I am the type of person who is pretty skeptical of broad claims made by anyone. I am a scientist after all.
But I am especially skeptical of all statements made by politicians. If there is anything the past 8 years has taught me is that whenever everyone is rapt in enthusiasm, that is the time when you have to be the most skeptical.
So I try to temper my optimism about Obama with a deliberate skepticism.
I do see his promise. I see his commitment to something approaching sane and honorable government. I see a man committed to what most would consider reasonable governance. Further, he represents that a that comes but once a generation: the true realization of the American dream, the self-made man who evading countervailing circumstance has come to our highest office. We are happy at his ascension because it confirms that our ideals were not a sham and that are hopes that the world might be better tomorrow than it was today are not entirely unfounded. Obama supremely validates the idea that all people -- regardless of race, gender, or creed -- can make a life for themselves in this country.
For no other reason, do you remember any other inaugural speech that mentioned both science AND atheism! I don't. For that alone, I left it energized.
But just as you recognize that you are intoxicated by something, I have to force myself to consider two good reasons for skepticisim.
First, what will Obama do when politics as usual resumes -- and it will?
Obama made some grand claims in this speech not the least of which is that we are all in this together. What is he going to do when he realizes that his vision differs from many others in this country, both progressive and conservative? Dissenters are not just going to lay down and die because of his appeals to bipartisanship and patriotism. Obama enunciates an admirable dream of volunteerism for a better tomorrow, but what will he do when he finds insufficient volunteers?
Obama labels as cynics those who have not gotten on board his message of change: "what the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply." Right. The first time you lose a Senate vote, go tell them that. Tell them that, and see how long stale political arguments apply.
Realizing that everyone will not fall easily into line, will Obama become the busybody and the bully and attempt to inflict his views upon others? Will he try to change their minds? Will he seek a common ground where he must and succeed where he may? Will he despair or lash out in recrimination? I don't know, but I am going to reserve judgment until I see.
Second, we should be equally skeptical of the expectations of his supporters. In enunciating such large goals, Obama has created almost recklessly high expectations for improvement. This enthusiasm is summarized in the following line:
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met. (Emphasis mine.)
It is a curious use of the passive, no? Particularly curious in a speech whose theme was that we must all work together. Is it Obama's implication that government will swoop down angel-like to solve these problems? Will we wake up one day to find our confidences restored and our world healed while having done nothing to deserve it?
Many of the problems we face in the coming years represent a choice between irreconcilable opposites. The choice between freedom and security, between our interests abroad and our good-will abroad, between economic pain now and economic pain later, these choices cannot be elided over. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. Tough decisions and sacrifices must be made. The American public may be happy with their champion now, but how happy are they going to be when they realize his promises require trade-offs?
And what will we do when we realize that some of the goals are not achievable at all? I am reminded of an passage from H.L. Mencken's The Cult of Hope:
Unluckily, it is difficult for the American mind to grasp the concept of insolubility. Thousands of poor dolts keep on trying to square the circle; other thousands keep pegging away at perpetual motion. The number of persons so afflicted is far greater than the records of the Patent Office show, for beyond the circle of frankly insane enterprise there lie circles of more and more plausible enterprise, and finally we come to a circle which embraces the great majority of human beings. These are the optimists and chronic hopers of the world, the believers in men, ideas and things. It is the settled habit of such folk to give ear to whatever is comforting; it is their settled faith that whatever is desirable will come to pass. A caressing confidence -- but one, unfortunately, that is not borne out by human experience. The fact is that some of the things that men and women have desired most ardently for thousands of years are not nearer realization today than they were in the time of Rameses, and that there is not the slightest reason for believing that they will lose their coyness on any near tomorrow. Plans for hurrying them on have been tried since the beginning; plans for forcing them overnight are in copious and antagonistic operation today; and yet they continue to hold off and elude us, and the chances are that they will keep on holding off and eluding us until the angels get tired of the show, and the whole earth is set off like a gigantic bomb, or drowned, like a sick cat, between two buckets. (Emphasis mine.)
The business cycle and corporate greed cannot be willed out of existence, and international conflict does not evaporate even under competent diplomacy. We may have to accept that the failure to achieve some goals, not due to an absence of good-will, but due to the realization that even great men are not omnipotent.
I worry that this collapse of expectations will disenchant many of Obama's most enthusiastic supporters.
Obama has given every indication that he is a fair and decent man, and, as politicians go, he seems to be the better aspect of the breed. But I, like Mencken, think that "a good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar." Every politicians has the impulse to cheat, lie, and overpower. Some give into these impulses more than others. Will Obama be one of them?
In the end, we will have to see. Like a good scientist should I am going to reserve judgment until all the facts are in. Deliberate skepticism is never easy when everyone around you is delighted. However, I have always thought that skepticism is the better part of sanity, so I mean to see it through.
- Log in to post comments
Aw man, why you be harshin' on my hope?
But seriously, lovely post, I really enjoyed it. Lately I've been way too swept up in all the euphoria and grand ideas and beautiful dreams of utopia - my cynical, skeptical self has gone AWOL.
