http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-inaugural-address_5672f21ce4b0648fe30284a6
I was elated by Obama's election. I posted a picture of the Statue of Liberty with two arms up holding torches. Sadly, I think her arms are drooping at the end of his terms. No hopey, no changey.
When Obama was elected I started an attempt to get him to face the nation that elected him while he repeated the oath of office spoken by the Chief Justice.
Most all people understand the nature of taking a solemn oath to someone. When they took it they looked into the eyes of the person they pledged themselves to. There was a minister of the oath present giving the words to be repeated. How many looked into the eyes of a minister as they repeated the oath to another? I have heard stories that it has been done. Perhaps the marriage did not last much beyond the exit down the aisle?
It would be a dramatic precedent setting thing for new president to do. I thought that it would be consistent with the man I thought Obama was. My idea was something to get to him somehow. The way I did it was to contact his ex-college room mate with whom he remained a close friend also a close friend of Michelle from Chicago. I also contacted Doris Kearns Goodwin. A historian that writes about history. She could make some history if the idea got to Obama. The idea was to get the idea to him through a discreet back door. I contacted some others as well.
There was never a response except a form reply from Goodwin saying I get a lot of these, I'm busy, I'll get back to you. Not. I did not expect a reply nor any credit for the idea. A simple but symbolical one replacing a tradition. Like the suggestion a child made to have all the Olympians walk into the stadium together. It tells something meaningful. It is something meaningful.
As Obama placed his hand on the bible I have to admit I had to hold my breath a little. Tradition ruled. It would have been a shock in real time across the nation. His acceptance speech would explain it using the wedding example as the model of facing the one...ones... to whom the pledge is given. Or is he really giving the pledge to the Chief Justice? To whom does the president hold them self ultimately accountable for the responsibility we have given them.
There are many critical questions to be asked about a symbolic ceremony with real meaning. The flag is a symbolic thing. When I took the oath as a navy officer I asked the Admiral if I could face the flag, always present at an event like this, while I took the oath. Recognizing his authority to give it as I repeated the words but above that recognizing the proxy symbol of the people I was giving it too. At least I saw it that way.
This is for Bernie: If you are starting to write your acceptance speech then say something like this now:
When (if) I take this solemn oath I will repeat the words of the Chief Justice but I will turn and face you, the nation that elected me, and speak the words to you. Say them to you as the ones I pledge myself to in the same manner as looking into the eyes of another to whom a different pledge is given. I will take the oath to you, your general welfare and common good to support and defend you above all else. Above special interests.......etc.....etc. ..the rest can all be truer words that have never been spoken by many presidents on Inauguration day.
Say that now Bernie. Say you will do it on that day that you are preparing your acceptance speech for. I know now why Obama did not say them.... if the idea ever got to his ears somehow. The oath cannot be taken looking into the eyes of the person they are spoken to if they are a lie.
Say you will do it. We will elect you......or somebody else. If your voters expect you to say them if elected then think about this: Will whoever is elected do the same? It is a poison pill or to state exactly what you or they will do then fail to do it. There will be those that will use it over and over again with every claimed failure of their choice. However, they will have to make this claim to the public and I think that it will be very difficult for the media to manipulate through attempting generate public discourse to divorce an honest, sincere person that puts the people first. Make some errors? We all understand the nature of the relationship founded on honesty and doing the best we can do for the one to whom we pledge ourselves. Most have done that. Cheaters are a different story.
If you promise, if elected, to take the oath as repeated facing us, looking us in the eye, not the minister on an occasion as solemn as a wedding then that means something. Wins votes. If not elected then what is the expectation when someone else places their hand on a book of some origin. If it is not you then the power of the idea and its symbolism if done by another facing us will be the one single fulcrum upon which the president will be and should be judged.
If you say you will do it then what will be the expectation when someone else is elected. If they don't do it? Good line in the sand question.
It places any presidential opponent in an awkward position. It is a set up of course. If you are not elected it places the one who is elected in an awkward position. Especially awkward it they demonstrate that the their loyalty is to some entity other than us and that they married for the money!
Monetizing the vow.
I have many unusual ideas but I am very proud of this one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/bernie-sanders-becomes-th_b_8824490.html?ir=Australia
No comments:
Post a Comment