Hopequake
“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them…”
–Barack Obama
So it happened. The shifting of ground. The great breaking of cynicism. The….hopequake? Here we go.
I don’t really know what to say about the inauguration and the past week. I felt the tremendous relief of release from the agonizing waiting, and the images of the crowd were suitably awe-inspiring. On the other hand, I watched less than 5 minutes of the parties and balls, and only to check out Michelle’s dress (pretty.)
After that, there was the requisite explosion of opinion. Response all seemed to fall into two general camps: 1.) claiming the massive crowds and enthusiastic fans are brainless, worshiping a hero, and will be disappointed. And 2.) that Obama’s call for cooperation between the parties is empty, naive, or dangerous.
(And well, there was also commentary on the youth and fashion and dance moves. And Aretha’s hat, of course, which currently has 32,500 search hits.)
The first response is getting less and less convincing. Cynicism is not realism. I think cynicism is defensive at best, defeatist at worst. But I’ll take ‘cautiously optimistic’, fine. We’re all wounded animals after the last eight years; hesitation is understandable.
Still, it’s disturbing that people are so quick to insist all the excitement is brainless celebrity. The most enthusiastic Obama supporters that I know were once very cynical and/or disinterested in politics and had to be persuaded to take an interest, let alone support one man. It didn’t come easy. Obama’s books and speeches are so inspiring because they are honest and articulate feelings we already share, and also because they impart wisdom. People respond to that. Even disillusioned people. Thousands of volunteers actively canvassed, and continue to remain involved; that isn’t mere image.
It’s not stargazing, it’s hope. I agree there is blindness in unquestioning belief, and danger in hero-worship, but I disagree that having hope is equal to unquestioning belief.
On the contrary, hope is an essential part of critical thought. You must have hope to believe that change is possible, that solutions are possible. You must have it to take an active interest in solving problems. Without that belief, we flounder.
So: Hope. It’s such a plain word. In my own resistance to slogans and cliches, I have struggled to not grow irritated at “HOPE” and “CHANGE”, and remember they really do mean something. Something large and important.
So, I don’t know about you, but I’ve got my hope face on. It looks like this:
The second general response the the inauguration was more interesting. We’ve heard the unification speech before, and it usually passes as meaningless political drivel. Most of the time no one even notices it, let alone responds with full essays on the topic. This is the first time in my lifetime that I’ve actually believed that a politician meant it, and has the ability to work strategically to accomplish real democratic pluralism.
I find, I don’t really understand how that works, but I’m working to understand. Before I’m willing to believe that listening to the opposition party is ‘coddling’ them and will be taken advantage of, or conversely, before I believe that it’s possible to find a compromise on policy decisions where the two parties have deep and opposing ideological differences, I want to learn more. I’m starting by examining the Federalist Papers #10, and some essays on pluralism. I welcome suggestions for further reading.
Sadly, I do not have a pluralism face yet.
**”Hopequake” is a word 100% smithed by wordsmith Dave, frequently appearing at the adorable Sugar Snap Chronicle.**
Filed under: Subjects Large and General | 5 Comments
Tags: Hope, Obama, pluralism
RSS
I consider myself a cynic, but darn if that Obama ain’t got me all hoped up. I especially like his selection of people with differing viewpoints. The polar opposite to Bush would be a super-divisive liberal. Obama really seems to be about the unity.
My old boss once made a convincing argument that any true cynic would call themselves a realist.
What was the convincing argument?
Essentially, by labeling oneself a cynic, you admit that you don’t think your stated negative view of the world and motivations is completely accurate. If you really *do* believe in the cynic’s worldview, you are much more likely to be called a cynic by someone else than to state that you are being grim.
Ok, but I think very few of the people who are cynical about politics, especially in regard to the obama crowds, are really proper ‘cynics’ who have a well-developed negative worldview. I think it’s just a thoughtless trend. But that’s just my opinion.