, competences that are best publically demonstrated in the presidential inauguration. This is why the process of taking the oath of office is the first big test to evaluate the
President’s potential of bringing Americans together.
Four years ago, Barack Obama passed the test: Considering social-scientific criteria,
he did better than President George W. Bush in his first inaugural address and took the chance
of reintegrating his people. Today, in 2013, the challenge is even harder: Is President Obama
able to meet the level he reached four years ago and furthermore, will he be able to deal with
the loss of enthusiasm, which a term in office unavoidably implicates?
Analyzing President Obama’s second inaugural address1 reveals that hopes can still be
kept up high: Barack Obama met the challenge of responsibly making use of the inaugural
address’s integrating potential.
In order to evaluate President Obama’s second inaugural address, it is necessary to
outline how the integrative meaning of this traditional speech increased historically and which
mechanisms have evolved over time.
1
A transcript of the speech can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama.
Aggressive Integration? President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address
2
Socio-Historic Background
The Presidency
Constituted as a presidential system, the President of the United States appears to be the personalization of power (see Stüwe 2004: 81), an impression mainly due to his medial presence
(see Shell 2004: 81, Lösche 2008a: 5). However, the Constitution of the United States does
not intend such an outstanding presidential position. In order to distinguish the new American
polity from 18th century European absolutism, the Constitution was designed as a system of
checks and balances (see Stüwe 2004: 81, Lösche 2008a: 5). That is, the President shares
power with an independent Congress that constitutes the legislative, a strong judicial branch,
and with influential federal states (see Stüwe 2004: 81). Within this political system, the
President holds the role of the head of government as a “one-man executive” (translated from
Stüwe 2004: 83) as well as the role of the head of state (see Shell 2008: 122). Besides these
constitutionally guaranteed competences, there are a number of ‘unconventional’ ones that
built up over time.
There are numerous developments that gave rise to the presidency. The nationalization
of politics, for example, devoted more attention to the presidential office that had not been
that visible during the first decades of the young nation. Once political challenges became
relevant for the whole nation, or rather could not be dealt with on the federal level, a more
centralized guidance was necessary, and thus the presidency became more and more recognized by the public (see Weiss 2008: 62ff., Lösche 2008b: 13ff., Stüwe 2004: 82f.).
In addition, this tendency of national integration is fostered by a beginning globalization at the turn of the 20th century and the American self-definition as a “major power with
worldwide interests” (translated from Lösche 2008b: 13). Here, the President’s position as
commander-in-chief promoted leadership expectations towards the office (see Stüwe 2004:
83).
Another impact on the growing consequence of the presidential office came with the
change of its electoral process: Once the President had to be elected directly by the people2,
candidates campaigned actively putting themselves onstage (see Shell 2008: 121, Lösche
2008b: 13ff.). Thus, not only has the quantity of presidential appearances in public changed
significantly, But also led to a personalization of the process, especially due to tough competitions during the primaries and presidential election campaigns (see Weiss 1008: 13ff.).
Finally, the medialization added up to what the presidency looks like today. Strategic
public relations began to flourish while at the same time the American society was becoming
2
Via electors (see Shell 2008: 121, Lösche 2008b: 13ff.)
Aggressive Integration? President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address
3
more and more heterogeneous (see Weiss 2008: 62f., Stüwe 2004: 84, Shell 2008: 121). In
response, political communications in general and the presidential expression in particular
turned to be increasingly symbolic (see Stüwe 2004: 84f., Shell 2008: 121f.). Thus, raised to
the most important “symbol of national unity” (translated from Shell 2008: 121), the President
did not only gain power but rather a major responsibility to provide national coherence (Shell
2008: 122). Paradoxically, this means on the one hand, that the President as the head of state
is supposed to act as a model and provide identification potential for the highly diverse society. On the other hand, as the head of government, the President needs to do politics and make
programmatic decisions while his leadership at all times has to unify the nation’s interests and
people (see Shell 2008: 121, Weiss 2008).
An exceptional example of demanding and fulfilling these challenges is the presidential inauguration, a staging (Stüwe 2004) of national integration, with the inaugural address as
its highlight.
The President’s Inaugural Address
Contradictory, the inaugural address, as momentum of national integration, is not provided
constitutionally3. It was rather initiated by the first President of the United States, George
Washington, and never has a President after him missed it.
