Monday, January 21, 2013


David Plotz with the claim:
The contrast to 2009 could not be starker. In 2009, Washington was a big party for a week.... Anyone on the left who ever cared about anything was in Washington for what was a huge party, a sense of optimism. The largest crowd perhaps in American history gathered on the Mall for that 2009 inauguration. The first African American president. This start of a new hope. It was epic, it was memorable. The [2012] inauguration... it feels like people are about as excited about that as they are about maybe a Washington Wizards game. There's no drama about it, no enthusiasm. Now, all second inaugurations suffer from this, but the contrast is pretty enormous. Why such a falloff?
Some images with the reality:

Hmm... no shortage of people there. Just once, I would love one of these claims of declining enthusiasm to be backed up with some sort of evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if the crowd this year turns out to be smaller than it was in 2009, but Plotz didn't offer any sort of data in support of his claim. He simply asserted it and left everyone else to explain why.


  1. Based on the thoroughly unscientific method of looking at my facebook feed, I'd say people are just as excited here in Minnesota as they were four years ago. It would also be interesting to compare this 2nd inaugural to the Bush one of 2005, my guess is that there are more people at this one, even though in 2005 the press bent over backward to express a sense of euphoria in Washington.

  2. Maybe Plotz wrote the piece before the inauguration so he could relax and enjoy the day (albeit less enthusiastically than he enjoyed it four years ago). The beauty part of impressionistic bs is that it doesn't require evidence or observation.