Obama’s Second Inaugural Speech: A Call to Equality, Unity and Compassion

Set out below is the full text of Barack Obama's Inaugural Address that was delivered today.  The speech is in some ways an idealistic reminder of the founding principles of America: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.   In addition, it is a call for all Americans to, among other things (i) recognize the founding principles of this nation and corollary need to continue the work to deliver full equality to all Americans, (ii) come together and work as a unified nation to move the nation forward in the face of changing circumstances and an increasingly competitive  global economy, and (iii) exhibit compassion and support to the poor, the sick and needy and the elderly.  One might even say that, without so stating, Obama in some ways called on Americans to make good on the Gospel message as well as the promises of the United States Constitution.  The speech also contains a challenge of sotrs to the Republican Party: put the interests of the nation ahead of partisanship.

From an LGBT perspective, the speech was ground breaking because for the first time in America's history providing full legal equality to LGBT Americans was named as a critical goal and a part of delivering the promise of equality to Americans.  Save and except for perhaps the call for LGBT equality, most of Obama's call should be acceptable to every American who purports to be a believing Christian.  Thus, the irony as we move into the next four years of Obama's second term will be that it will be the political party of those who most loudly proclaim themselves as "godly Christians" that will do all in its power to thwart the goals enunciated in Obama's speech today.  Here is the Inaugural speech in its entirety via the New York Times (emphasis mine):

MR. OBAMA: Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

For more than two hundred years, we have.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it – so long as we seize it together.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But Americacannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americasto the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal– is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroitto the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

That is our generation’s task – to make these words, these rights, these values– of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American. 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, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.

For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, we must act knowing that our work will be imperfect. 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 forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction– and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.

They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.

You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course.

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America.

Michelle Obama's Devatating Speech

Last night, Michelle Obama's speech did a masterful job of highlighting the difference between the GOP and Democrat Party views of social justice and moving the country and all Americans forward.  What was masterful was the way that she repeatedly slammed to GOP and Mitt Romney without ever uttering Romney's name.  By the end of her speech, it was obvious how out of touch Mitt Romney - and Ann Romney - and Paul Ryan are coming from wealthy families and that the GOP wants to take the country back to a time when a handful of the very wealthy lived like kings and most everyone else struggled to merely survive.  A Washington Post column lays out how her speech was so effective.  Here are highlights:

The most devastating attack on Mitt Romney at Tuesday’s Democratic Convention came from Michelle Obama, who did not mention Romney’s name and said not a single cross thing about him.

She devastated him by implication. If Romney was the son of privilege, she and her husband were anything but. What she said directly is that Barack Obama understands people who are struggling. What she didn’t have to say is Mitt Romney doesn’t.

As a general matter, her speech was a big hit: good enough that even Fox News was kind to her. But the specific stories — about her father working through the pain of multiple sclerosis, about the debts she and her husband accumulated from college — served a powerful campaign purpose. A speech that was thoroughly apolitical on the surface carried multiple political messages, linking a very traditional message about parenting with a call for social justice.

Among the many messages here: Her dad was awesome; he was also a traditional father; and, more broadly, people who receive government aid can be, usually are, very responsible citizens.

Oh yes, and she also said that for husband, “success isn’t about how much money you make, it’s about the difference you make in people’s lives.” Did any other presidential candidate come to mind as perhaps having a contrasting approach? Michelle Obama was much too polite to say. She didn’t have to.

Another Washington Post carried a similar theme.  Here are a few excerpts: 

It’s not that Michelle Obama said anything about Mitt Romney. She didn’t even mention his name. Not once. But in one section of her lively and well-delivered primetime speech to the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night, line after line was weighted with biting implications about Romney’s character – and his suitability to serve as president.

She argued that presidents makes hard calls by referring to their values, and Barack Obama has the ones you want. They also happen to be values that Romney isn’t widely reputed to hold,

Michelle Obama wasn’t just saying that her husband is like you. She was implying that Romney is not like you. 

Though this was just one section of a much larger address, the politics of this rhetorical ballet make some sense – polls show that one of the president’s greatest assets is that Americans like him personally, and that one of Romney’s greatest weaknesses is that Americans don’t like him so much.

Please don't think I am saying that Mitt and Ann Romney and Paul Ryan are bad people.  I just firmly believe that they are not the right people to be leading this nation.  Social mobility is dropping in America while increasing elsewhere, yet this individuals and their policies would make matters worse.  Millions of Americans are struggling and going without, yet their policies would take from the working poor and the middle class.  This isn't the America that I believe in.     Moreover, it's not consistent with the Gospel message, yet the GOP falsely wraps itself in religiosity.

