Why Do We Fear Hope?
In this country many of us equate strength with the lack of emotion. The strong one is the one who can endure life without feeling. The weak one is the one who shows their emotions and thus are banished to a life of disappointment and tragedy. With the introduction of the political narrative of Barack Obama there has been a lot of talk about the word hope. I don’t ever recall this word being dissected to the degree that it has been during his unlikely run towards the White House. One would believe that no other politician has ever invoked the word in an election before. So what makes it so different today than say in 1992, when a young upstart politician challenged the status quo?
For his part, Bill Clinton organized his campaign around another of the oldest and most powerful themes in electoral politics: change. As a youth, Clinton had once met President John F. Kennedy, and in his own campaign 30 years later, much of his rhetoric challenging Americans to accept change consciously echoed that of Kennedy in his 1960 campaign. Wikipedia
Or what about in 1960, when another youthful hope monger spoke so eloquently of hope for a new world while accepting the oath of office for President of the United States:
Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation,"² a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. American Rhetoric
So if it isn’t that the concept of hope is something new to elections, what can it be? I remember being a child and towards the end of November I would be filled with hope of the coming season. I wish I could say it was because I looked forward to exercising the true “spirit of the season” and all the good will towards my fellow man stuff, but that wasn’t what filled me with joy. I would begin to have hopes of the new toys that I looked forward to receiving for Christmas. I would watch in excitement at all the commercials of the coming new and latest toys and I would mentally create these lists of must have gadgets that I was sure to see under the tree on Christmas morning.
There was just one small problem, my father was a selfish man who found it difficult to spoil his children. So for many years there was the promise and hope for all of these things only to be followed on Christmas morning by the stark reality that was less than I had hoped for. You see as a child I could not understand or accept that my father was the man that he was, you see I wanted him to be like me or who I thought I was. The truth was that he could only be the man he was, not who I so desperately wanted and maybe needed him to be. I would awaken on Christmas morning to small tokens and I would end up crying later. After a while, my hopes began to lessen year by year until they were replaced with the gradual numbing of reality. The reality that no matter how much I hoped there was always going to be disappointment. In the end, I just stopped hoping and came to accept the cruelty of life.
As my life continued, I came to the conclusion that my problem in the first place was that I had dared to hope, that I had dared to believe in anything other than myself. I decided that from that point on that emotions were my problem, I would no longer allow anyone the ability to control my emotions. In fact I would bury them, my hero became Spock from Star Trek because he had no emotions. For many years I lived as emotionless as I could. But after two broken marriages, addiction, and suicidal moments I realized the that the strength I thought I had found in having no emotions was actually my downfall and my weakness. What I learned was that true strength and power does not belong to the cynic or the emotionless, but to those who are willing to express their emotions and become vulnerable to disappointment and hurt. True courage is not to never be afraid, but to be afraid and go on anyway.
Barack Obama is not God or a second coming of Jesus and his supporters do not believe this despite the cult analogies. He is simply a man who dares us to believe beyond ourselves. He is not promising to solve all of our problems or that the Government can. What he is offering us is a chance to put behind us many of the things that currently divide us and to focus on the many more things that unite us. After all what really can one man, even the President of the United States do? Over the last few decades we have seen what the politics of division and win at all costs has wrought, a country so divided we are on the verge of breaking. There are many who say that the answer is to continue as we have, that the only way to succeed is to beat the other side to a pulp. Today we are refighting the Civil War only class has replaced slavery. Will it take a bloody conflict to resolve our differences? I don’t know. There are many who are placing their hopes and aspirations on him and those people will be disappointed, because he can do nothing against those forces without our help and our actions.
