Participation in the Inauguration

As a young person currently visiting DC for the inauguration and also while participating in the academic seminar partnership between The Washington Center for Internships and Seminars and Elon University, I am not sure what I am supposed to feel or attempt to predict for the future of our country in light of the new administration.

Today marks the eleventh day that our group, that I am the teaching assistant for, has been in the city participating in a variety of activities. Our first week was dedicated to exposing ourselves to one side of Washington; we volunteered at the DC Central Kitchen which was an amazing experience, we toured a variety of charter, public and private schools, and engaged with the infamous anarchist and peace advocate, Colman McCarthy. For the past four days, we have participated in the Campaign 2008 Academic Series with The Washington Center where we have listen to a variety of speakers including Dana Bash, Bob Schieffer, Clarence Page and Dana Perino. Even though I am excited and honored to be here because of this historic time for my country and our generation specifically, last year's academic series which dealt with the election and predicting outcomes and the effects of certain outcomes was way more interesting.

This is not to say that the inauguration does not spark my interests, but I feel like the learning experiences come mostly from making predictions which the elections allow us to do more freely and easily. This is where I am conflicted; what questions am I supposed to be asking about the transition of power between administrations, and what do I do once I perceive that no one has the answers? Am I just supposed to accept that political analysts and the general public can keep talking and speculating enough about what might happen that someone might end up being right? How many times will 'well, we will just have to wait and see' run through the minds of the students participating in the seminar and the mouths of the speakers and government officials. Do the homeless people in the DC area cared for by the DC Central Kitchen and the students suffering in underfunded public schools in DC just have to wait and see what happens too, and by the grace of God hold on to the hope and belief in change that Obama's campaign has established?

If the answer is yes, that we will just have to wait, then all of this speculation and guessing and questioning is obsolete and the current flow of this conference and my experience in Washington does not correlate with my interests. My interests reside more in the speeches we received from the former director of The National Portrait Gallery and Clarence Page, former columnist and official advisor for The Chicago Tribune. Even though most of the students in the seminar were nodding off during the portrait gallery discussion of what images of presidents mean and how important image is to the presidency, Marc Pachter made the most important and insightful statement of the entire conference so far; he used his lecture and expertise to establish the perfect character criteria for an effective president based on our nation's history. Pachter believes that Barack Obama has exactly what he needs as he inherits a troubled nation; yes, he is inheriting situations that will allow him to step in and be effective and gain public support based on how well he handles the many problems (or opportunities which I have now chosen to optimistically deem them) but more importantly, he has communicated that he has the two most important tools necessary to tackle them: Obama has a first class (or world class) education as well as the temperament necessary to be diplomatic with members of both of our parties, with people who fall in the middle, with less educated members of society who just want to move ahead to better economic and social times, and to members of other nations. Pachter named several past presidents who had one or both of these qualities, and he stated that the even-temperament is significantly more important than the first class education. I want to believe this and I am glad that I am beginning to see perhaps a few of the reasons why the public believes the stars have aligned for Obama, but I am skeptical that he stated that Obama is the only person in the world suited for governing our nation at this point in America's history.

Interestingly, Clarence Page promoted the idea that the reason why Obama has been such an effective leader so far and will continue to be is because he, as a young person, was able to see the changes and challenges America is now facing or is on the brink of facing before the rest of our nation. Is this alone what makes a good leader? Is it a combination of knowledge and intellect, temperament, and insight as well? Is is something else? Does Obama really have these qualities, or does he just seem to because of the incredible campaign he and his staff ran which the entire world will be studying and modeling for generations to come?

The most important question may be that if these three qualities are actually what makes a good leader, and if in fact Barack Obama does possess these notable, admirable qualities, are these qualities enough to keep the experiment of America from the brink of collapse? Is American government still an experiment and are we as constantly near failure as we seem to be, or does it only seem this way because of the focus on our problems that the election process (including the drowning and often biased media coverage) has brought with with?

How do I get these answers from the resources I am surrounded by this week? How do I continue to get them when I go back home where the federal government seems so distant from my small town? How do I balance my youthful optimism with careful, journalist skepticism (or cynicism, as Ted Koppel would have all journalists be)?