A Risky Rationale Behind Romney’s Choice of Ryan

Nate Silver who is a polling and statistics wonk has a piece in the New York Times that continues some of the narrative that was contained in my post last night on Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate:  Romney made the pick because he believes that he is losing the campaign and that he has to do something big to avoid defeat in November.  Time will be the ultimate judge, but I feel at this point in time he made the wrong pick.  The silver lining is that with Ryan, the far right gets one of it's darlings on the ticket and if the GOP loses, it is going to be far more difficult to claim that the results were not a clear rejection of the GOP's reverse Robin Hood agenda and absolutely compassion free social policy approach -  an approach that is the antithesis of the Christianity that the GOP pretends to worship.  I sincerely hope Romney-Ryan goes down to defeat and take the Tea Party and the Christofascists with them.  Here are some excerpts from Nate's column:

When is it rational to take a big risk?   When the status quo isn’t proceeding in a way that you feel is favorable. When you have less to lose. When you need — pardon the cliché, but it’s appropriate here — a “game change.”

When a prudent candidate like Mitt Romney picks someone like Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate, it suggests that he felt he held a losing position against President Obama. The theme that Mr. Romney’s campaign has emphasized for months and months — that the president has failed as an economic leader — may have persuaded 47 or 48 or 49 percent of voters to back him, he seems to have concluded. But not 50.1 percent of them, and not enough for Mr. Romney to secure 270 electoral votes.

The forecast model I developed for FiveThirtyEight, which accounts for state and national polls and the condition of the economy but not other factors, estimated as of Friday that Mr. Obama was about a 70 percent favorite to win re-election. Betting markets and bookmakers have been slightly more equivocal, but have also had Mr. Obama ahead, generally giving him between a 60 and a 65 percent chance of winning a second term.

Why am I concluding that Mr. Romney would have chosen Mr. Ryan only if he felt he was losing? Because from a Politics 101 point of view, this isn’t the most natural choice.

Vice-presidential choices are inherently risky to a degree, but the risks are asymmetric, and weighted toward the downside: It’s far easier to name choices who undermined campaigns than those who helped them. The best way to mitigate that downside risk is to select someone who has been tested on a national stage before, ideally by having run for president themselves — or failing that, by having been elected multiple times from a large and diverse state.

Members of the House of Representatives have only occasionally been selected as running mates. The last one on a winning ticket was John Nance Garner, the speaker of the House, in 1932. The last time an ordinary member of the House was elected vice president, and the last Republican, was more than 100 years ago: in 1908 .   .   .   .   .

Politics 101 suggests that you play toward the center of the electorate. Although this rule has more frequently been violated when it comes to vice-presidential picks, there is evidence that presidential candidates who have more “extreme” ideologies (closer to the left wing or the right wing than the electoral center) underperform relative to the economic fundamentals.

Various statistical measures of Mr. Ryan peg him as being quite conservative. Based on his Congressional voting record, for instance, the statistical system DW-Nominate evaluates him as being roughly as conservative as Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

Mr. Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice-presidential slot since at least 1900. He is also more conservative than any Democratic nominee was liberal, meaning that he is the furthest from the center. 

Mr. Ryan’s controversial budget, which polls poorly, will obviously get much more attention than it had previously. The fate of the presidential race and the fate of Congressional races may become more closely tied together. Mr. Obama will no longer have to stretch to evoke the specter of Congress and its 15 percent approval rating. With Mr. Ryan on the opposing ticket, he will be running against a flesh-and-blood embodiment of it.

Taking risks like these is not what you do if you think you have a winning hand already. But Mr. Romney, the turnaround artist, decided that he needed to turn around his own campaign.

I view the GOP in its current incarnation as something dangerous and borderline evil: fiscally reckless despite claims to the contrary; contemptuous of the civil liberties of minorities, if not openly racists; and devoid of any compassion for the less fortunate.  Hence the plain to tax the poor and middle class in order to give huge tax breaks by the standards of average Americans to the already obscenely wealthy.  

Bullying, School Shootings and the Right

Bullying is a huge problem for LGBT youth both inside and outside of the nation's schools, but the problem extends far beyond just LGBT youth. And as a piece in Salon reports, bullying ties directly to the alarming rise of school shootings. As does the growing economic and social viciousness supported by conservative elements in society and, of course, the Republican Party where the poor, the immigrant, the gay, and all those deemed as the "other" are viewed as discardable and unworthy of the rights of citizenship. What makes this picture all the more disgusting is the way in which far right Christians want a free pass to denigrate and bully anyone who doesn't conform to their religious/world view. Here are some article highlights,

As the details of this week’s Chardon, Ohio, school shooting emerged, they seemed eerily familiar. . . . Once again, the alleged shooter, T.J. Lane, a 17-year-old fellow student, was described as a “loner” with a “troubled” family history. And, once again, other students described him as the victim of “bullying.” And so Chardon joins the long list of violent school incidents with a connection to America’s rampant bullying problem.