What I do know is this, if we are able to appeal to the common good in all of us shouldn’t we to avoid that bloody conflict? Make no mistake about it if we do not enlist their help to change this country are we prepared to fight to take it? If Barack Obama’s hope fails it won’t be because he failed, it will be because we failed. If it is to succeed it will require many of us to overcome our cynicism and partisanship to come together for the greater good. The reason he does so well among the young is because they are not as jaded as their older counterparts, they still believe in change. The question now becomes can we transfer that hope into action or will we sit and wait for the disappointment so we can say, “See, I told you so”. It is no longer enough to vote, the last midterm election should have shown us that. We must follow up those votes with action. Just as with any seismic change in America, it must be bottom up, not top down. Our biggest fear is not that we are doomed, our biggest fear is that our hero will be bested; that the things we cherish love, hope, justice, and kindness to our fellowman will not win in the end.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic - John F. Kennedy
- Forgiven's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Very well put
In a way, it's not about Obama -- as you point out, others have run on "change" and "hope" before, and will again, it's the bread and butter of political campaigns. What he's asking for is a natural outgrowth of his work as a community organizer in Chicago -- identify the problems and work together to solve them. He brings people in who weren't invested before, and if the groundwork that his campaign is laying in terms of infrastructure and involvement can be sustained after the elections then it can be a powerful force for improvement neighborhood by neighborhood, county by county.
Now, there is a big "if" here, and it's a legitimate concern -- how many of the new voters, the youth turning out in record numbers, the cynics who are willing to give it another shot, how many of these will stay on board post-November? The movement has to be about more than getting Obama elected. As he himself said in his candidacy announcement
:
I understand you're a former Edwards supporter; I imagine as such you have some critiques of Obama's platform. He will inevitably disappoint all of us in some way, at some time -- it's important to realize that upfront, to "be afraid and go on anyway" and leverage Obama's success for our gains. He's not asking to be "the movement" in a top-down sense and we shouldn't try to put him in that role. I think he'll do a fine job as President and I'd vote for him on his qualifications alone, but what really excites me about his candidacy is the potential to create a structure for grassroots-powered activism across the nation, fueled by rational hope
.
Great to have you here, by the way.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It's difficult for political opposition to refudiate hope.
It just isn't a sellable message to get people to not vote for Obama, but instead vote for their guy/gal.
So they stick to what they know best. That means the right finds a swift boat angle and Hillary continues to be a wonk Hillary style.
I'll be curious to read your postions on the campaigns of both McCain and Hillary as well.
Kick him off the pedestal
That's the strategy of the Clinton campaign now ("plagiarism", getting upset about the ads, pointing out his exploitable weaknesses) and it will be the strategy of the McCain campaign -- maybe it already is.
Then, once he's "just another politician" you can argue that his hope thing is a fraud and you're more experienced.
The key to preventing that, from Obama's perspective, has to be to get down of the pedestal yourself (which is where Michelle gently dissing him comes in) and keep the focus on how your platform and policies are aimed at empowering citizens.
Obama has to be able to make mistakes without it killing his campaign. The reason the lobbyist allegations against McCain could potentially matter is because McCain has built his campaign around the idea that he is completely unswayable by special interests -- he's put himself on a pedestal and now can't afford to look like "just another politician" when it comes to ethics. Obama's campaign should note the lesson and prepare accordingly.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I remember another candidate who ran
on the Uniting America platform - George W. Bush. How did that work out?
I am not sure I agree with the premise that we are terribly divided as a nation and that as a result we need uniting. Also how do you unite a nation when your ideology is old style liberalism. Obama would have to go way beyond his ideology (named the most liberal Senator of 2007) to be able to actually produce any kind of good feelings that would bridge this supposed divide.
An onslaught of all the things Barack promises to bring will mean more division between the camps.
Again, I do not see these great divisions aside from those between the ideological partisans. America, in my view, is complacent, though concerned about the economy. We do not have the class problems that many other countries do, though Democrats do like to exaggerate it as if we do.
What is the evidence of the great division? I think many active partisans would do themselves a favor if they looked more objectively at what is going on in America, outside of their own certain-colored glasses.
P.S. Welcome Forgiven!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That may have been Bush's campaign promise
but that's not at all how he governed. The Rovian 50%+1 strategy is one of the reasons that Obama, who has a demonstrated record of reaching across the aisle to pass mutually agreeable legislation, is getting so much traction on this issue.
It's funny, at the same time Republicans are criticizing Obama as the most liberal Senator there are Clinton supporters making the case that he's among the *least* liberal Senators -- there was one ranking that had him next to Lieberman, which as you might imagine was great primary ammo on the left.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I remember that guy too!