The importance and quality of the inaugural address is shaped along with the development of the presidency: While it was at first addressed to the nation’s political elites and the
members of Congress only, it has been supposed to reach the public once the President’s role
has become more popular (see Stüwe 2004: 90). Theodore Roosevelt’s inauguration is crucial
here: By redefining the presidential self-conception he overcame the administrative sphere
and introduced the “rhetorical presidency” (translated from Stüwe 2004: 95). Eventually,
Woodrow Wilson interpreted his role as President in general and the inaugural address in particular in such a formative way that his influence is significant until today. Wilson’s “rhetorical masterpiece” (translated from Stüwe 2004: 96) at his inauguration is known for its symbolic rhetoric, shaped by emotionality and lyrics, less political objectives as a forecast of his
term in office, but rather addressing the idea of American tradition and values (Stüwe 2004:
96). In doing so, President Wilson created an “American vision with principles that are going
to be inspirational for a upcoming renewal” (translated from Stüwe 2004: 96). As a result,
President Wilson was the first to focus on the nation as an integrative and inspirational collec3
Not only did the speech itself change but also the ceremonies accompanying it, comparable
to monarchical coronation festivities. These, too, are of significant importance for renewing
the nation’s shared identity (see Stüwe 2004: 87ff.).
Aggressive Integration? President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address
4
tivity (see Stüwe 2004: 97). Hence, this rhetorical device of his is today known as “Americanism” or “Public Philosophy”, a confession of faith professed by the President on behalf of the
whole nation (Stüwe 2004: 97). Since then, presidential inaugural addresses express the
American system of shared believes and virtues, of a nation “in execution of its global order
to establish freedom, equality, and democracy” (translated from Stüwe 2004: 97).
Besides this contextual aspect, Wilson’s inaugural address considerably changed the
relation between speaker and audience. Introducing himself as the speacker of the nation, he
tried to overcome the distance by expressing the collective will (see Stüwe 2004: 97).
Religious rhetoric turned out to be very popular as integrating strategy, a rhetoric that
can be either metaphorically spoken or contain particular figures taken from the JewishChristian faith (see Stüwe 2004: 97f.). That is, religious language does not necessarily say
anything about the President’s religiosity but rather aims at the common values and virtues
which, as civil religion, make a central contribution to the social cohesion of a pluralistic
American society from its origin on (see Stüwe 2004: 98ff.).
Another key impact of the address’s character was the change in the electoral procedure and the medialization later on: the President’s language has to be understood by the average American (see Stüwe 2004: 100f.). Being a public speaker gives him the chance of influencing public opinion and thus being able to pressure Congress (see Shell 2008: 122).
Over time, these opportunities also turned into expectations and there is now a high responsibility for the President to meet them (see Shell 2008: 122). By describing the time of
his inauguration as a period of crisis or decisions, presidents typically apply to this challenge—which then indeed does offer the opportunity of addressing programmatic contents
(see Stüwe 2004: 101f.). However, on behalf of the national cohesion, the President turns his
back on his role as head of government and party member, presenting himself as president of
all Americans (see Stüwe 2004: 102).
Comparing the inaugural speeches of several Western countries, Klaus Stüwe concludes that the American inaugural address is “less and more than a governmental declaration”: on the one hand, it is less of a programmatic outlook as known from other polities but
on the other hand it is more than a simple ritual—the American inaugural address serves as a
pillar for the society as a whole, helps renewing this collective feeling, and for the current
President, it offers the chance of gaining more political influence than constitutionally guaranteed (Stüwe 2004:102f.).
Aggressive Integration? President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address
5
Categories for Content Analysis
With regard to the historically grown meaning of the inaugural address, this paper will examine the integrative potential of President Obama’s second inaugural address. In doing so, the
analysis will be based on categories that allow to assess objectively whether the address fulfilled the potential of social integration. It can thus be tested if hopes for President Obama can
still be up: Does his second inaugural address measure up to the first one from four years
ago4? Has he again met a considerable standard of integrative potential?
Deduced from the historically portrayed meaning of the inaugural address, there are three
categories that can be made out as integrative mechanisms:
•
The first category (I) contains all rhetorical devices of civil religion. Those are religious references such as the confession of faith to the set of shared believes and values,
jointly acknowledged as American virtues. The second sub-category summarizes the
indications of being God’s chosen people. Hence, this category cumulates text passages that have an integrative meaning in highlighting a common American faith.
•
Patriotic expressions are gathered up in the second category (II). There might be use of
it in two different ways: First patriotism can appear as honoring the American heritage
by pointing to the founding period, the Constitution, and the founding fathers. The
other possibility of patriotic terms might address the American global mandate and the
responsibility of carrying on this heritage. Thus, the American people are united
within this common mission.