And as much as I'm digging all these warm and fuzzy feelings lately, not to mention all the worship for knowledge and reason that is floating through the ether, I know that reality's gonna reappear soon, and the letdown will be severe.
But you know what really gives me hope...I know that whatever happens, things will get BETTER. Not perfect, not even wonderful. But some progress will come, and that's the most I've had to look forward to for a long, long time.
And better is pretty damn good, as I see it
Based on what he's said, I'm guessing that Obama will be more than willing to compromise the little things to get passed what he wants to get through the Congress. What will Obama do when the Senate doesn't fall in line? I'm guessing he might use his bully pulpit and appeal directly to the voters in that Senator's state. "I'm trying to [fix the economy]..., and your Senator is being obstructionist. Please tell him how you feel." Would he do that? Will it work? Don't know. I can't say that it's been tried very much lately. I'm guessing a flood of negative mail might change a few minds.
One can hope. :-)
I'm skeptical like you, but I think he won't bully the other side enough. He's already being overly conciliatory and reaching across the aisle... but as you said, I'll wait until he starts making decisions before making a conclusion.
Very wise words - it pays to be skeptical when everyone has awe in their eyes.
If Obama's own senate records are any indication, he's much more interested in seeking common ground than working for change. With a few notable exceptions, most of his legislative acts in the Illinois state senate and federal senate were to the right of many democrats in the two senates.
If his white house and cabinet staffing decisions are any indication, he's selected one big area of change: a policy of slowing global warming. In every other area, his picks are sizing up to be very Clinton-like.
If his books ( The Audacity Of Hope , Dreams From My Father ) are any indication, Obama genuinely believes most (all?) of his political opponents have America's best interests at heart, and can be convinced to work together (with him) through sufficient compromise and diplomacy. (I have misgivings about his unwillingness to suspect the motives of his political opponents, but it's an attitude that has its uses in diplomacy.) His books also describe a man who seems unlikely to expect to win every senate (or house) vote, who will be prepared to either compromise his positions, or try a different diplomatic tactic when a senate or house vote does not go the way he wants. It is not an accident that Obama selected as VP a man who knows the senate better than almost anyone alive (other than Senator Byrd).
When I put all this together, I strongly doubt Obama will try to make significant changes in any area other than global warming response. And in that area, I think he'll move slowly at first, focusing on building up widespread legislative and public support before making any strong moves.
I don't see any reason expect Obama will play either the bully or the busybody. I don't think he'll 'lash out'. (On the campaign trail, he relied on his supporters to get angry, without being asked to, while he played diplomat. This worked so well I'd be amazed if he didn't try it again.)
Skepticism is definitely merited, but it would be better served by studying his legislative record, or, failing that, his two books. (Perhaps I should also mention his past as a community organizer. But no-one takes that seriously, even though he used that experience to create an election ground-game McCain couldn't hope to match.)
Fixed.
Whatever happened to the doctrine of "innocent until proved guilty"?
By all means, keep your powder dry, but this is a stupid attitude.
Obama was delivering more of a team coach's speech, a "look guys, we can win it as a team". Should he have done a Sgt Fraser* speech and just said "we'rre all dooooomed, doooomed I say, doooomed".
Skepticism and negativity are different things. You're being negative, not skeptical.
"Innocent until proved guilty" applies only in a court of law - it is a nonsensical ideal outside of that specific domain.
I think Jake's skepticism is spot-on - more of a cautiously optimistic than negative attitude. The whole tenor of Obama's campaign and ascendancy has been based on 1) hope and 2) change. Hope is important, and I find Obama inspiring, but change is different.
And that's where skepticism has to come in - what does Obama (and more importantly Pelosi and Reid - despite popular myth, Congress still has the bulk of the power) mean by "change." Aside from some rhetorical flourishes and a state and one term Senate voting record, we do not know. And neither do his supporters. Remember a lot of Obama voters (the ones you do not see) were voting against Bush/Republicans less than voting for Obama.
You can call that negative or whatever, but it's also honest.
You're right to cast a sceptical eye. I reckon OB would expect you too. His principles are well set out though and at least he recognises the complexity and wicked problems of the world. I agree with others that you gotta give the guy a chance because he is giving it a go and giving hope of progress and improvement. And...it isn't all down to him...what part do we play in the worlds problems. As a UK national I rate this bloke...at the moment :)
"When you have finished patting yourselves on the back for being skeptical as if being skeptical were honourable in itself, please be reminded that it is our scientists who have discovered the link between our thoughts and creating change.
As an experiment, I encourage you to try thinking of what you would like to see in the future rather than denigrating anyone seeking change. It is understandable that you may feel jaded with past events, but continuing to rail against them hasn't worked. There is a black President because enough people believed.
The Berlin Wall came down because some imagined it. Drinking and driving lost its allure when some changed their thinking, and thus their behaviour. You have much more power than you realize. Whether or not you can believe right now, it's all right, there are enough of your friends and fellow citizens who can for you. Remember the mustard seed. All the best to you, and Peace.