Looking ahead at the effects of a potential Obama presidency it occurred to me that the outcome may be the same for his supporters whether he wins or loses. It is possible that in either case there will be wide scale discontent.
You might ask, “If he wins wouldn’t there be a general euphoria? Certainly the Democrat’s stars would be in alignment.” Following wins in the House of Representatives and the Senate, a Democrat in the White House would mean that for the first time in a very long the ideology of their party would be on solid legislative footing.
Each individual evaluates an Administration and the Congress on their own personal grading scale. Satisfaction with the government depends on it making good on the promises made. If Obama does win he’ll have a very high hill to climb to meet expectations because each voter’s expectations may be unique.
What is Obama selling? What is this “Hope” and what is its part in his campaign? What “Change” can we expect? These questions cannot be answered in concise terms. No yardstick has been provided to measure them. To understand how people will evaluate an Obama Administration we must explore the politics of hope and look at how it may end up creating despair.
Hope, as defined by Webster’s Dictionary is, “to desire with expectation of obtainment”. Hope can be a good thing but only if we are allowed to obtain something. We like to think that we all hope for better things to come, and on an individual basis we do. One person’s definition of “better things” may be different than another’s.
Hope is like opium. Refined and processed under the proper conditions opium is the source of morphine. Administered by thoughtful, dedicated and qualified persons morphine relieves pain and aids the sufferer. Roughly refined opium is also the source of heroin which is often used to escape reality and for its euphoric effects. It is sold on the street solely for the financial betterment of the seller and without regard for the damage it does to user.
Like morphine, hope can be administered by thoughtful and dedicated persons easing the mind and healing of the spirit. If dispensed without regard to the user hope like heroin becomes addictive and destructive. This addiction can lead to an unquenchable and destructive thirst. What the addicted hopeful search for is anything they want or need.
A priest or a teacher will channel hope and guide the hopeful towards a specific goal. The politician often pushes hope without specific goals in mind. To instill hope in as many as possible, the politician allows each individual to create their own unbridled goals while portraying themselves as the source of hope. The message is, “Elect me and your hopes will be fulfilled.”
Obama has done an excellent job in driving home the point that he is the source of hope. He has not defined the objectives of that hope. What have been substituted for real goals are promises of goodness and betterment. The fundamental flaw is one that most will never see even after the election is over. Each voter has their own idea of what hope will bring to them. Because of this it will not be possible to satisfy them all and they will feel a conflict. Happy that they won, they will wonder what it is they won and when it will be delivered.
There is a paradox of the discontent of unfocused hope. Voters were promised “change” and they will most certainly get it. The person in the White House does not matter in this regard, either will bring change. For Obama it is simply that his supporters expect that any change will be good.
Once again, without a specific measure for good, each person will determine what “good” is for themselves. The reality is that few will feel good for a very simple reason. Most people abhor change. When they demand change they are actually demanding that someone else change. In this case, with their man in the White House they will expect change. When it comes and it is they who are expected to change it will be a subconscious betrayal.
They may actually be happier if McCain wins. In that case they will have someone to blame. It is much easier to deal with discontent if there is someone to blame. In that case they can self medicate and keep overdosing on hope.
MY ONLY HOPE IS THAT THIS COMMIE FRIEND OF TERRORISTS DOES NOT EVEN GET ELECTED.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nicely done! First time reader. Found my way here via commenter “Margaret” at American Thinker.
The Left will continue to blame “Bush” for everything that goes wrong in an Obama administration. They have never let “facts” get in the way before! Obie will have “inherited” any problem or disaster from the “eight years of failed Bush policies”.
Only in a second term would Obie be required to take responsibility. But I don’t think he’d ever get elected twice. Here’s hoping he doesn’t get elected once.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Welcome gunslinger! It’s amazing that as the economy tanks Obama rises in the polls. Good grief.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s a logical and intelligent analysis of an aspect of presidential power, Allen. The most important thing to realize about the American presidency is that its power operates on (at least) two levels: 1.) the “real” exercise of power, as witnessed and experienced by the president’s fellow world leaders, senators and congressmen, international business people and other similarly influential players, and 2.) the perceived significance of the president by the American people. This significance is much more powerful than one might expect. Presidents usually get elected because they seem to embody some hope that hasn’t been realized yet by the American people. Part of why Jack Kennedy won (apart from his father’s vast money and influence) is because his appearance and background seemed to voters a curative for Eisenhower, whose gloss and shine as a triumphant W.W. II general had faded. Representing Eisenhower was the dark-jowled and dogmatic-seeming Nixon (who may actually have been the better candidate). The vitality of George W. Bush was in similar contrast to the dull Al Gore and the spoiled and wife-dominated Kerry, even though both Gore and Kerry may, intellectually, have been Bush’s superiors. In the current election, America is reeling from internal and international turmoil, and seems to be in the mood to present the office for the first time to a youthful black man in preference to an older white man. And for both candidates, it is their own perceived symbolism that will determine the outcome rather than their actual qualities or vaunted (and as yet unrealized) programs. The reason this system works out is because the office does indeed change the man. Many less than stellar candidates have become great presidents through the weight and the gravitas of the office they have achieved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] time ago I wrote “The Politics of Hope” discussing Obama’s promises of hope and change and the danger of failing to deliver. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] I wrote “The Politics of Hope” back in October of 2008, I suggested that, like opium, hope can be a good thing or a bad thing [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0