It didn't work out at all-- you got him on that one! Difference being that Obama isn't a C- playboy deserter who had everything in life handed to him by his daddy. Obama is actually a pretty bright guy and a self-made man to boot. Leaving aside the obvious political differences, I think that Obama, simply because of his superior character to Bush, stands a greater chance of uniting America. I don't think that Bush could unite us because a lot of us could never see him as anything much more than a joke. After 9/11, I tried to get behind the guy for a time, but he soon reminded me why I considered him a joke. If the "other side" doesn't have any personal respect for you, you can't unite effectively. I'm sure a lot of right-wingers never could respect Clinton because of the womanizing. Obama doesn't seem to have any blatant failings that would cause mass disrespect, or if he does, they haven't been revealed yet. So, he's got a better shot at being a uniter.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
"A C minus playboy deserter".....
you fogot to meantion cokehead alcoholic....all of which I personally agree with you on.
But you did just take several wacks at the hornets nest.
I left out "cokehead alcoholic" because
...I wanted to be completely fair and balanced ;-) Seriously, I can forgive past substance abuse by a public figure, especially when they come clean about it, and Bush has admitted his alcohol problem at least. As far as his cocaine use, I don't know that it's ever been documented that it was so extensive as to fairly call him a "cokehead". So that stuff has never been a huge issue to me. On the other hand, he's never come clean on his dereliction of duty in the National Guard during wartime. Once a deserter, always a deserter-- and he's never explained his actions, much less apologized.
There really aren't any hornets left in the hornets nest with regards to Bush. All the red bars around here know what a joke Bush is. They just can't bring themselves to say it ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I vote let the hornets get some rest =)
I think Obama would be the first to say that people make mistakes in their youth.
We can distinguish between Obama's and Bush's inclusionary rhetoric based on their adult political record. In the case of Bush, we can directly evaluate how his Presidency matched his promises, and I think objectively state (based on polls if nothing else) that he really wasn't much of a uniter in practice. In the case of Obama, we can only speculate as to his Presidency based on his Senate record and his time in Illinois politics -- I submit it shows genuine appreciation for reaching across the aisle. We can also look at how moderate Republicans and independents feel about him currently, and while that can certainly change at the moment he seems to enjoy favorable opinions from many non-Democrats too.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
And I agree with both you and skymutt...
My main point was raising the blood pressure of others here, not sliming dubya any more than he already gets.
Even hornets need to fly free...
We all need to release our inner hornet sometimes, and we all need to have our hornet nest poked sometimes.
Besides, Ender practically invented the hornet-nest poke. He's the grandmaster of hornet-nest-poking, in fact. And you want to deny me one minor poke at this instigator's hornet nest? I'm just supposed to say about Bush: "people make mistakes in their youth"? I call bull on that. It is patently unfair to Obama not to distinguish between his minor indiscretions (such as his admitted cocaine use) and Bush's lifetime record of irresponsibility, which extended far beyond any reasonable definition of "youth".
Sorry, I gotta call em like I see em. I don't bring up Bush's past every single day, but I can't promise to never mention it at all, either.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Bush actually had a better provable chance of uniting
the country than Obama based on their records. Bush had a very good record of dealing with majority Dem Texas legislature. He was not even close to being on the far right flank of the GOP especially on the issues like immigration.
Obama on the other hand is consistently one of the most liberal/far left Senators. He is far out. Why should his words matter more than his actions? There are plenty of wingnut partisans who have strong character but who would never unify the country. Character is not an indication of a particular path and frankly I don't think Obama will go this route. I think it's just usual electoral ploy.
The country does not need uniting so Senator Obama, please, just campaign on your true far left record.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Bush's record as governor
With the tailwind of the booming Clinton economy as the backdrop for the Bush governorship, sure, his term looked moderately successful-- as did Giuliani in NYC. It was Clinton who did the heavy lifting during that time, and I'll even give a little credit to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress.
As far as Bush working with the Dems in the Texas Statehouse, let's be honest: we're talking about DINOs mostly, not flaming libruhls.
I will admit that Obama's rhetoric has turned toward the left during the primary, but I think that's just to win votes from the base. I've always thought you could just throw out about half of what is said during the primaries. It's just how the game is played. I truly believe that Obama will govern more towards the center than a lot of people think. This is a guy who sided with Demint and Coburn on earmark reform and went against Dem leadereship because it was the right thing to do. This is a guy who told DailyKos that he wasn't all that impressed with them and their purity-troll ways. To their face.
