On January 20, 2009, the nation and world heard the Inaugural Address of Barack Obama, one that is replete with sentimentality, reminiscing of previous events in American history, and the illusion conceptualized by a man void of both conscience and purpose for the populace of this nation and the global community. While his oratory was saturated with aspiring verbiage, it summarized the accomplishment of other leaders, yet, in the same breath of praise he criticized same.
In one instance he refers to a weakened economy and the presence of war alluding to their appearing as the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush, citing greed and irresponsibility as foundational. Obama also touched on the division within government based upon what he considered petty grievances, false promises, and worn-out dogma that, in his opinion, had strangled government far too long. Such criticism points to his proposal in causing America to once more overcome as if he has the solutions unavailable to those before him.
As the speech continued Obama reflects to that Spiritual making mention of the Muslim faith directly and tying their belief system with that of Christianity, which history will remember as the key component in the minimization of this nation under the watch of the 44th president—Barack Obama. Citing scriptural reference on more than one occasion, gives the impression to the listener of his devout considerations that over time proved a false narrative.
On the day of his Inaugural Address Obama made a symbolic entrance into the Capital city traversing the route of former president Abraham Lincoln, as well, in the content of his speech he alluded to the enslavement of African Americans and in a boastful manner gave credence to the fact that as a black man whose people had survived the “lash of the whip” is now the Commander-In-Chief citing the accomplishment of his race; however, his heritage is not that solely of African descent as his blood is mixed with that of the white man.
Moreover, his criticisms continued of previous administrations in the verbiage to establish the fact that change was in the air, that somehow he alone would abolish the status quo of governance, arguing that the stale practices of government would cease under his leadership that has proven time and again as one of abject failure. In alluding to those prosperous he addresses the spinning out of control in the financial realm, this points directly to the bail-out of Wall Street that would take place under his administrative control. This rhetoric is a constant in his desire as president to “spread the wealth” among all Americans which in simple translation injects the ideology of socialism.
On the topic of defense he had the audacity in deflecting to the founders of the Republic suggesting that under his leadership the United States would again claim the status as a beacon of hope for all men. This philosophy has suffered greatly by the incumbent during his tenure thus far and recent events on an international scale declare the removal of said light as we as a nation sit idle while a global enemy found in ISIS continues its campaign of terror. To pretend of having a solution, yet, never assigning a name to the problem, remains the attitude of the narcissist personality of the incumbent.
Another area that underscores the theme of patriotism, a quality lacking in the White House, is calling on the resurgence of courage, loyalty, and as aforementioned, patriotism, as he states its demand in returning to the core discipline of all Americans. This line of communication will return to bite back later in his administration when the character of courage is visibly absent in his policy decisions regarding enemies of the state. He asserts the phrase of “giving our all to a difficult task” that apparently in his mind has been accomplished.
A point worth consideration is that made concerning the suffering of those outside our borders marked by the word indifference. Apparently, his intention on the status of the immigrant population is to welcome all without regard to consequence. This also evident in recent policies concerning the Syrian refugees that have created a “mass exodus” within the Middle East region due primarily to the savagery of ISIS as well the leadership of Bashar al-Assad, who, as one may recall, was given a “red line” by Obama that he has crossed repeatedly without fear of the Obama regime.
Overall, the speech given by Barack Obama is one replete with pie-in-the-sky verbiage and illusionary language that promises, but, does not deliver. Furthermore, in his presentation it appears that he as well is effected by the words uttered, as in the weeks, months, and years to follow he has relied heavily on words in contrast to action. Simple is the application of that deemed accomplished by diplomacy, this notion is found in the belief system of Obama, a belief that the world will change based upon the urgency placed in debate; however, not all of the worlds leaders see things with that perspective, such as Vladimir Putin, or the Mullahs in Iran.
In the closing comments of this paper to compare the rhetorical implications of former president Truman to “persuade” the populace into action without persuasion, is not readily available in the presidency of Barack Obama, as his repetitious efforts in creating an environment of a nation “doing as they ought” by merely speaking it into existence, has failed numerous times since the campaign of 2008 and his election victory that led to the Inaugural Address critique herein.
Without doubt the era of Truman differs greatly to that presently experienced by the American people, as indeed the world has changed and not for the better. On every front this nation has lost its credibility under the pseudo-leadership of Obama, in both domestic and foreign policy. Purposed rejection of ideas to spur the anemic economy with job creation such as the XL Keystone Pipeline, the tenacity displayed in securing the Iranian nuclear deal to solidify a nonexistent legacy of achievement that will have serious repercussions for future generations; however, historians will make note of the gross negligence of the Obama administration in refusing to engage Islamic terrorism (ISIS) a term he, nor the Democratic party will let part from their lips, may decide the stability and freedoms of the citizenry in the United States of America in a most undesired climax.
Lastly, in the realm of leadership, that displayed not only in words, but, in the physical act of implementation, as has been witnessed by previous generations during WWI, WWII, and even the Vietnam War, is sorely missing in the present style of governing which can be tied directly to the ideology of socialism that is the crux of the Obama administration. In addition, the current political campaigns of those in the GOP and Democratic Party display in their rhetoric little change in the overall philosophies that define American politics.
As Obama made clear in his addressing the nation and world in 2009 with the following words; we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations is one that has been determined by millions of people as not only inaccurate, but, a lie. May the future of this nation resist further erosion by aspiring leaders with similar ideals as that of Barack Obama.
© platformlearning.com. Learn the basics for professional essay writing