A Tale of Two Democrat Presidents: How Bill Clinton's Second Inaugural Address Shows the Radical Nature of Barack Obama's Second Inaugural

September 5th, 2012. Two Democrat presidents: one successful for the American economy, the other a failure, but both appearing to be of the same fabric, embraced each other on the stage of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, to celebrate their partnership in Barack Obama's bid for re-election. The embraced commanders-in-chief were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, himself.

January 21st, 2013. A triumphantly re-elected President Obama delivered an inaugural address more striking for the difference in ideology and purpose it highlighted between himself and President Clinton than for the similar mind and resolve projected in Charlotte, last fall. The key difference was no less than a fundamental contradiction between these two presidents' beliefs about the proper role of government in relation to the people - and by extension - the responsibility of the community to ensure a fair standard of living for every single citizen.

January 20th, 1997.  A victoriously re-elected Bill Clinton gave an inaugural address more comfortable with the sentiments of Ronald Reagan than with Barack Obama. Clinton declared, "We need a new government for a new century - humble enough not to try to solve all our problems for us, but strong enough to give us the tools to solve our problems for ourselves; a government that is smaller, lives within its means, and does more with less." 

To make his point clearer, Clinton emphasized that our government must "give all Americans an opportunity - not a guarantee, but a real opportunity - to build better lives...Beyond that, the future is up to us. Our founders taught us that the preservation of our liberty and our union depends upon responsible citizenship."

The 42nd president did call for collective action in his second inaugural, but it was focused on healthy avenues for social responsibility, for example, working together to make further progress in burying the racism and other prejudices continuing from the past. Nowhere in his speech did President Clinton apply collective action toward a guaranteed standard of living for all Americans. Instead, the Clintonesque government would ensure, "Everyone who can work will work, with today's permanent underclass part of tomorrow's growing middle class." 

All such messages shifting responsibility for individual prosperity from the government's shoulders to the individual's hands were a nod to President Clinton's proudest first-term achievement: the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. This legislation implemented a program of moving unprecedented numbers of welfare recipients off the rolls and into work training programs in which they would receive aid until they became established in an employment situation sustaining their economic needs.

In July 2012, clothed in the executive powers of the presidency, Barack Obama purposefully undermined the signature social policy accomplishment of the man he embraced in Charlotte. Through executive order, President Obama announced his administration would no longer honor the work requirements of Clinton's welfare reform.  

Today, standing before throngs of spectators in the nation's capital, President Obama declared an unconditional guarantee that collective action be responsible to provide a standard of living for every individual. The president promised, "Our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American." Later in the speech, he returned to this theme of guaranteed economic outcomes and applied it to America's women, "For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts."

Wouldn't we all love to earn a living equal to our efforts? Wouldn't any teacher, firefighter, or policemen, want to earn a living equal to his or her efforts? Wouldn't any soldier want to earn a living equal to his or her sacrifices in the name of service to family, community, and country? 

Sadly, none of us are qualified to measure what amount of effort is deserving of what amount of compensation. How can the collective body of the nation know how much effort a certain grocery store clerk is putting into her job performance? Are we all watching her, all day long, measuring how many customers she helps in an eight-hour period? Is the collective body alerted every time she arrives late to work, or leaves early?

In contrast to President Clinton, President Obama curiously avoided use of the word government when calling for action on individual prosperity in his second inaugural. Instead, he used the words: "our nation...a great nation...collective action...we must do these things together, as one nation...one people."

Government was primarily invoked when the president said it should be transformed, "We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government..." For a president who just took another oath to preserve and uphold the U.S. Constitution, it appears a conflict of interest for him to advocate a remake of our government. 

Taken together, the strands of President Obama's second inaugural address show a chief executive with radical goals for his second term, and that these ambitions depart from his predecessors, Democratic as well as Republican. For never has it been America's founding creed that collective action is responsible for the standard of living enjoyed by every single citizen. For such inspiration, one must consult the works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

Patriot Thought