I like that-- he's no brown-noser, he's not going to roll over for the ideologues on the fringe left.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
my point was that
it is not Obama's rhetoric that worries me, but his actions - namely his record in the Senate. It's very liberal. It's practically the most liberal in the Senate. That is evidence of partisanship and very liberal ideology...
It is worrisome.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What specific proposed bills or votes do you find
particularly concerning?
Just curious...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
he consistently votes for more funding
for social programs and minimum wage (that was just increased) while at the same time consistently votes against all the security related bills.
More so than any other Democrat in congress. That should tell you something.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What it says
What it says is that he doesn't buy into the hype of the "war on terror". The only power this Congress had over a President out of control and out of step with the American people was the power of the purse strings and few of them had the courage to stand up to the false patriots...
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth; from the laziness that is content with half-truths; from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth – oh God of Truth deliver us!— Unknown (blog
)
but he speaks like he knows there is a war on terror
I didn't hear him repudiate it. I do not consider Iraq to be a huge part of it so I am talking about other things like Protect America Act (to modernize FISA).
It's not false patriotism to want to protect this country. If Obama wants to reach out, perhaps he should act more responsibly when it comes time to vote for various security-related bills.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You're just not going to get much support
from the liberals here for the position that retroactive telecom immunity is critical for the war on terror.
Sorry, not gonna happen =) I look forward to him and McCain debating this issue...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
He hasn't voted to defund the Iraq war
(for which he's catching heat from the left, by the way).
Like I said there are other studies based on different criteria that suggest he's among the least liberal Democratic Senators.
It all depends on which votes you count, how you weight them, whether you look at bills introduced (most studies don't) or active support/opposition (most studies just note votes), and so on...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
more funding that
goes into the American economy to support the American people is a good thing.
If it comes in the form of a little bit more in taxes to support a stronger, more viable economy here on the mainland, then I say terriffic.
The return on the dollar you get for paying some taxes, to invest in America's Middle Class, and America's infrastructure, is far greater than the return on the dollar we are getting for paying enormous sums of money to corrupt politicians
in Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan.
The people of Afganistan just want a home, a job and a good life for their kids, just like us folks here on the mainland. Yet just like here on the mainland the political rulers are hording money to serve their own selfish interests, not caring what happens to the locals.
I'm only half stupid
Bah.
The only thing that Clinton was known for "lifting" during that time probably wasn't that heavy to begin with. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Just blowing off a little steam,...
After all that hard work which helped raise wages by $5k per capita, create 23 million new jobs, cut the crime rate and the poverty rate in half, Clinton got a bit full of himself and thought he deserved a little bit of party-time on the side. Doesn't change the fact that the Clinton economy was indeed a tailwind to Bush. To prove what a great governor Bush was, you'd have to show where Texas substantially outperformed neighboring states during his term.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Welcome, Forgiven!
Now, let me start in on your diary ;-)
Here's another diary which forecasts the possibility of a civil war.
Personally, I don't see any serious possibility of an actual shooting class war, and I see no need to adopt particular policies to avoid such a conflict. Who am I supposed to shoot at? Rich people? What do I do after I kill them-- move into their house?
Class divisions have existed since the beginning of civilization. I don't see the class divisions of today as having any comparison to slavery. I would have a tough time living peacefully in a society where I saw my fellow man in chains. I am comparatively unmoved when someone can't make their payment on their mortgage. In fact, I'm becoming convinced that some people might need a little more challenge in their lives, because they seem to be thrown for a loop when any bump in the road of life appears.
Showing emotion is fine, and I'm not a proponent of stoicism, but I think we are a bit soft as a people. I think people could do with a bit of toughening up in this country. Sure, when you're a kid, and you don't get what you want, you're going to cry-- because you're a kid, and it's confusing as you come to the realization that your parents aren't gods but just plain old flesh and blood human beings with failings. But by the time you're an adult, I think that it's time to realize that you cannot always get what you want, and you have to put your disappointment aside and move on with a positive attitude.
I extend this philosophy to government as well-- I think it's a mistake to be disappointed when we don't get the shiniest new toy (unlimited cradle to grave universal healthcare, for instance), and instead, we should be concentrating on improving our dysfunctional government-- getting tough on corruption and graft, eliminating waste, cutting programs that are not priorities, retooling agencies to better serve their roles. I think if we spent a good hard ten years on improving the government we have rather than promising new goodies, we would find at the end of that time that goodies like universal healthcare for all were suddenly affordable and feasible, and what's more, we would be feeling better about ourselves as a people and the political environment would be much more amenable to progress as well.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Thank You for this......
post!
iT's Great to see a liberal front page poster. !!!