According to Jessie Klein, the author of the new book “The Bully Society,” it’s a problem that’s only getting worse. In her excellent examination of the school bullying epidemic, Klein, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at Adelphi University, takes a broad approach to the subject. She first lays out the scope of the problem, before explaining how kids’ changing attitudes towards masculinity, the birth of child-targeted consumerism and the erosion of our compassionate society have all helped to create a culture in which children are increasingly feeling overwhelmed and helpless, and, in some cases, prone to violence. Most provocatively, she ties the rise of bullying behavior to America’s economic move to the right.

Between 1979 and 1988 there were 27 school shootings. From 1989 to 1998 there were 55 and then they continued to increase from 1999 to 2008 to 66, so there were 148 shootings in the three decades from 1979 to 2008. What’s most disturbing is that in the three years since 2008 there have been 43 shootings, and that’s almost two-thirds of the number of shootings that occurred in the preceding decade.

I started studying the school shootings when I first heard about a school shooting in 1997. I was really struck by why he said he committed the shooting. He talked about how he had been picked on, and called gay, and harassed for being fat.

We have an increasingly high depression rate, anxiety has increased among children. There are so many different ways that the children are acting out their despair — suicides, self cutting, substance abuse — and so much of it relates to school bullying. So, what I try to show in the book is that school shootings are the most horrific response to school bullying but they’re not the only response at all, and mostly they magnify what’s happening at schools. You know, most of the kids who committed shootings really wanted to tell the world that they were so miserable and they were treated so badly and this is what they felt forced to do.

When school shootings occur people like to say, “Oh that person was a psychopath.” And it’s a way of personalizing the issue and not taking responsibility as a society. As Durkheim, a classic sociologist, said in his seminal work called “Suicide,” when you see the same thing happening over and over and over again, you can’t keep blaming the individual. You have to look at the social environment and say, why is this happening over and over again?

These kids really were willing to do anything to increase their respect in the school. They’d been so harassed and so degraded. It was such a miserable experience that they thought if they picked up guns they would finally feel powerful and gain some respect. And I think that is a very sad statement in our society that kids get that message: To get respect they need to be dominate and aggressive and violent.

[W]hat I show in the book is that masculine values of aggression, violence, dominance are not specific to men. Girls and women are increasingly pressured to demonstrate those values as well.

[W]hat’s fascinating is that social isolation has increased. It’s tripled since the ’80s, and depression and anxiety statistics are extremely high. These are, I think, indicators of what’s going on in our society more generally.

There are many people who do believe that the more you help people, the less they will work, the more lazy they will become. . . . society has gotten more and more harsh in that way and I think people feel strongly in our country that that’s the way to get ahead. We’re the only country in the industrial world that doesn’t have a paid leave for women who have children, whereas other countries in Europe go out of their way to make sure there’s a long paternity leave.

[P]eople here believe that if you make money you’ll get support but if you don’t make money, you’re pretty much on your own. And I think that’s what kids in schools feel. A lot of the school shooters said, “The principal wasn’t doing anything, the guidance counselors weren’t doing anything, so I had to take things into my own hands.” And that’s pretty much the message that people get, whether you’re an adult or a kid.

The cultural dialogue around school shootings seems to have shifted in the last decade and a half. When Columbine happened, video games and violent movies were really being blamed. This doesn’t really seem to be the case anymore. It’s more about bullying.

We’re going through this election cycle in which, once again, welfare recipients are being demonized, and the GOP primary has become a race to out right-wing Mitt Romney. . . . Right now kids are trained to be heartless and pursue success at any cost.

I suspect that it's not lost on teens and youths that the least compassionate and most bullying prone are conservative Christians who, in my view, are well on their way towards killing the Christian brand all together.

Professional Christians Versus Elton John

Elton John has caused hyperventilation amongst the professional Christian set over the remarks attributed to him during a Parade Magazine interview that "Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man." But, unfortunately, what is missing from the discussion is the fact that through his charities, as detailed in the Parade article, Elton John has likely done far more in delivering on the Gospel message than have many of his critics among the hate merchants of the Christian Right. These self-righteous, self-congratulatory folks utterly ignore the message of love of neighbor - indeed, those that they hate are all too numerous - and act more like the Pharisees so roundly condemned by Christ in the Gospels. Were Christ living amongst us today, I seriously doubt that he'd be embracing the Southern Baptist Convention, The Family Research Council, The Family Foundation, Concerned Women for America, or even the Vatican - all of which preach a message of exclusion and contempt for other humans. Here are some highlights from the Parade interview that are not being addressed by the talking heads of the far right:

