Pomp and circumstances

Yesterday’s inaugural by any account was a mixed blessing.

On the one hand, it fulfilled constitutional requirements and demonstrated to the rest of the world that the system in which men govern by consent of the governed is still the most desirable-if not necessarily the most enviable-form of government in the world.

In short, it proved that our system works, no matter how flawed or imperfect it may appear at times, no matter how great the discord between parties or politicians, and no matter how much it is attacked either internally or externally.

Some people who have read my columns may be surprised when I say that I was awed by the swearing-in ceremony, not so much by the President’s speech — which I will discuss momentarily — but by the pageantry and symbolism that are inherent in such a solemn occasion. After all, there are few governments whose peaceful transition is witnessed by three former heads of state, one of whom is the father of the man taking the oath of office.

And while many diehard Bush supporters — and a fair number of his critics — may consider the jeers — the most audible of any inauguration — and protests — the most visible — to have been in bad taste. I do not. Not because I am myself a vocal critic of this President and his policies, but because those voices of dissent were not silenced.

Many impassioned Bush opponents may have felt satisfaction in the sheer number of protesters, but I feel a greater satisfaction knowing that everyone who yearns to be heard can do so freely and without fear of repression or violence.

The parade, however, was another matter. Even diehard Conservative pundit, Washington Times columnist George Will, criticized the parade for its military — “Banana-Republic’’ — display of security, which was visibly discouraging and logistically awkward. What many reporters have called “unprecedented security,” created an air of insecurity more than anything else.

Freedom was the singular theme of the President’s speech. And not just freedom at home, but freedom around the world. Not since Woodrow Wilson has a president used his position to seize destiny in an effort to reshape the world.

The difference, of course, is that President Wilson entered a world war with apprehension and regret, but also with the hope that the world — once the war was won — would accept his plan for an enduring peace; while President Bush started a war with disregard for world opinion in an attempt to recreate the world in his own image.

And while I applaud -—and even respect— the President for his conviction and his faith, I do not respect his efforts to impose his faith on the rest of the world. Nor do I respect his use of the most divisive issues in our society in his effort to be re-elected.

Moreover, I consider his attempt to portray himself as a champion of diversity and inclusiveness — by appointing Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales — a move to disguise incompetence and reward blind and sycophantic loyalty.

The claim that Rice, an African-American, and Gonzales, a Hispanic-American, have achieved the American Dream would be more impressive if either Rice or Gonzales believed that basic human rights and the truth were more important than serving their master by lying and torture.

In his speech, Mr. Bush affirmed that “[t]he survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

My response is this: Why did the President and his administration use the restriction of liberty — disguised as the Federal Marriage Amendment — as a means to divide the country for purposes of being reelected?

He continued: “For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny — prone to ideologies that feed hatred…violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power…and raise a mortal threat.”

Religious intolerance, whether Muslim or Christian, and the desire to create a theocratic government, whether in Baghdad or in Washington, are equally undesirable. And Christianity-not as it was defined by Christ, but as it has been defined by modern Evangelicals-breeds hatred and intolerance as readily as fundamentalist Islam.

The President’s unwillingness to be forthright and realistic about the Iraq War and the division it has created in our country was no more evident than when he said, “From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure.”

The reality, of course, is that we were mislead into a war, the administration refuses to admit any deception, fault or miscalculations, and it refuses to support our soldiers adequately in a failing mission, or offer a timeline for withdrawal.

Finally — and to his credit — the President ended on a note of promise and hope: “We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes — and I will strive in good faith to heal them.”

In that effort, and in the spirit of cooperation, I will support the President, and I urge all Americans to do the same.