For an American president, the first inaugural address sets the stage for the four years to follow. The second inaugural address, on the other hand, focuses on a much longer legacy.
Barack Obama’s speech on Monday made it clear he hopes his legacy will be a new era of Democratic dominance in America.
As countless commentators have noted, Obama’s speech was a vigorous defence of liberalism. The first half of the eighteen-minute address sounded like an extended rebuttal of Ronald Reagan’s 1981 inaugural, in which the Republican standard-bearer declared,
“Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” Obama countered: “The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us.”
Yet the president’s speech laid the groundwork not only for a liberal future, but for a Democratic one. Obama spoke about women’s rights and black civil rights. He made history when he used the word “gay”, a first for inaugural addresses. It was his words on immigration, however, that made it clear he had a new Democratic majority in mind.
The 2012 election had many stories, but perhaps the most important was the demographic one: as America’s population becomes increasingly non-white, the Democrats have assembled a “coalition of the ascendant”. The Republicans, on the other hand, have an ever-whiter, and ever-smaller, base. Unless it attracts minority voters, the GOP will spend the next generation out of power.
Since the election, Republicans have made it clear they’re eying the Hispanic vote. “If Republicans do not do better in the Hispanic community,” said Ted Cruz, a newly-elected Tea Party Republican senator from Texas, “in a few short years Republicans will no longer be the majority party in our state… If that happens, no Republican will ever again win the White House.”
At his inauguration, Obama sought to block Republican efforts to woo Hispanics. “Our journey is not complete,” he insisted, “until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity.”
Nor would it be complete, he continued, “until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.” The sentiment carried great weight after an election in which Republicans’ most welcoming immigration stance was Mitt Romney’s call for “self-deportation.”
Nor was the inaugural address the president’s only attempt to tighten the bonds between the Democratic Party and Hispanic voters. Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotamayor, an Obama appointee and the first Hispanic justice, delivered Vice-President Joe Biden’s oath of office. Richard Blanco read the inaugural poem, the first Hispanic (and first openly gay man) to do so. The benediction came from Cuban-born Luis Leon, a Pedro Pan refugee.
Leon served as a reminder of just how much the GOP’s demographic problem is one of its own making. In 2005, Leon became the first Latino to offer the inaugural benediction – thanks to George W. Bush, who had just won re-election. That year Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote, far more than Romney’s 27% in 2012.
What happened? Bush, a Texan, carefully cultivated the Hispanic vote with his relatively liberal immigration views and his “compassionate conservatism”. But in late 2005, conservative Republicans introduced a draconian immigration bill that levied hefty fines and prison sentences on undocumented workers. This triggered wide-scale immigration rights protests that elicited troubling remarks from conservatives, who called the protests “ominous” and “repellent”. Hispanic support for the Republican Party plummeted.
Reminding Hispanics of that history helps solidify their ties to the Democratic Party. But putting immigration reform front-and-centre also wedges an already-fractured GOP. The party remains split between immigration hardliners and those who see reform as the only way to heal the rift between Hispanic voters and Republicans.
Leading the charge for reform is Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who has moved left on the issue and now shares much common ground with President Obama and the Democrats. As a front-runner for his party’s nomination in 2016, Rubio holds sway on immigration. In the process, though, he’s making enemies among some conservatives. In working with Democrats, Rubio may very well find himself with little support among the Republican base.
Four years ago, Barack Obama talked of immigration in personal terms: his father was Kenyan, so Obama understood the experience of first-generation Americans. On Monday, he spoke in much broader language, tying the immigrant dream not only to the nation’s founding but to its future. In making immigrants – both citizens and undocumented residents – central to his vision of a liberal America, he sought to strengthen the bonds between key voting blocs and the Democratic Party. If those bonds endure, that vision is likely to become a reality.
alfred venison
records manager (public sector)
thank you, that was a highly instructive succinct essay - not sure i would have gleaned that information otherwise/elsewhere. there's never been anything casual about high state ceremonial, but obama certainly had someone on every base, carefully selected to inflame the open divisions in the other side. no wonder some media urged people to outrage over rolling the eyes at dinner. cheers. -a.v.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I am typing this with my fingers crossed - difficult but worth it if Obama and the Democrats are able to consolidate and build on the change we saw in the recent presidential ballot.
