I just watched the inauguration and, like many others, I was moved to tears. I've generally been a little skeptical of Obama-mania, but he is the right person for the job, without question. His eloquence, confidence, and humility are truly remarkable.
But I want to comment on how many times I heard the commentators assert amazement at the "peaceful transfer of power" that the inauguration represents. They are astounded that our leaders cede power without violence. But is a violent refusal to yield power even within the realm of possibility? Isn't "peaceful transfer" pretty much standard for most of the world nowadays? England, Canada, El Salvador, etc etc, all see peaceful transfers these days.
In fact, I suspect we are being exposed to a propaganda assertion: "consider yourselves blessed and lucky that these people rule over you peacefully, without infighting." The comradery displayed between these potentially violent adversaries (Clinton and Bush Sr. smiling and hugging, Gore and Bush Jr. sharing a stage) confirms that familiar critique of American two-party politics: these are just two sides of the same coin, a single oligarchical class. Don't mistake me, there are real and profound differences between Republicans and Democrats, and I am very grateful that Obama is president. But everyone on that inauguration stage clearly belongs to the same club.
What else is happening on that stage? The tooting horns, the bunting and banners, the processional entrance -- it's just a good old fashioned pagaent, used by rulers throughout history to impress their majesty and power. The subjects / constituents are always taken right in.
