Skip to main content

I wrote this a while ago for SC and decided to cross-post it here in an attempt to answer some of the attacks on Obama I see hitting the rec list with increasing frequency. I think much of the criticism of Obama is (deliberately?) mis-defining his version of "hope" as "wishful thinking" rather than "rational optimism."

Detractors of Obama often characterize him as all style, no substance. His inspiring rhetoric is portrayed as a cover for political shallowness; his charismatic charm is claimed to hide inexperience and naivety. Such criticism is uninformed. I won't concern myself here with Obama's record, except to note that it compares quite well to that of most of the other candidates from both parties and that I agree with most of his platform. Instead, I want to focus on his speeches, which reveal a mature understanding of the importance of rational hope in effecting change. Obama's style has substance.

Politicians understand the power of emotion, and are expert at appealing to pride, fear, duty, greed, and so on. Usually the behavior the politician is attempting to evoke is simply support in the form of votes or contributions, but occasionally a speech is intended to motivate citizens to take action to address a particular problem. For example, a politician might talk about graffiti and litter and urge citizens to take pride in their community and do their duty to help keep it clean. Effective communication is a critical tool in enabling politicians to advance their agenda. Obama is skilled at using hope to convince people to come together and pitch in towards a common goal.

Of course, a good politician must also legislate policy to promote desired behavior. For example, particular laws against graffiti or littering might be part of an effort to clean up a neighborhood. Here it is important that the politician have a good grasp of the root causes of the problem he seeks to address -- is graffiti really the major issue, or is it a symptom of something else? Obama sees the big picture and legislates accordingly. Consistent with his rhetoric, his domestic and foreign policy are built around an understanding of the importance of hope, and the damaging consequences of hopelessness.

Every pop psychologist is familiar with the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy, in which a belief dictates an action that validates that belief. While somewhat trite, there's an element of truth to the idea that we play out the roles we've been given (or chosen). When an individual is optimistic he is more likely to create cause for further optimism, and likewise when he is pessimistic he is more likely to create cause for further pessimism. As Mellencamp put it:
And it all comes true Yes it all comes true
Like a wheel inside a wheel It turns on you
And you think, What have I done? What can I do?
What you believe about yourself
It all comes true

There's some evidence that people collectively also respond to internalized perceptions. For example, the (in)famous broken windows theory suggests that a neighborhood can react to its apparent status ("bad neighborhood" as determined by broken windows) by escalating behavior associated with that status (a few broken windows lead to more broken windows lead to increased crime -- see for example here for further analysis). In both the individual and the collective case, the behavior is self-reinforcing. The absence of hope for an individual or the presence of broken windows for a neighborhood is assumed to signal the actual status. The theory is that if one can give an individual hope or fix the broken windows then the underlying problems will also be improved.

Now, there are pretty obvious limits to the usefulness of this concept -- "I think I can" only goes so far for individuals, and there is significant doubt that the "broken windows" effect is the dominant factor in reducing crime. Hope alone is not sufficient, since if it becomes apparent that this hope was misplaced then pessimism takes over and the negative cycle begins. What is needed is rational hope, meaning hope that is based on a reasonable expectation of observing improvement. Don't just fix the broken windows, fix the failing schools and the crappy local economy. Don't just tell me things are going to get better, show me how to improve them and convince me that together we can tackle the problem. Once we're addressing the root causes, our rational hope will create a positive feedback cycle that will motivate continued improvement. Obama is the only candidate who demonstrates an understanding of the power of rational hope: his political solutions get to the fundamental problem and give cause for productive optimism, while his rhetoric reinforces his message that a brighter future is coming.

Here is Obama on Katrina:

And so I hope that out of this crisis we all begin to reflect - Democrat and Republican - on not only our individual responsibilities to ourselves and our families, but to our mutual responsibilities to our fellow Americans. I hope we realize that the people of New Orleans weren't just abandoned during the Hurricane. They were abandoned long ago - to murder and mayhem in their streets; to substandard schools; to dilapidated housing; to inadequate health care; to a pervasive sense of hopelessness.