•
Whereas the first category occupies a supernatural level, and the second one assembles
the historical dimension, the third category (III) is devoted to the present personal, individual level of the speaker. This is how the President tries to integrate his audience
via a common trust in him. On the one hand, this can happen by providing identification, on the other hand by presenting himself as a role model. By conveying a sense of
a joint experience and by introducing himself as the nation’s speaker, the president
might overcome the distance and help people to identify. Yet, the President has to
demonstrate his leadership skills. This is possible by setting an example of living the
traditional American virtues. His leadership qualities might also be shown in declaring
the present as a period of crisis and a hint about the President’s political program fits
in here as part of his individualism and also as a demonstration of will and thus leadership quality.
4
A former analysis of President Obama’s first inaugural address revealed that he applied all
the following categories in an exemplary manner.
Aggressive Integration? President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address
6
In short, these categories sum up as:
Category I:
Civil Religion
a Credo
b God’s Chosen People
Category II:
Patriotism
Honoring the Ameria
can Heritage
b Global Mission
Category III:
Individual Level
a Identification
b Leadership
Analysis
Technically spoken, that is with regard of the criteria examined above, President Obama’s
second inaugural address is a very good one. He applies any of these categories, some more,
some less, but each with a high intensity. What is most striking though, is one expectation
President Obama makes when regarding these historically evolved elements. For this analysis,
this aspect will be discussed later. First, the more typical expressions will be to begin with.
If examples for the two first categories shall be given, almost every passage of the
speech can be cited for it strings together devices of civil religious metaphors and lists American virtues.
While reciting the American values such as equality, democracy, republicanism, and
freedom are the typical values and named particularly, Mr. Obama also describes American
virtues such as caring about others, self-reliance, hard-working and individualism as national
qualities. Also, being hopeful and faithful appears regularly as an American characteristic. All
the analysis’s categories overlap and so it is necessary to mention here, that Mr. Obama highlights with almost every sentence his role as the speaker of the nation: this refers to category
three in both ways but it also stands for the address’s character as a national Creed, a confession of the nation’s common values and virtues. With regard of the founding ideals of the
American nation, approving the validity of the ancient values expresses the honor of the
founding fathers. Examples of a wording indicating the speech’s character as a Creed are “We
affirm the promise”, “Today we continue”, “give real meaning to our creed”, or “principles
that our common creed describes”, as the “oath to God”—not forgetting the distinctive ending
“God bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America.”
Furthermore, these values confirmed as a Creed are all “a gift from God”, characterized as “the star that guides us still”, probably referring to the star of Bethlehem. In addition
to emphasizing the national Creed, there are numerous sections describing the Americans as
God’s chosen people: “What makes us exceptional”, “His people here on earth”,
“…commanded to our care by God”. Les literal but also a reference to the Jewish-Christian
heritage are hints to the Bible, saying that God’s people are challenged: “This generation of
Aggressive Integration? President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address
7
Americans has been tested by crisis” and “our journey is not complete”—just as God’s people
in the Old Testament have to leave Egypt and handle a weary journey to finally arrive at the
Promised Land.
Since the values and their religious upbringing date from founding times, these rhetorical devices as well indicate an honoring of the founding fathers and thus express patriotism as in category two. Concrete references to remembering and maintaining the achievements of the forebears can be found as reference to patriotic writings such as the Declaration
of Independence, which is indeed quoted, and the Constitution—“our founding documents”—
and how their principles remain even if the challenges might change: “while the means will
change, our purpose endures”. Another hint to the civil religious understanding of being tested
over and over again in order to passing the constant test of self-defining and renewal while at
the same time remaining faithful and sticking to the national values and virtues. As honoring
the Greats of American history can also be interpreted the reference to Martin Luther King
who is indirectly cited as “a King proclaim[ing] that our individual freedom is inextricably
bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.” The society’s historical responsibility towards
the American journey finds its expression literally as follows: “We must act, knowing that
today’s victories will be only partial and that it will be up to those who stand here in four
years and 40 years and 400 years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a
spare Philadelphia hall.”
Thus, President Obama provides a number of patriotic hints concerning the common
heritage of Americans. What he neglects is the part of patriotism that defines Americans as a
nation with a global mission, the mission to spread their values and virtues worldwide. Here,
he only mentions American soldiers, who try “to meet the demands of today’s world” and by
claiming the lead for global challenges.
