Loud and clear in DC: Nation gathers, speaks
Marion Gabl
Issue date: 1/29/09 Section: Opinion
My new residence, Washington, D.C., played host last week to two of the most passionately-driven conventions of the year. President Obama's inauguration, attracting an estimated 2 million participants, merited historic as well as political attention. Less than 48 hours later, hundreds of thousands gathered for what could conceivably have passed as a counter-demonstration specific to Obama's presumed social agenda.
However, the March for Life has of course been an annual event since 1974. After experiencing the striking fervor of each, I wondered a bit ironically if any enthusiasts double-dipped in attendance at the two events, whose characters were curiously analogous.
The inauguration proved quite enlightening for me; at the risk of welcoming cliché, I must admit to having obtained a visual paradigm of "the mob" and the "will of the people" useful for future readings of Madisonian texts. Perhaps my experience was unfairly bloated since it was my first week ever spent in D.C. - what I felt was clearly unique to this politically-oriented city, and not to American cities generally. I did also arrive during a week of exceptional political commotion. Regardless of this week's degree of comparative normality, I can reasonably juxtapose and evaluate, if naively, the specific events to which I boasted attendance.
The most fascinating element of the inauguration was the relentlessly moving stream of people. Nobody seemed to be oriented towards a specific destination, save the few who possessed the golden tickets that would perhaps allow them a squinted view of a JumboTron screen. People walked for walking's sake - as a mechanism of political approval and social expression, or merely a means of staying warm. Chants of "O-ba-ma!" periodically rippled through the crowds. Again, never having attended an inauguration, was I to assume that this was par for the course?
A screen-printed (or ostentatiously jeweled) silhouette of Obama's face vested nearly every supporter. I vaguely recalled my recent visit to the Postal Museum, uncomfortably remembering where the faces of political leaders were similarly displayed so proudly: It was upon the stamps that the dictatorial countries of the mid-20th century had generated. Far from using "Obama" and "dictator" in the same sentence, I nevertheless insist that a people's disposition to authority, even if not sustained or endorsed by a leader, can itself be of dangerous potential.
The similarly resonating chants, though this time demanding "pro-life!" seemed so much more appropriate to the scene two days later. It was the difference between blindly and without qualification exalting a political figure at what was supposed to be a dignified ceremony, versus attempting to affect a specific policy of public interest by way of rallying at the grassroots level.
Someone will inevitably remark that I only fabricate such a distinction because I happen to support the campaign for life and endorse the Republican candidates; to him, no rationalization can suffice to legitimize my view.
Regardless of one's partisan prejudices, a re-examination of the modern participatory trends and public spirit will prove indicatory of how much power Americans will happily relinquish to allegedly invincible leaders.
However, the March for Life has of course been an annual event since 1974. After experiencing the striking fervor of each, I wondered a bit ironically if any enthusiasts double-dipped in attendance at the two events, whose characters were curiously analogous.
The inauguration proved quite enlightening for me; at the risk of welcoming cliché, I must admit to having obtained a visual paradigm of "the mob" and the "will of the people" useful for future readings of Madisonian texts. Perhaps my experience was unfairly bloated since it was my first week ever spent in D.C. - what I felt was clearly unique to this politically-oriented city, and not to American cities generally. I did also arrive during a week of exceptional political commotion. Regardless of this week's degree of comparative normality, I can reasonably juxtapose and evaluate, if naively, the specific events to which I boasted attendance.
The most fascinating element of the inauguration was the relentlessly moving stream of people. Nobody seemed to be oriented towards a specific destination, save the few who possessed the golden tickets that would perhaps allow them a squinted view of a JumboTron screen. People walked for walking's sake - as a mechanism of political approval and social expression, or merely a means of staying warm. Chants of "O-ba-ma!" periodically rippled through the crowds. Again, never having attended an inauguration, was I to assume that this was par for the course?
A screen-printed (or ostentatiously jeweled) silhouette of Obama's face vested nearly every supporter. I vaguely recalled my recent visit to the Postal Museum, uncomfortably remembering where the faces of political leaders were similarly displayed so proudly: It was upon the stamps that the dictatorial countries of the mid-20th century had generated. Far from using "Obama" and "dictator" in the same sentence, I nevertheless insist that a people's disposition to authority, even if not sustained or endorsed by a leader, can itself be of dangerous potential.
The similarly resonating chants, though this time demanding "pro-life!" seemed so much more appropriate to the scene two days later. It was the difference between blindly and without qualification exalting a political figure at what was supposed to be a dignified ceremony, versus attempting to affect a specific policy of public interest by way of rallying at the grassroots level.
Someone will inevitably remark that I only fabricate such a distinction because I happen to support the campaign for life and endorse the Republican candidates; to him, no rationalization can suffice to legitimize my view.
Regardless of one's partisan prejudices, a re-examination of the modern participatory trends and public spirit will prove indicatory of how much power Americans will happily relinquish to allegedly invincible leaders.
Be the first to comment on this story