Tearing Up, Together

When, if ever, did you start to cry?

For me, it was when our 44th president said, "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," and again when he said, "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

But it wasn't a particular phrase or gesture that made my eyes water so much as it was the whole scene, in front of a sea of 2 million upturned faces (many of them bawling their eyes out) that stretched from the memorial to the Grand Army of Republic all the way to the Lincoln Memorial.

The media has been reporting on Barack Obama's inauguration this week like it was counting tear drops: Re-running the tape of Jesse Jackson crying in Chicago's Grant Park on election night, asking Congressman John Lewis about when he "lost control" (as Brian Williams did Monday night), and telling us how Laura Bush "teared up" when saying goodbye to White House staffers Sunday. If you're at all like me, you've probably been getting teary-eyed now and again for months, sometimes on the obvious occasions, like when Obama nailed the nomination in June or when he gave his acceptance speech in Denver, and sometimes out of the blue. On Thursday, my eyes welled up just reading in the inaugural schedule the line about Bush's "departing ceremony."

Like a good Hollywood tearjerker, this inauguration could be measured in hankies.

Naturally, music makes the ducts flood, but especially now, after a lifetime of mentally separating the "white" and "black" threads woven into pop. Watching the "We Are One" concert on Sunday, the dams broke for me as Bruce Springsteen hit the stage with "The Rising," backed by a huge gospel choir and right under the eyes of Abraham Lincoln. And again when Bettye LaVette and Jon Bon Jovi (were two such opposite threads ever so obviously twisted?) belted out Sam Cook's "A Change Is Gonna Come." My 10-year-old son joined in at that point; my husband, at Tom Hanks' reading of Aaron Copeland's "A Lincoln Portrait"--though he really got rolling when Johnny Cougar Mellencamp started rocking out "Little Pink Houses," accompanied by a Jumbotron photo montage of working people, that tapioca filling for so many political campaign ads momentarily transformed into an irresistable emo hook.

Getting weepy over Abe Lincoln this week is perfectly understandable, since he was killed before he could enjoy the fruits of his long struggle. But why, exactly, do we cry when Obama so conspicuously celebrates his great victory? Congressman Lewis said he cried for those--"Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert Kennedy, President Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson"--who didn't live long enough to see it.

He's right about that. But maybe we also cry for ourselves, those selves that five, 10, or 20 years ago never believed that America would elect an African-American president in their lifetime. Because those selves didn't make it, either. We are all changed by this thing, and changed in a way we may have hoped for but could not possibly predict.

So many of us see Obama as our sole hope (we're that desperate, yes, but maybe not delusional, if you can believe the polls that say even with expectations for the guy sky-high, we're willing to give him two years to repair decades of damage) that even if his speech had been a dud, it wouldn't matter. We've gradually become so in sync with this transfiguration of America that we'd collectively, silently, fill in any poetry he might have missed.

We're tearing up over the possibility of a rebirth that's as much about us as it is about the man who called it forth. Obama's line earlier in the campaign, "We are the change we've been waiting for," was ridiculed by the right, by Hillary's camp, and by the media as some kind of airheaded hippie mind-scam. But when millions of voters, including those in the nine states that went for Bush in 2004, changed enough to vote for a man based on his character's content rather than his skin's color, then, yeah, we are the change we've been waiting generations for.

Even if electing the first black president of the United States weren't reason enough to bust out in full-throated celebration (Obama himself is playing down the race thing, but c'mon), the earthquake that dislodged Bush, Cheney, and their misery-spreading neocons can't be suppressed now. Ceremonies are for catharsis, and maybe only a big, overwhelming, and, sure, glamorous one can carry that energy over into national resolve.

After all, the estastic crowds and festivities in Washington, D.C., have become, in one week's time, the inside-out version of decades' of protest marches, rallies, and moratoriums that took place on the same ground. The protests aren't over, there's nothing "postracial" about it, and as Martin Luther King III said on Monday, his father had deemed racism, poverty and militarism a "triple evil," but while the first "has taken a huge blow" today, the last two continue to grow.