*
Elton sits, dressed in a suit and tie, proper as a church elder, sipping tea. He has earned, spent, squandered, and given away hundreds of millions of dollars—much of it to charity.
*
Elton John is one of the heroes in the battle to defeat the disease [AIDS]. The Elton John AIDS Foundation (EJAF.org), established in 1992, is among the world’s leading AIDS advocacy and support organizations. He has raised more than $175 million for support and prevention programs in 55 countries and was knighted in 1998 by Queen Elizabeth in part for his work. On March 7, he will host his annual star-studded Oscar bash, which raised more than $4 million last year.

*
What finally opened my eyes was Ryan White.” White was a 12-year-old hemophiliac in Indiana who had contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion. Subjected to death threats, the boy and his family were hounded from their small town. “I read in a magazine that Ryan was not allowed to go to school because he had AIDS. Firebombs were being put in his family’s letter box,” Elton says. “I was enraged. I helped the White family move. I spent the last week of Ryan’s life in 1990 with him in an Indianapolis hospital. He’d endured all this hatred. He was never bitter. I never heard him complain. There was something wonderful in this family—they were losing their son, yet they were still able to forgive the hatred of others.
*
In 1993, Elton met David Furnish, a young Canadian advertising executive. “I was attracted to David immediately,” he says. “He had a real job, his own apartment, a car. He was independent. I didn’t need to take care of him. I thought, ‘God, this is new territory for me—someone wants to be with me just because he likes me.’ I knew he was the one, because he is not afraid of me.” Elton laughs happily. “He always tells me exactly what he thinks.” In 2005, David and Elton were joined in a civil partnership in England, the legal equivalent of marriage.
*
Maggie Gallagher and the folks at NOM and its allies can raise millions upon millions of dollars to deprive LGBT citizens of civil legal rights - many of them also enriching themselves in the process - yet one rarely hears of these Uber-Christians aiding the poor, the sick, the homeless. Here's how Elton John described his own faith:
*
"I think everybody's individual faith is their own business, and I do believe in Jesus and I believe he was a compassionate person, and from my point of view, and that's just my point of view, as a compassionate person — someone who was persecuted, someone who forgave people. And that's how I see him...I identify, in my own mind, as someone like that...I'm not saying to everyone that he definitely was gay. That's how I see him. That's my idea of faith."

The Resurrection of the American Dream

The caption to this post is the headline from an article in German publication Der Spiegel and it correctly captures some of what happened yesterday. Sadly, LGBT citizens are not included in the resurrected American Dream - or at least not yet. I truly hope that an Obama administration sets a new inclusive tone and in time may help change minds that still dwell on differences between people instead of our common humanity. In addition, an Obama presidency means that the likely coming vacancies on the U. S. Supreme Court will not be filled by those who would write some out of the constitution or seek the reverse the case law on the right to privacy - something which is crucial since I predict Proposition 8, if it passes, will be challenged under the U. S. Constitution. Lastly, Obama's win removes any near term likelihood of Bible Spice Palin becoming president (hopefully forever). Here are some highlights:

*

Obama's tone embraces people, it doesn't exclude them. It's a tone of political romanticism. It doesn't solve problems, but it lessens the pain. Where Bush stoked fear, Obama spreads calm. The tone itself only accounts for half of his success, though. The surroundings determine whether it resonates. In the self-satisfied, successful America of the 1990s, Obama's tone would have been dismissed as too soft and too quiet. The victory over the Soviet Union had to be celebrated. America wanted to be loud.

*

But in 2008 the economy is sputtering. To describe conditions in America today as "social inequality" is a blatant understatement. Almost 50 million people don't have health insurance. Around 30 million live off food stamps issued by the state.

*

America has fallen silent, and Obama penetrated this silence with his message of hope and change. Conciliation, not confrontation is his message to an unsettled country. He doesn't use the word "compassion" with which German Chancellor Willy Brandt enchanted a generation. That word has lost its ring in America since George W. Bush described himself as a "compassionate conservative."

*

Obama is America's offer of reconciliation after all those years of premeditated political provocation, of military action not backed by international law, of America's claim to be entitled to military pre-emptive strikes. The Bush doctrine was scrapped last night. The unilateralist stance of the Western superpower is likely to be over for now.

*
As the new day dawns in Germany, America is once again dreaming the American dream. It will be a deep, soulful dream after all these restless, dreamless years of terror attacks, reports from the Baghdad front and the collapse of Wall Street. It's a dream about a world without poverty or fear, of a life full of opportunity and devoid of George W. Bush.