DISPATCHES By Hank Kalet Inauguration overload.
President George W. Bush threw himself a truly magnificent party to celebrate the beginning of his second term in the White House.
Thursday’s inaugural festivities the traditional procession, nine inaugural balls, fireworks and a host of other bashes were estimated to cost between $40 million and $50 million, an amazing sum that critics say could be put to better use.
|
Read Hank Kalet’s daily musings on his Web log: href="http://www.packetonline.com/site/news.asp?brd=1091&pag=460&dept_id=514 778">Channel Surfing |
It is unseemly, they say, that the president and his backers are spending that kind of money at a time when hundreds of thousands in Sri Lanka, Indochina and numerous other countries have been displaced by a devastating Christmas-week tsunami, or when war is raging and Americans are dying in Iraq.
I can’t buy into the argument, however, especially after watching Sunday’s Golden Globes, an award show filled with glitz, glamour and a heavy dose of navel-gazing. Award shows like the Globes originally began as a way to recognize the best artists in their industries but have become little more than an excuse for back-patting and excess.
The inaugural is, in many ways the political version of the Golden Globes. Already, we’ve been treated to stories on first lady Laura Bush’s gown a silver-blue tulle gown designed by Oscar de la Renta, according to The New York Times and whether Kid Rock or Hillary Duff would play a pre-inaugural concert hosted by the president’s twin daughters (it was Ms. Duff). And the president has been making the rounds of the interview shows, getting the full celebrity treatment.
The main attraction, of course, is the inaugural address. But in an age of constant news coverage and with a president entering his second term, it is not likely to yield any surprises.
What’s troubling about the $40 million to $50 million being spent today, however, is the same thing that’s troubling about this summer’s political conventions. It’s where the money is coming from.
The major corporations and lobbying groups are the ones ponying up and, as Ralph Nader pointed out in a Monday opinion piece on the liberal Web site Common Dreams News Center (www.commondreams.org), putting their hands out for something in return. The contributors to the inaugural drug companies, energy firms, conservative groups, etc. are the same that contributed to the conventions and have been giving to national political campaigns for years.
The issue here is that the inaugural festivities are as much about access as they are about celebrating our democracy. The money that these firms give buys them access to all of Washington’s decision-makers and that access has its effect.
"In return," for their contributions, Mr. Nader writes, "these companies get favors, privileges, tax breaks, subsidies, lax law enforcement for which the people pay dearly in health, safety and economic burdens."
He points to the atomic energy industry as an example. The industry is looking for federal cash to help it create new nuclear plants and for limitations on public oversight.
"So John E. Kane, the industry lobbyist, says that its $100,000 donation is a way of supporting the president," he writes.
This is pay-to-play writ large, but without the restrictions that accompany the funding of actual campaigns.
President Bush didn’t invent the lavish, money-driven inaugural, nor does he do it any better or any bigger than his predecessors. President Bill Clinton played the same kind of game, as did the first President Bush and Ronald Reagan. And all of them found ways to repay the political action committees, trade groups and corporations that funded their festivities.
I remember watching some of the Clinton parties on television, watching R.E.M. play at a more dress-down ball, but also seeing the extreme affluence being paraded around Washington at the myriad other parties and celebrations. The disparity between the new president’s rhetoric President Clinton promised to put people first and the garish displays of wealth offered a perfect snapshot of the direction the Clinton presidency would take during its eight years.
Personally, I’d like to see us tone down future presidential inaugurals, make them less flashy and extravagant and change their focus.
The inauguration of the president of the United States should be a celebration of democracy, not a coronation or a salute to money. And it shouldn’t be a way for big corporations to win favors and influence.
Hank Kalet is managing editor of the South Brunswick Post and The Cranbury Press. His e-mail is [email protected].

