The presidential inauguration should stand as a declaration of the success of our political process, yet recent inaugurations display the absolute worst excesses of American politics.
The second Bush inauguration was the most expensive in the history of the United States: a four-day, $40 million spectacle that included nine official black-tie balls, fireworks, a parade, several private parties, and a rollicking "youth concert" featuring Hilary Duff.
A few days before the event, Laura Bush told reporters, "[Inaugurations are] a ceremony of our history. They're a ritual of our government. I think it's really important to have the inauguration every time." I agree. As Donald Kennon, chief historian of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society, says, "The presidential inauguration is the transcendent public ritual of American representative government," one that "lends a reassuring sense of stability, continuity and permanence."
Nevertheless, such "ceremonies of history" did not always cost upwards of $40 million. Lamentably, apart from the 35-word oath of office, the Constitution says little as to what purpose the inauguration ought to serve. However, I sincerely doubt our founding fathers would agree that a Hilary Duff concert hosted by the Bush twins is a pertinent celebration.
And despite recent campaign finance reform efforts, we hear little about the unrestricted donations that fund such festivities. Unlike presidential campaigns, which can only be supported by limited donations from individuals and political action committees, the Presidential Inaugural Committee is allowed to accept unlimited contributions from corporations and unions. Companies that made six-figure donations to the Bush inaugural fund include the Bank of America Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ford Motor Co. Undeniably, the nature of such unfettered donations produces ethical dilemmas. Recently, Brian Ross, ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent, aptly referred to the celebration as an "Ethics-Free-Zone."
The price of security for various inaugural festivities increased dramatically in the wake of Sept. 11. Washington D.C.'s mayor Anthony Williams estimates that it cost the district $17.3 million in taxpayers' money to pay for the security of this year's presidential inauguration. Of that cost, $11.9 million was divested from D.C.'s Urban Area Security Initiative federal grant. While it is imperative that we have sufficient protection for government officials, had the inauguration been less excessive, the cost of security would have been much less. The funds from the UASI grant could have been used to bolster D.C.'s fire, police, or transportation departments. Maintaining vigilant protection of the general public is far more important than funding security for an unnecessarily extravagant celebration.
The Bush administration's surfeit is even more egregious considering our country is at war. The $40 million spent on Bush's inauguration would have purchased approximately 700 armored Humvees for our troops in Iraq. Admittedly, private donations and defense spending are two very different things; however, such comparisons reveal the true extent of Bush's expenditures.
So much for our president celebrating his election with a degree of frugality to show respect for the cost of war, both in financial and human terms.
In contrast, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt celebrated his 1945 inauguration with cold chicken salad and pound cake. While he held lavish galas in earlier years, such events were to raise money for charity.
Yet unnecessary inaugural spending is not solely a Republican trend - Bill Clinton spent $33 million on his first inauguration. However, his second inauguration cost only $23.7 million; Clinton decided to cut back the cost of his inauguration in the middle of an economic boom, no less.
That Bush was willing to spend so much on frivolity during a time of war, during a period in which large parts of Southeast Asia require our monetary assistance, and one in which we are running a huge budget deficit, speaks largely of the character of this administration. Bush's celebration is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's first inauguration, which writer Kitty Kelley, in her biography of Nancy Reagan, described as a massive display of "bright, shiny, new, noisy wealth." Regrettably, inauguration parties have become less a symbol of democratic success and more a symbol of capitalist excess.
Private funding for such events raises a host of ethical dilemmas, and public taxation for such a gala would be unjust and contrary to Republican economic tenets. Inaugurations, as demonstrated so well by the Bush administration, have become morally bankrupt events, disrespectful to the values held by most Americans. For all these reasons, it is imperative to curtail the inappropriate and unchecked spectacles that are modern Presidential inaugurations.
It is time for Americans to reclaim this ceremony as a solemn affirmation of the duties of President, rather than an ostentatious carnival of glut.
Let them eat pound cake.
Nicholas Swisher '08 spends $40 million a year on aftershave.