I look forward to more of your front page gems.
(I don't have time to comment right now, but I agree with you, that cynicism is the enemy of change.)
And in spite of a lack of experience, I really do believe that Barack Obama is born leader, who happens to be well suited to the changes we need at this moment in time.
I'm only half stupid
Welcome aboard.
Just wanted to get that out of the way first.
I think you have created a bit of a false dichotomy here, specifically Hopeful vs. Emotionless. I don't see why a person can't have a rich emotional life without including hope.
Let's be specific here- hope is essentially the base currency of optimism, and optimism is nothing more than a delusion. Optimism is expecting the world to be better than it is. Pessimism is expecting the world to be worse than it is. Neither of those traits is desirable. Realism is expecting the world to be as it is. That should always be the goal.
Hope and despair are useless "emotions," and they should be avoided as much as possible. That does not require you to be a robot. To take your examples from your childhood- it would have been better for you not to have hope, and the subsequent disappointment, but you could still feel your emotions- anger, sadness, joy, etc.
I put quotes around emotion above because hope is not really an emotion but an expectation, and by and large expectations are bad things.
I leave with a simpson's quote:
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Disagree
I don't think that is correct. Optimism is expecting that the world will get better than it is. Pessimism is expecting that the world will get worse than it is. Neither have anything to do with one's attitude about the current state of the world. One can realistically evaluate the current state of the world, and still be either an optimist or a pessimist.
Hope is what allows one to face difficult situations and act on them. If you do not have hope that your actions will have a positive effect, there is no motivation to act at all.
This can be taken to excessive and unrealistic extremes, but in and of themselves, hope and optimism are neither realistic nor unrealistic.
Oh, and welcome, Forgiven!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I think that boils down to a semantic difference
As I see it that's just saying "things that are currently outside my perception are good and thus I will enjoy them in the future." The only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that you are calling that a future issue and i'm including it in the now-awareness. distinction - difference.
I don't see how that is the case.
I disagree with how you are using hope here. If I say "I'll work really hard and then I'm sure to get a promotion" I am being hopeful. On the other hand if I say "You know, given the history of the department and the current fiscal environment, I might be able to get a promotion if I show that I'm providing serious value to the company" is an evaluation. It may or may not be a realistic evaluation depending on if the observations and conclusions are reasonable, but it is an attempt to construct a rational view of the situation.
Hope is anti-rational. It is belief in a thing, because that belief makes you feel good, regardless of the reality of the situation.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Predetermination?
Unless I am misinterpreting you, the distinction/difference we have regarding optimism seems to be a function of whether you believe in predetermination. What I see as an unknown future you see as a limited knowledge of the current condition. That can only be the same thing if you believe that the current condition inexorably leads to a predetermined future. But there is no way to be "realistic" about assessing those unknown aspects of the current condition. You have to make assumptions, and you have to make judgement calls.
Given your promotion example, sure, you may be able to make a totally rational assessment that there is an x percent chance of promotion based on hard work. But what does the value of x have to be before you decide it is worth it to work harder? Once the realistic assessment is done, it is optimism or pessimism that colors the actual decision of how to act upon that assessment.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Causality.
I'd call it causality. Things in the future find their roots in the now and in the past. In most cases the near future can be grossly predicted, or at least chances for various outcomes gauged, assuming you have enough data. This is particularly true when there is some sort of population mechanic so you are predicting statistical behaviors. An individual is hard to predict unless known very well, but a population of individuals can be predicted fairly well with only cursory knowledge.
Why can't those assumptions be realistic? If I assume aliens will show up and give us miracle technology that's clearly an unreasonable assumption- it relies on events that are distinctly impossible to predict. On the other hand if I assume the Middle East will remain an area of geopolitical instability for the forseeable future that is pretty realistic despite being an assumption- it is based on the history of the region as well as an appraisal of the current situation and dominant forces in play.
I don't get that. Once the assessment is done you have a probability. Then you can decide whether the probability of gain is worth the certain cost of the extra effort. Optimism and pessimism have no bearing- you have made your best guess as to the chance and now decide whether that's a risk you want to take.