At a first glance, it seems as if President Obama does not considerably apply the criteria of the last category describing the individual level. This is where the initially mentioned
conspicuities come in. These can be found as impressions within newspaper’s rating of the
address, stating that President Obama seems more aggressive (see Stevenson 2013, Balz
2013). This impression might have arisen because he mentioned concrete policies such as
Medicare and Medicaid, which is an unconventional thing to do within an inaugural address
(see Stüwe 2013). Additionally, he acts as the speaker of the nation, which of course means
that he has to identify himself with the average American to represent their thoughts. Being
the speaker of the nation, he furthermore encourages his people to believe in themselves as a
nation that has the strength to guide the way and that is what he does: “America’s possibilities
Aggressive Integration? President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address
8
are limitless, for we possess all the qualities […] we are made for this moment”, demanding
to implementing new policies, a need that might require some sacrifices at first: “We must
make the hard choices to reduce the costs of health care and size of our deficit”, and furthermore “We will defend our people […] through strength of arms and rule of law”. In an exemplary manner he describes forgiveness by believing that enemies can be turned into the surest
of friends.
However, on closer consideration, the potential for identification is much higher than
the one for leadership. Obama’s aggressiveness is his way of answering the public’s dissatisfaction with politics in general. While he is performing on the level of average dissatisfaction,
this fierceness was interpreted as an action of leadership. It begins, besides all glory, with
self-criticism, stating “we understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of
our time”, upbraidingly reminding that “we cannot afford delay […] or treat name-calling as
reasoned debate.” Indeed, he degrades the power of the presidency saying “we have never
relinquished our skepticism of a central authority” or neglecting the constitutional aloofness,
reopening interpretation: “Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree
on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way” and
furthermore “Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of
government”. This has in fact once been a popular rhetorical device, a message of inaugural
addresses—only more than one century earlier, when politicians themselves feared centralized
power (see Stüwe 2004). In doing this, President Obama now expresses the concern of Republicans and some citizens today, the unease with governmental impact on their individual
freedom. Thus, he does not seem as a man with political power and rather the voice of the
average American. By being this open to critiques, he creates trust in his person and in so doing integrates the people by sharing in this moment of confident.
In sum, President Obama did not only fulfill the demand for social integration via the
traditional elements of the civil religion and patriotism but in addition also applies a forgotten
or rather avoided form of presidential modesty that generates trust and lets his political
agenda appear reliable, speaking as the understandable voice of the nation. As an outlook on
his second term in office, the conclusion comes to mind that he will concentrate on domestic
policy and bring back a considerable level of social equality. This is indicated by the lack of
foreign policy perspectives and emphasized by his concrete naming of policy programs such
as Medicare and Medicaid and especially by the thematization of equality throughout the
speech (see Prof. Stüwe 2013 and in Burmester 2013). The next four years and President
Obama’s actual political agenda will show if this interpretation remains correct. However,
Aggressive Integration? President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address
9
with his second inaugural address he at least in technical speech writing terms did the best he
could to pave the way of reuniting his people and generating trust in him as the speaker of the
nation.
Bibliography
BALZ, Dan (2013): Obama speech reveals a different leader, The Washington Post:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-21/politics/36472743_1_substitutespectacle-mistake-absolutism-president-obama.
BURMESTER, Svea (2013): Inaugural Address: President Obama’s Second Term in Office,
Lecture by Prof. Dr. Klaus Stüwe, http://www.amerikahaus-nrw.de/eventfull/events/cologne-fifty-seventh-presidential-inauguration.html.
LÖSCHE, Peter (2008a): Die USA sind anders, in: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung
(Hrsg.): Informationen zur politischen Bildung Nr. 283/2008, Bonn, S. 4-6.
LÖSCHE, Peter (2008b): Macht und Ohnmacht der Exekutive, in: Bundeszentrale für
politische Bildung (Hrsg.): Informationen zur politischen Bildung Nr. 283/2008,
Bonn, S. 13-28.
MARSCHALL, Christoph von (2009): Barack Obama. Der schwarze Kennedy, Zürich: Orell
Füssli Verlag AG.
SHELL, Kurt L. (2008): Kongress und Präsident, in: Peter Lösche (Hrsg.): Länderbericht USA,
Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, S. 94-141.
STEVENSON, Richard W. (2013): A Call For Progressive Values: Evolved, Unapologetic and
Urgent, The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/politics/
obamas-speech-is-urgent-call-for-progressive-values.html?_r=0
STÜWE, Klaus (2004): Die Inszenierung des Neubeginns: Antrittsreden von Regierungschefs
in den USA, Großbritannien, Frankreich und Deutschland, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
STÜWE, Klaus (2013): Kampfansage: Obamas zweite Inaugural Address,
http://www.amerikahaus-nrw.de/nachrichten-einzelansicht/items/kampfansageobamas-zweite-inaugural-address-von-klaus-stuewe-265.html
WEISS, Christine (2008): Der US-Präsident als Inszenierung: Ehe, Familie und Privates in der
politischen Kommunikation, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.