Look, I understand why people care about the Obama campaign. I really do. Hope, the promise of a New Day, the inauguration of someone who is neither Republican nor born with the last name Bush, the unalloyed excitement that attaches itself to Obama simply because his youth dictates it on a subconscious level. I really do understand and get these things, and I am not trying to say in any way that people who gravitate towards these emotions are shallow or somehow inherently deficient mentally. But why do people find what Obama represents (which is really nothing and everything simultaneously because his essence is mostly that of a mirror) so intoxicating as it pertains to being President?
The italicized words are of utmost significance here. I understand why people are drawn to him and attach their hopes to him as a person or even as a Senator[1] but why are people en masse overlooking the very simple (and, incidentally, most important) factor of them all? Namely, that President Obama will almost certainly let you down. And he will let you down precisely because of the inherent nature of what it is to be President during this stage of American society. I will expand on this in a minute but first…
We currently live in a world where taking sides is imperative. Right now, the side to take is that we are in a state of free-fall—economically and socially. If you disagree with that statement you are obviously misinformed or ignorant, so say the people who are prone to genuinely believe that the economic boom of the ’90′s came to life because of Bill Clinton’s shrewd political, social, and economic genius. (Hint: Reaganomics, the rise of the tech sector, the crime decline, and a generation of mothers having abortions minus the stigma all had a larger hand in it.) I understand the disagreement factor with Bush as the Bush Administration’s public relations was about as awful as a Communist dictator’s PR campaign in a third-world country. That clusterfuck notwithstanding, Bush ultimately had to make choices during an immensely elastic era of American politics.
America was attacked using an unconventional method not seen since the Trojan Horse—by using our own airplanes, most people felt more scared than ever. By being forced to realize that our enemies were nothing more than asymmetrical, disparate bands of religious fanatics we had a choice: we could do nothing or we could do something. Hindsight being what it is things like the Patriot Act were probably too large in scope and the sheer weight of it was bound to collapse as the press picked away at it retroactively (remember, most people only angrily voiced their mainstream, op-ed disgust when it became safe to do so). I could cite numerous other instances wherein the Bush Administration made questionable calls and deserved the public lashings they received if only because they had not earned enough trust to demand dogmatic loyalty. But then that’s the rub, isn’t it?
Things change.
When W. Bush ran for President his campaign was mostly simple—his pre-9/11 work mostly consisted of trying to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, sending tax relief checks to the public, and arriving at an official point on how best to cut stem cell research at the knees while not killing it entirely. You can blame him all you want for the post-9/11 world that has metastasized since but the reality is that Washington, D.C. is the most insulated city in the world and that groupthink runs so rampant that for anyone to claim they are an “outsider” is as preposterous as a prostitute classifying herself as an “escort.”
Which brings me to Obama and his supporters. Why the blatant disregard for the impending disillusionment? He will not be able to change anything. If anything, with the Senate and House under full Democratic control, it is safe to say that very little will change. I realize that the man can make a good speech but are we so thirsty for meaning in our lives that Obama (the image, not the man) has now transcended what our generation means and all that is unfair in the world?
Is the world a little messed up now? Sure. But the fact that our only passionate complaints reside on the marginal and fringe columns of life (there is no draft, our money is not worthless, banks and mega-huge corporations aren’t closing their doors, unemployment is not at 15%, land is not being taken away from people, we are not being invaded by foreign countries) ultimately means that life is going pretty well, especially when you take into account the enormous tech and population boom that has been occurring over the last fifteen years on a global scale. This leads me to my last question: why do we care so much about fringe things? Our economy has survived worse hits and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not as dire as everyone has been conditioned to believe (unless, of course, Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan decides to interfere).
People nowadays have nothing to get behind. We have no World War to get behind, no Civil Rights movement to fight for (or oppose, depending on where you lived), no Vietnam to protest, no civil disobedience to engage in, no Civil War to worry about, no collective allegiance to one religion to speak of. Compared to the rest of the world, America is embarking on its teenage years; we are still relatively young and are still bordered by countries who pose no realistic warring threat to us. In fact, one could argue that this is the perfect time, given the supposed “crises” that affect us all and given that people nowadays have little trust in their government or corporations, to focus our attention on family. Forget about the people in D.C.—they want nothing to do with you after you have cast your vote—start building a better life for you and your loved ones.
And if you reply to that last sentence internally with anything along the lines of, “But money is tight and the job market is tough,” yes, you are correct. And yet our grandparents’ generation and their parents’ generation had it much worse than all of us and still fought on. We desperately need perspective in our lives, and I simply do not understand why people who inherently distrust the government cannot wait to see a lawyer born out of the most corrupt political system (Chicago) ascend to the Presidency.
It just seems ripe for more disillusionment, except that this time the denial will be written off as “Well, at least he’s not Bush,” which, if you are really honest with yourself, will ultimately mean nothing. Maybe the Obama Administration will be different but I doubt it because if it is different it will mean that wholesale changes will have to happen and if there is one thing that has been made abundantly clear by the people in the last sixteen years it is this: that we want our cake and to be able to eat it too.
No President is prepared to overcome that yet. At least, not until we get our shit together on an individual basis.
[1] A U.S. Senator is the epitome of an all-talk, no-power, me-first authority figure. Senators love three things: to give speeches, form committees, and run for President. Every four years, it seems that there is an army of Senators who throw their hat in the ring for President. Almost all of them have a zero chance of winning and they bow out early on, but not before they get to wear the big boy pants and make proclamations that begin with, “When I’m President…” while spending their own states’ money to fund their doomed campaigns. Once the doomed campaign has officially flatlined they get to return to their states as Senators, never having to forfeit their position. (Yes, I know, governors and congressmen don’t have to forfeit their positions when their campaign closes up either but governors and congressmen have actual control of things like budgets and money and state- and federal-related appropriations. Governors and congressmen are the like the offensive line of a football team, whereas the Senator is the wide receiver who makes the highlight reels.)