But think of it: How many millions of people were tearing up, at the same moment, across the earth, when Obama took his oath and made his speech? These tears of joy and amazement and relief are at least as substantial as, say, the uncounted billions Bush lost to the banks or in Iraq or in tax cuts for the ridiculously wealthy. And each tear irrigated that parched dream of an America where race and religion do not trump individual destiny.

And if that doesn't make me cry you a river, what will?

Comments (21)

1. Well, Ms Savan, they've been crying for over two years now over at 310 First Street SE, Washington, D.C.

   (RNC HQ)

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 01/20/2009 @ 2:10pm

2. Great ceremony and speech. Now let's bring on the Special Prosecutor and let the real healing begin.

   Check out Olberman's gem from last night:

   www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16270176/

   Time to "bring the fire"...... to President Barack Obama's feet. He'll thank us all for it later.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/20/2009 @ 2:19pm

3. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/20/2009 @ 2:39pm

   Okay, Larry...you're making an honest effort I think. For today...

   you're absolutely right. Agree 100% with you.

   Posted by Mask at 01/20/2009 @ 3:01pm

4. I guess I'm the odd man out on this one. I've witnessed only one inauguration since I became a registered voter and that was back in 1981. I'm not terribly moved by presidential speeches.

   Posted by ACook at 01/20/2009 @ 3:34pm

5. ACook - I would agree with you as being unmoved (not by all speeches, but this one in particular).

   But oh well.

   Posted by urmygyro at 01/20/2009 @ 3:37pm

6. The difference between Conservatives and Liberals?

   You can see it in the following exchange, in comparison to the demeanor of the left after the 2000 election:

   ============================

   Okay, Larry...you're making an honest effort I think. For today...

   you're absolutely right. Agree 100% with you.

   Posted by Mask at 01/20/2009 @ 3:01pm

   go back and look Mask at my postings regarding Obama since the election. There are very few that are critical, and most have been in praise and/or simply positive.

   I said from the days just after the election, I make my stand during the campaigning and then I accept the results and support my president, whichever party they represent.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/20/2009 @ 3:50pm

   =============================

   Conservative, much more often than Liberals, are gracious when their candidate loses an election.

   From 2000 on, Liberals engaged in full throttle opposition to President Bush. There was no deference to him as President, even if they disagreed with his policy.

   Just full bore hatred - and woe be anybody who quesitoned the Liberal behavior - they themselves would get condemned with stuff like "Don't question our patriotism", and "We don't have to march like storm troopers in support of somebody we don't agree with"

   Conservatives are gracious, and condemned if they are not.

   Liberals do whatever they please, and condemn you if you question it.

   George McGovern demonstrated this in his concession speech in 1972.

   "McGovern said from Sioux Falls: "We do not rally to the support of policies we deplore. We love this country and we will continue to beckon it to a higher standard." "

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2002 /06/03/ AR2005111001233.html

   Posted by sjchermak at 01/20/2009 @ 5:47pm

7. Posted by sjchermak at 01/20/2009 @ 5:47pm

   your phony graciousness notwithstanding, naturally

   Posted by urmygyro at 01/20/2009 @ 6:52pm

8. urmygyro,

   I did not comment one way or another on Barack Obama, I am just commenting on what I see in the public domain.

   You cite me for "phony graciousness" - and you think that somehow lets you off of the hook - which it does not.

   Because the question that will go unanswered on this site is - what is the justification by those on the left for the imbalance in civility in matters such as this?

   I do not attempt to claim that every Conservative has been gracious, nor do I claim that there were no Liberals with civility in 2000. I can not account for each and every person.

   It is obvious, however, that there is much greater civility by Conservatives now about the election results than there was among Liberals about past elections where they lost.

   The question is not whether I am gracious or not, but the imbalance of the overall tone with regard to liberals and conservatives.