I am hoping that if Obama is careful and principled a permanent tectonic shift in the US political landscape is possible - one in which minorities and the historically disenfanchised have stood up and flexed their muscle.
That's not what democracy was supposed to be at all. It was supposed to keep these folks down, like it always had done before.
STABLE POPULATION PARTY
Written & authorised by William Bourke, Sydney
Obama fiddles while the USA burns.
So the US Democratic party is playing partisan games with trivial distractions like ethnicity to ensure power, all the while ignoring the critical issue of ecological (and therefore ECONOMIC) sustainability. Does this gaming of the system sound familiar to Australian political observers?
This grossly overpopulated North American nation with citizens that insist upon a high per capita consumption of resources (more and more of which now have to be imported…
Read moreJenny Goldie
editor
Yes, William Bourke is absolutely right. Open borders has caused the US population to blow out alarmingly to the detriment of, not only the environment, but the poor and that means African-Americans and Hispanics already in the country. So it's not really a 'liberal' position after all. The only people helped are those coming into the country. For those already there, all these extra people just means wages are driven down ever more. If Obama is to give the 11-12 million illegal entrants amnesty then it has to be in exchange for something, such as mandatory e-verify which would mean people simply could not work if they entered the country.
Andrew Smith
Education Consultant at Australian & International Education Centre
Will be fascinating to see how the GOP deals with Obama's "reverse wedge" as he understands the divisions that exist amongst the right.
This is exemplified by neo con lobby groups masquerading as concerned environmentalists etc. when their public agenda makes a direct causal yet glib binary relationship between population growth/immigration and environmental issues.
However, it is simply a cultural agenda i.e. anti hispanic, anti foreigner etc. and in many cases downright racist.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Spot on Andrew ... I've noticed a few of these "environmentalists" running about the place here wringing their hands about how many of us there are - or, more precisely, how many of "them" there are ... wanting to stop the boats and stop immigration... keep "them" out and keep this wide brown land empty and comfortable. For us.
Of course they don't point out the consequences of such a "sustainable" approach .... how many schools, hospitals and the like won't be built because all our taxes are devoted to detention centres and "border protection" and military expenditure. Or the delusion that somehow Australia and its living standards can be maintained in a collapsing bisophere ... like we can actually cut ourselves off from a global existential crisis. Not even the most basic ecological or biological understanding or interest.
This is the far right dressed in crushed velvet and dreadlocks. A masquerade party.
Mark O'Connor
Author
Poisoning the wells again, Andrew?
And once again forgetting to mention your own vested interests in high immigration?
To imagine that the USA can contine to take in about a million legal and illegal immigrants every year is not common sense, or "liberalism", it is innumeracy and American exceptionalism.
Sure we should be happy for the people let in, whose lives will generally improve materially and we hope overall, but as William Bourke has pointed out the process cannot continue at this level.
Analysising the dilemma, as this article does, as if it were just a choice between nice attitudes and nasty attitudes, or between tolerance and intolerance, produces a factitious debate. It also keeps us in the dark about the powerful interests, including real estate speculators and employers wanting cheap unionised labour, who own much of the US media in which this simplistic view is promoted.
Andrew Smith
Education Consultant at Australian & International Education Centre
"poisoning the wells"? Not about me, but the issue and political dynamics round it.
As Gavin Moodie said, it would be better if the passage of the DREAM Act was discussed.
Much of the organised opposition and negative lobbying was from Roy Beck's "Numbers USA", about which the writer of this article and others here could enlighten us?
Gavin Moodie
Principal Policy Adviser
I think this article would have been better had it discussed the DREAM Act, its prospects for passage in the new Congress, and how Obama's proposals may differ from the DREAM Act.