In other words let's say the chance of a promotion is 50% according to your guess. A realist answer might be- "it is an even chance, and I think that's good enough to warrant the effort." The optimist answer is "I'm sure to get it." The pessimist answer is "I'll never get it."
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ha!
True. It's a lot like assuming that anarchists will band together to "do the right thing" in the end. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Decisions
But why does the realist think that an even chance is "good enough"? And would a 49% chance be good enough, too? 40%? 30%? I still say that realism has nothing to do with the decision, only the assessment. Once you realistically assess your chances, you then have to decide what to do about it. And unless your realistic assessment has resulted in a 0% or 100% chance, you've got to make a decision based on how you feel. What else do you have? It's never going to be a strictly mathematical equation in real life. The cost of "hard work now" can't be exactly correlated with the benefit of "promotion later."
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Judgment
(I'm enjoying the one word titles)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Insert clever one-word title here
I guess I just see realism as the delusion. :)
I don't think you can ever really know the reality of the current state of affairs well enough to make a realistic prediction of the future. There are always going to be assumptions that need to be made, and different people will make different assumptions, based on whether they are optimistic or pessimistic.
If you think you can make realistic assumptions with limited knowledge, I'd say you are being optimistic. :)
I do agree with you partially, in that I can accept that in executive-type decisions, realism is something to strive for. Being overly optimistic can obviously result in disasterous consequences. (Iraq, anyone?) However, in one's personal life, I think that optimism is not only not delusional, but is preferable, at least in moderation. Yes, you may end up making more mistakes, but you will also have more successes.
And "hope" is most certainly not unrealistic. It is the acceptance that the best possible outcome is in fact a possible outcome. And that is most certainly true.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Cute
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Side-note
I have a friend who once said it is better to be pessimistic rather than optimistic. Here's why*:
If you are optimistic and that outcome realizes these goals, then you got what you expected. So the level of happiness is moderate.
If you are optimistic and the goal is not realized, then you are deeply saddened.
If you are pessimistic and the outcome surpasses your goals (which is easier since you did not expect much), then your happiness level is high.
If you are pessimistic and the goal is not realized, then it is no big deal since you expected it. So, the happiness level has no change.
So optimistic is = or -
while pessimistic is + or =
Pessimism wins in a utilitarian format.
With all that said, I still tend to be cautiously optimistic against my better reasoning.
(*Not to be taken seriously.)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
A shorter version:
Pessimists are either right, or happy to be wrong. That's a tagline I've used before, although it's more pithy than legitimately truthful.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I think you minimize
I think you minimize the nature of hope. It is hope that allows us to get up in the morning. Those without hope are the ones who remain in bed and become depressed. Even in the example of seeking a promotion you are still basing your behavior on a hope of future returns that can not be known. Just because someone else has received a raise those of us that have worked for corporations know that sometimes herd work has little to do with future rewards. I think George Bush is a prime example of that.
And as far as comparing Obama to Bush the truth of the matter is that Bush did not play well with others even in Texas. I think a closer look at Bush's record will show that he along with his friend Tom Delay were laying the groundwork for taking over Texas.
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth; from the laziness that is content with half-truths; from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth – oh God of Truth deliver us!— Unknown (blog
)
Was that to me?
if you use the small "reply" link at the bottom of a post it will automatically place your reply under and indented from the person you are replying to.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Some random comments....
First of all,
WELCOME! Nice to see a new face.
Now, as I write these words I confess, I haven't read the whole thing but I will by the time I'm done writing. I'll just comment as I go along:
In this country many of us equate strength with the lack of emotion. The strong one is the one who can endure life without feeling. The weak one is the one who shows their emotions and thus are banished to a life of disappointment and tragedy.
Who exactly? Strange premise and one I do not agree with. The use of the word "many" is a murky, undefined quantity that may reflect more on how you view others than on how things really are. Having been on that side of the fence, I think I know what you mean and I do not agree.
I think the real defining difference is which emotions are triggered and how those emotions help us make sense of the level concern shown by others.
I decided that from that point on that emotions were my problem
well, you DO seem very emotional so far.
Barack Obama is not God or a second coming of Jesus and his supporters do not believe this despite the cult analogies.
