We’re about a month away from Bush’s second inaugural, but Marshall Whitman raised a provocative point yesterday that deserves wider attention: Cancel it.
We already know that the White House plans to use “Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service” as the “official theme” of the festivities. The Presidential Inaugural Committee has noted that Bush insists that his celebration recognize that “we are a nation at war.”
Whitman, meanwhile, argued a better way to make that recognition more meaningful.
[P]erhaps an “Inauguration as Usual” is not appropriate. One of the most striking aspects of this war is that the public has not been asked to sacrifice. So, why doesn’t the President send a message to America that this will be a different type of inauguration?
Dispense with all of the hoopla and festivities and direct the private donations that would have gone for the partying to the soldiers and families of those who have been disabled and killed in this war. The President can be sworn in at the Capitol and then address the nation. And in his inaugural address he can ask the nation to contribute to a fund to help wounded troops and the families of those who have lost loved ones.
Somehow it is obscene for party goers to be dancing the Texas Two Step at the Black Tie and Boots Ball while across town young men and women are struggling to walk again at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval.
It’s not only a good point; it’s an idea with a precedent.
After FDR was elected to a fourth term in 1944, World War II was not yet over. Believing that a lavish display of celebration would be inappropriate given the circumstances, Roosevelt hosted a simple and understated inaugural ceremony at the White House in January 1945. As far as I can tell, it was the only time a president was inaugurated indoors and in private.
Given this example, Bush may want to consider the imagery of an ostentatious gala while the war in Iraq continues to rage on.
Bob Herbert, for example, noted a telling anecdote from his paper last week.
The disconnect between the White House’s fantasyland and the world of war in Iraq could hardly have been illustrated more starkly than by a pair of front-page articles in The New York Times on Dec. 10. The story at the top of the page carried the headline: “It’s Inauguration Time Again, and Access Still Has Its Price – $250,000 Buys Lunch With President and More.”
The headline on the story beneath it said: “Armor Scarce for Heavy Trucks Transporting U.S. Cargo in Iraq.”
I know Bush wouldn’t want to give up his parties (and I know the RNC wouldn’t want to give up the fundraising opportunity), but toning down his inauguration would be a rare recognition from the president of the seriousness of the moment.