That pervasive hopelessness must be overcome with rational hope, and Obama details the improvements that the government must institute for hope to be rational. It's a two-pronged approach: legislation that actually addresses the underlying problem (giving a reason for hope), and rhetoric that inspires and encourages individuals to assist.

The war on terror:

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say -- as Secretary Rumsfeld did -- "Freedom is untidy." I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy.

Extremism doesn't arise in a vacuum, and the US can do more to prevent it from gaining a foothold. Again, Obama offers concrete political solutions (legal and economic infrastructure, poverty reduction) aimed at overcoming hopelessness -- if only we'd followed this blueprint in Iraq. The rhetoric also resonates with us in the US: it's been a long time since a politician championed freedom from fear (shades of FDR) and instead offered a hopeful foreign policy.

This is not a new trick rolled out for his Presidential campaign, either; here is his 2004 Convention address:

I'm not talking about blind optimism here, the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't think about it, or health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it.

That's not what I'm talking. I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.

Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope: In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation, a belief in things not seen, a belief that there are better days ahead.

Note the rejection of irrational hope ("blind optimism") and the definition of rational hope: people in hard situations doing what they can to better their lot, and looking towards the future with calculated optimism.

Finally, Obama does not offer a passive hope where we are allowed to just sit back and wait for things to get better -- like JFK, he calls on us to contribute. From his candidacy announcement:

This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice - to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

Obama wants to harness the power of our hopes, our dreams, to improve our society. I support Obama not only because I agree with his positions, but also because I believe that he is uniquely capable among the candidates of recognizing the underlying causes of a problem, generating feasible political solutions, and inspiring and utilizing optimism. He understands the importance of rational hope.  

Originally posted to brendanm98 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:35 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great diary! (4+ / 0-)

    Tipped? and rec'd...and well timed!

  •  The fact that Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl

    gave a sound bite answer to attacking Pakistan to get Osama says it all. Hillary mentioned that you don't " just go in" you must notify the Pakistanis that its OUR missles flying over them and not India's, so our action wouldnt basically be misconstued as an attack by India. Dreams and fluff are nice, but its actions like the above, that , of not thought out fully, could land the US into even more do-do then we already are, and possibly start a war between 2 allies. Thats real experience talking, not dreams

    •  That wasn't the actual question, though (4+ / 0-)

      The issue isn't informing or notifying Pakistan, it's requiring their approval.

      Given recent events I'm quite happy with Obama's statement that if "President Musharraf cannot act, then we should."

      •  So we send a missle (0+ / 0-)

        without telling Pakistan, they think its in incoming from India, and fire their own warheads at India, starting a major war. Thats my point. Hillary saw the fact that whatever we do, there will be actions beyond the US doing something, and we must act "responsibly" Obama took the Bush doctrine to heart, but didnt elaborate on how his action might effect India/Paksitan etc. He wasnt even aware or had the foresight or " Experience" to see India might be drawn into his " incursion" accidently, so steps must be taken to assure that didnt happen. That is foreign polioy. Looking at ALL scenarios, not just tunnel vision.

  •  This is an incredible diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    otheruser, pamelabrown

    Very well said.

    Barack Obama -- The Time is Now

    by pragprogress on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM PST

    •  For me (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anna, brendanm98, Robinswing

      Obama's message of hope helps us reconnect with that uniquely American character of optimistic can do spirit which has been lost in the Washington wars.  However, outside the capital, americans hunger to be Americans find a reason to take back our country and finally rebuild our government to solve the challenges of the 21st century.

  •  Terrific diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Kossacks and others in the blogosphere are forgetting that rational hope is key to creating lasting change.