For the most part, that's probably true. But the groupie activists in his corner or any pol's corner are somewhat cultist in my opinion. People who believe that so much undefinable good can be equated with the election of any candidate have somewhat overdeveloped expectations and a cult-like behavioral trait....especially when hope rests on so many projects and tasks of complex and involved nature.
After all what really can one man, even the President of the United States do?
Well, he can do a lot....wrong. He can do a few select things right...mainly through prudence and resolve against the temptation to believe he can do too much.
Most of what's good in this world happens mainly outside of politics. Politics, in so far as it has an underlying role is mainly important for making sure institutions function properly and with integrity so we can do the rest. It sounds obvious to say what I just said but you'd be surprised how un-obvious it really is.
What I do know is this, if we are able to appeal to the common good in all of us shouldn’t we to avoid that bloody conflict? Make no mistake about it if we do not enlist their help to change this country are we prepared to fight to take it? If Barack Obama’s hope fails it won’t be because he failed, it will be because we failed.
Well now....[chuckles]...that's a little over the top IMO.
If I asked you to break down and elaborate deeply on every sentence is this quote, you'd have one heck of a juicy diary.
it must be bottom up, not top down.
Agreed. But the devil is in the details. I see irony in this based on the rest of your diary.
Well, again, welcome. I look forward to more of your stuff.
I genuinely don't understand this essay.
You position "hope" versus "strength" as a dichotomy in which "hope" is negatively associated with emotionalism, arguing that our rhetoric privileges "strength", but then you list out other winning campaigns that used "hope". So do we actually privilege strength? Have we ever? Were Bush's or Reagan's victories about strength or about emotions?
(So I agree with Tlaloc that it's a false dichotomy to begin with.)
Then, after listing a bunch of campaigns that use "hope" as part of their rhetoric, you make a case for the importance of "hope": although I'd just as easily point out that its commonality in campaign rhetoric shows just how unremarkable it is.
The Obama campaign's problem isn't that it's used "hope" as a key term: it's as much an effective appeal to emotions as any other candidate's use of pathos
. The problem is that they've let the argument be about the rhetoric instead of the policy: "hope" is not a policy, but concrete plans are, and Clinton has effectively made people discuss the rhetoric instead. That just furthers the myth that the Obama campaign is just empty words.
Personally - and I'm no campaign adviser, so feel free to laugh this off - I'd stop getting so defensive about the challenges to "hope" and simply refocus on the platform and ideas themselves. It's great if people like you are inspired by Obama, but inspiration isn't communicable to people who aren't inspired by the same rhetoric. Maybe that's why I find his campaign speeches so unimpressive.
We don't fear hope. We're just bored with hearing it used so often as a speech hook.
And welcome to Swords Crossed! As you can see, we don't mince words here. :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Such cold rationale.....
For better or worse, the unremarkableness of 'hope' seems to be drawing in a lot from the ranks of particularly the younger set. You can say it is a sign of the frustration with Bush, but the numbers participating in the primaries and the caucuses, in and of itself is fairly remarkable. Especially when you look at the floods of people getting involved in the democratic process at the local level.
If you wanted to have a goal of a stronger democratic party then the 'hope rhetoric' or whatever it is that is happening bodes well for more and better democrats down ticket. I think that is kind of a big deal, and it is encompassed Obama's concrete plan, of motivating people to participate in the process by inspiring them to keep pushing for what they believe in. He also warns that changing things will not be easy, and challenges folks to stay engaged.
I'm only half stupid
That's a good point,
and hopefully (ha!) it'll translate to grassroots activism. The big changes take time and patience, but most people are content to limit their civic participation to pulling a voting lever every four years.
What about activists themselves? This is purely anecdotal, but I'd say the activists I know are pretty evenly split, Obama/Clinton. Naturally none of them are voting for McCain (although one Obama supporter has threatened to, if Clinton wins. I've told him we're no longer allowed to talk politics. :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Seems reasonably clear to me
Right now, many of the people challenging Obama are making the case that hope doesn't go with strength -- that Obama isn't a fighter, so he won't win and/or won't accomplish liberal goals. To which the reply in the essay that (a) hope is a winning political theme and (b) hope *does* go with strength. And for good measure (c) it's not really specifically about Obama anyway, the hope is for citizen-driven reform.