   I do not hate Barack Obama. I voted against him and I do not agree with what he has proposed as his agenda. But I do not hate him, and for the country's sake hopefully he will succeed in providing an America safe from terrorist attack, and successful in defeating terrorism. It is not in any Americans' interest for him to fail at this.

   On the other hand, all one has to do is be a regular visitor to this site and one can see that much of the left has an absolute, unbridled hatred for President Bush, and that this will continue to manifest itself for some time even though he is no longer President.

   There will be leftists here and elsewhere that will pursue agendas designed to charge Mr. Bush with "crimes" (that exist in the leftists' imagination only), and the only thing that will stop this is that it may wane over time. But right now there is a blood lust against him.

   Understand?

   Posted by sjchermak at 01/20/2009 @ 7:55pm

9. sjchermak - two things:

   1--today, a liberal president took office. you come to a liberal website and point out to liberals that conservatives are more "gracious" than them.

   the very act of making such a "point" negates the so-called "graciousness"

   2--you must think we're all stupid. i recall the repubs being real gracious about bill clinton. yeah, they were happy he was president and 100% behind him from day 1 until he left office. yeah, right.

   This is politics - "graciousness" is not a noble trait in such a field.

   Posted by urmygyro at 01/20/2009 @ 8:51pm

10. urmygyro,

    You say, about my post "the very act of making such a "point" negates the so-called "graciousness" "

    Wrong. The act of making the post is to attempt to point out reality to people who are incapable of understanding it.

    It is also to point out to the leftists on this site that some conservatives are being gracious to them, because almost certainly in no way shape or form were the various leftists gracious to any conservative in 2000.

    The purpose of the post is to point out that the leftists on this site are the recipient of behavior that the leftists never reciprocate in.

    You say graciousness is not a trait in politics. You are admitting what we all know, that libs are in a one sided ideological battle and don't intend to quit.

    Thus, to those who from time to time say that conservatives posting in here need to see both sides, etc, you need to see that it is unreasonable to ask conservatives to approach things with civility and willingness to compromise, when those on the opposite side of the political spectrum have no intention of ever doing so.

    I do not attempt to contend that Republicans were overjoyed that Slick Willie was president in the 1990's nor do I contend that they did not oppose him at various points along the way.

    But Republicans and others on the Right did not demonstrate the vile hatred towards Slick Willie that the Left has exhibited towards George W. Bush.

    Not even close.

    I asked above if you understood. It is obvious you do not.

    Posted by sjchermak at 01/20/2009 @ 9:52pm

11. Your graciousness is making me blush...please stop!

    Posted by urmygyro at 01/20/2009 @ 11:45pm

12. This day, with all that seperates us, brought out our better angels on that which unites us. The ideal that all things are possible in America, unlike any other nation in history.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/20/2009 @ 2:39pm

    Couldn't have said it better myself, Larry. 'Tis a truly great day when, with the differences between us, we can be equally moved.

    Posted by jmusolino at 01/21/2009 @ 01:25am

13. I think it was a great speech and he truly wants the country to come together as one nation. We all have differences on both sides of the isle as we show on this site, but we all want the best for this country in the long run. So if we can all give him a chance and see what he can do, this country is in a mess and it will take a long time to reverse that.

    Posted by Caj at 01/21/2009 @ 12:01pm

14. Get a GRIP!

    Just take a look at the speech he gave and compare it to the drivel our last pres. offered! Take a look at his appointments!

    While one can understand the over-sentimentalization of this event, Mailer's final take on Camelot is probably instructive here; do not invest political leaders with your fantasies or you will be not only greatly disappointed, but will have possibly failed to engage in the rather dirty game of keeping their feet in the fire!

    Posted by net-buoy at 01/21/2009 @ 2:38pm

15. Vile Hatred, Mask?

    The man presided over an administration bent on disemboweling the country and polarizing the population and as a result an increasing number of Republicans (that's me) have watched in horror.

    After a questionable re-election, Bush squandered more "gracious" capital than I think any pres has ever enjoyed as a result of the attacks on the twin towers. Dems largely failed to do much of anything for fear of taking on a pres engaged in a "war", and those that stood up to that nonsense were pilloried as being traitors (as in the far right media doing a "janefonda" on Murtha).

