In his inaugural address, President Obama spoke with force and depth – and went far to confirm himself as more than the winner of an election, but as the leader of the entire country.

In broad strokes he did what every president does in his first speech on entering office: He reaffirmed the American experience and the national purpose. He recalled the major themes that brought him to office, reviewed actions he plans to take in his administration’s early months and affirmed confidence about the future and the American people’s ability to meet any challenge.

But both through his person and his words, he spoke for a renewed national unity as few in our time could.

Part of that renewed unity had to do, of course, with the African-American experience. He touched on this history several times – glancingly and in passing, rather than head-on and at length.

For example, in arguing for America’s role in “ushering in a new era of [global] peace,” he said the nation could help others transcend old hatreds because it had “tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united.”

And in celebrating the nation’s goodness and capacity to meet challenges, he said that “our liberty and our creed” was “why a man whose father less 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.”

With a deft touch, he melded this story into the broad American saga – making African-American history, for the first time (at least in presidential rhetoric) an affirmation of, rather than a challenge to, the American ideal.

He is, of course, the first president who could have credibly spoken in this manner – and in his initial moments in office, he did it in a manner and with a touch that struck me as exactly right.

But Obama also spoke of another kind of unity – a transcending of partisan divisions, “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

This curse-on-both-your-houses indictment reflects what political scientists have been saying for several years: The nation as a whole is not deeply divided, only the political class is – and the country is thoroughly fed up with bickering within the political class.

The president recast issues that drive our ideological division in a manner that transcended ideology. He didn’t triangulate in the disingenuous style of Bill Clinton, but looked for formulations that in the months ahead might prove acceptable to all.

Of government he said, “The question . . . is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works” – which actually tracks the sum of Ronald Reagan’s discussions in his first inaugural of government and his intent to reform it. Where federal programs don’t work, Obama pledged to shut them down (a policy his predecessor had unsuccessfully advocated).

Of private enterprise, he added, again in nearly Reaganesque language: “Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.” Then he called for regulation where regulation is needed, which would sound good to liberals and, as he put it, acceptable to conservatives.

Finally, he expressed resolve in prosecuting the war “against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred” – saying (in words that conservatives will applaud), “We will defeat you,” even as he decried (in words liberals wanted to hear) the “false choice between our safety and our ideals.”

In these ways, he attempted to reach beyond decades-old face-offs to establish new principles for common action.

Much has been made of his desire to govern from the center. In Washington, “governing from the center” is taken as a kind of political positioning within an understood range of options and approaches. In his inaugural address, President Obama spoke as if he were looking not just for a new bargaining position, but for a new intellectual standard for defining issues before the nation.

In this quest for a new era of national unity, the new president will find at least as much opposition in his own party as in the GOP. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statements over the weekend that she would look favorably on prosecuting Bush administration officials and her reported demand for immediate tax increases show just what Obama is up against.

But through a graceful inaugural address, the new president showed in part how he intends to nurture the new era of unity. Surely, there is audacity in this hope. But if he succeeds, his presidency could yet equal in importance the historic standing of his election itself.

That is a high standard. But his address, at least, gave reason to believe that he may have the determination, insight and skill to achieve it.

Clark S. Judge was a special assistant and speechwriter to President Reagan. He is managing director of the White House Writers Group, a communications-consulting firm in DC.

Editor’s Note: This post originally ran as an op-ed in the New York Post.