As you say, it's not like Obama doesn't have substance behind the rhetoric -- there's plenty of meat there for people who want to look. It's a balance between attracting voters via policy speeches and attracting voters via inspirational speeches. Judging by results, plenty of people out there aren't bored with hope ;-) But he has certainly moved more towards policy in the last month, to the point of giving what I suspect are deliberately dry and excruciatingly detailed addresses, and I expect he'll try to mix in plenty of specifics going forward to counter the "all rhetoric" charge.
In a way, you have to hand it to the Clinton campaign, it was a good idea to attack Obama's greatest campaign strength (his speeches) and try to turn it into a weakness (accusations of plagiarism, suggestions that he is flashy but shallow). Not sure it will work but it was probably their best strategy.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I think this is a good case in point:
Here's something I said above that I want to bring back into the discussion:
I wasn't feeling this essay at all because it was speaking to the choir - so I'm not surprised you found it reasonably clear while I found it impenetrable (that's not a criticism, just that you're on the same page as the diarist, and some of us are reading an entirely differently book). Is there really even a discussion to be had if we're speaking different languages? I read the essay this morning and kept deleting responses because I just didn't know how to approach it.
On top of that, I really do find its contradictions incomprehensible, but I already addressed that.
With one exception, all the presidents elected during my lifetime seem to have made it via pathos rather than logos, and that's a huge disappointment (but nothing I or anyone else can do about it). Forgiven mentioned a few campaigns in the essay, but Reagan also won because he (supposedly) made us feel good about being Americans, and Bush II was (supposedly) the kind of guy we could have a beer with. Only Bush I got there differently: he rode an incumbency wave that proved not as long-lasting as the emotional appeals of the other winners.
So I'm understand why "hope" is an important piece of the rhetorical puzzle, but given that it's transparently a rhetorical strategy, I think it's perfectly legit to question it (or even to mock it, frankly) without people wondering whether we're just plain scared to be hopeful.
Clinton right now is playing ethos against pathos, and at least during my lifetime that's a losing strategy for the presidency (although what do I know?)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I suspect, like I said, that it's aimed
at answering those people who consider Obama's brand of hope to be politically naive and indicative of weakness. Since your concerns about Obama don't slot neatly into that frame I can understand why you weren't feeling it.
Clinton right now is playing ethos against pathos, and at least during my lifetime that's a losing strategy for the presidency
Well, I think she's played her share of pathos, for example before NH or with the close to the last debate (widely hailed as her best moment). But overall I agree.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sounds like you'd like to fall asleep and wake up in November...
Sounds like you've had it with platitudes. See, i'm just the opposite. I can take the boilerplate appeals to emotion okay (though I rarely am inspired by them). Speeches are primarily intended for the live audience. For a live audience, it's not about the substance-- heck, these candidates have been running 18 hours a day for months on end, and you expect them to come up with fresh, substantive speeches on their own? Not realistic, the way a modern campaign is run. No, the speeches are more about the people in the audience being able to say to their grandkids 50 years from now, " I saw president so-and-so at such-n-such place back in '08". It's just a performance, and as long as the politician seems vital and enthusiastic, the words don't matter very much.
I saw Clinton back in '92 at OSU. I couldn't tell you a thing that he said because I don't remember, but I saw him in person, and somehow, that makes me feel that my life experience has been just a tiny bit more full, because I saw the President! Before he was even the President yet!
Now when I see a speech on TV, it's a lot more likely that I will pay attention to the text of the speech. But even then, the vacuous appeals to emotion aren't what bugs me usually. What I can't take very well is the overpromising and pandering, the promises of multiple chickens in every pot. Give me empty rhetoric about hope any day of the week rather than promise me head to toe healthcare, a tax cut, tax credits for my kids' college, forgivement of my student loans, a freeze on the interest rate on my ARM, a tax credit for my small business for providing health care, new investment in renewable energy, new investment in infrastructure, raising teacher pay, etc. etc. etc., all with no mention of any sacrifice.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Pandering
But those are always the big applause lines!
It might be interesting to see candidates give an "address" to the nation. No live audience, just the candidate behind a desk or something, just like a real president has to do on occasion.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Perhaps we often fear hope because
hope is a complex, unpredictable feeling. Sometimes hopes and wishes do come true, and other times they result in let-downs and bitter disappointments.