    There is a line to be drawn that must dis criminate far right fundamentalists from centrist republicans and conservatives. This "fringe" element of the Republican party thinks that Christmas is under attack, that their "family values" are under attack, that their right to have things the way they think they ought to be is under attack. They label analysis as propaganda, and propaganda as fact (as in Fox News is an oxymoron).

    The problem is how to engage people who do not share the same perception of reality and are unwilling to consider that anyone else's views may be as important as theirs.

    And by the by, while your "Slick Willie" will be seen as one of the better US leaders of the 20th century, Bush will never measure up to the likes of Ike, or the Great Communicator, let alone be mentioned in the same breath as his Daddy.

    Great emotion will forever cloud one's judgment, and your anger blinds you at least as much the current sentimentality may be blinding others....

    Posted by net-buoy at 01/21/2009 @ 3:02pm

16. Since when have the likes of conservatives like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly etal. been gracious? And how gracious was Dick, the prince of darkness, Cheney when he told Sen. Leahy to go and f... himself? Or perhaps we have liberal and conservative definitions of the the word "gracious"?

    Posted by maggie2 at 01/21/2009 @ 3:59pm

17. Since when have the likes of conservatives like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly etal. been gracious? And how gracious was Dick, the prince of darkness, Cheney when he told Sen. Leahy to go and f... himself? Or perhaps we have liberal and conservative definitions of the the word "gracious"?

    Posted by maggie2 at 01/21/2009 @ 3:59pm

18. Or perhaps we have liberal and conservative definitions of the the word "gracious"?

    Posted by maggie2 at 01/21/2009 @ 3:59pm

    There are always different words for us liberals coming from the right, they see themselves as the self righteous bunch at all times. We now have the " most gracious" Limbaugh saying he hopes that Pres Obama fails....now there's a true patriot for you and someone who really loves America!! The righteous right will absolutely love to hear that as everything this ridiculous fool says comes from the Limbaugh Bible and those words are gospel

    Posted by Caj at 01/21/2009 @ 5:24pm

19. Yes, sjchermak, I remember very well how you right-wing, neocon Repugs "graciously" branded us as traitors, America-haters and terrorist-lovers. And for what? By exercising our right to dissent? For calling out the president (and his lemming-like supporters) for taking us into an unjustified war?

    If anything is un-American, it's that kind of blind, mindless, unquestioning obedience. Folks like you are cowardly, treasonous, moronic sheep.

    You had a good run. But your time is over now. It's OUR time now. So shut the F up.

    I mean that in the politest way possible.

    Posted by scurvybro at 01/21/2009 @ 8:02pm

20. Hi sjchermak: I can only surmise from your defense of the Conservative behavior toward President Clinton that you deem name-calling to be okay for you in regard to him. I have always referred to Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton as 'President' or 'Mr.', which is appropriate. I did not like the method by which Mr. Bush attained his high office in 2000, nor did I approve of his reigning ideology, his appointments, or his policies, except in regard to South Africa. But who could have been more gracious toward him than Mr. Gore? Perhaps you are thinking of adherents on blogs--there, one can find all manner of self-indulgent name-calling from the entire spectrum. I certainly heard nothing short of slanderous talk coming from Ann Coulter, for example, and even Cokie Roberts, from the day of Mr. Clinton's inauguration to the last day and past it, of his tenure. If we can agree to use good manners ourselves, let others do what they will and let us not worry about counting. Good luck!

    Posted by diver at 01/22/2009 @ 12:32pm

21. scurvybro,

    You recommended (to me): "You had a good run. But your time is over now. It's OUR time now. So shut the F up. "

    So there it is.... We had our time.... but you had plenty to say during our time, didn't you?

    But now that it is YOUR time... we are supposed to shut up.

    So you are suspending the right of free speech in this country?

    Posted by sjchermak at 01/22/2009 @ 3:58pm