    "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - G.B. Shaw

    by otheruser on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:53:58 AM PST

  •  Very good diary, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but it still doesn't seem to get out of the hope grotto.  ie, I understand what you're saying about rational hope (in fact, it was very well stated), but the policy analysis - the crucial linkage between aspiration and present reality - was still lacking.  To take Katrina: Obama nicely discusses the material conditions that give rise to hopelessness and frustration, but glosses over the material solutions to those problems (better housing, healthcare, etc. - what Democrat hasn't supported those?  Beyond that, those are more specific aspirations, not policy proposals).

    What I like a lot about Obama is that he's superb at thinking through and diagnosing problems; what I haven't seen yet is an unfolding of prescriptions that are adequate to those problems.

    Still plenty of time in the race to meet that criticism (and for me, it's a fatal criticism - I'm not voting for the best to analyze problems, I'm voting for the best to fix problems), but that's where I'll be directing my attention in the coming weeks & months.

    •  There are prerequisites to solving problems (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anna, Robinswing

      and they involve an active participation from more than 50.1% of people who normally vote to form a coalition to create a mandate.  Otherwise, we're stuck with the same OLD Washington obstructionism and gameplaying.

    •  He has some creative ideas (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anna, burrow owl

      but they aren't necessarily popular or well-covered. For example his proposal to have government help cover health insurance for workers at auto companies in return for better mileage standards -- I'm not sure if it would work, I'm not convinced it's the most effective way to tackle the problem, but it's a concrete proposal and deserves serious consideration.

      He has proposed specific measures to address the aftermath of Katrina. For example with Coburn(!) pushing for oversight. His platform on poverty is actually pretty modest -- not a lot of flashiness, but some solid steps that offer concrete help.

      I do hear what you're saying and I would also prefer to hear more specifics and I also agree with critics who would like to have a longer record to assess Obama's capability to deliver on his promises. Unfortunately the debates and campaign atmosphere don't seem to leave a lot of room for policy discussion, and they do reward soundbites. So the rhetoric gets emphasized and the proposals get shortchanged.

      •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

        You're right, policy will get short-changed (from what I've seen, that's to Obama's advantage, since what I've seen has been pretty modest - that's a plus for incrementalists like me, but a minus for our more liberal denizens), so I'll be going over his plans with a fine-tooth comb on my own.

  •  I live in Illinois (0+ / 0-)

    I believe Mr. Obama is a great speech giver.  I am old enough to have also heard Ronald Reagan.  I need someone who is going to fight for us. I voted for Mr. Obama and he has let me down.  I don't know if he could even get reelected as Senator.

  •  Rational hope when the other side cares less? (0+ / 0-)

    First off, Obama has yet to convince all the democratic party to get behind him -- so even the party hasn't bought off on "rational hope".

    Then there's this small thing called, "the rest of the country" and last time a candidate of "rational Hope" ran, GWB was his name, and since then, the other side is doesn't see a problem.

    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

    by dcrolg on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:23:50 AM PST

    •  First off, (0+ / 0-)

      we are lucky to have several qualified candidates; in this case a contested primary is a sign of party strength and depth. Once Obama is the nominee ;-) I fully expect supporters of Clinton and Edwards will unite behind him.

      Regarding "the rest of the country," I note that Obama enjoys surprising popularity among Republicans, both elected officials and voters. You might find this interesting, to take just one random example.

      last time a candidate of "rational Hope" ran, GWB was his name

      Sorry, but this suggests you don't understand what rational hope involves. GWB did and does push "wishful thinking" (guys, we turned another corner in Iraq!) rather than rational hope. To compare GWB, who is universally reviled by Dems and disdained by more than a few Republicans, who "won" election by his strong performance pulling in the votes of conservative wealthy old white men, to Obama and his widespread support, particularly among younger voters and among independents, is just silly.

  •  Obama is operating from a flawed assumption (0+ / 0-)

    that greed has a conscious. Greed has no conscious.
    One of the most powerful examples of "negotiation" in history, was when Saddam, in an attempt to keep Bush from destroying Baghdad, put "human shields" in front of important public assets("targets") in "hopes" that Bush would spare those "targets" to keep from killing the "human shields". Greed has no conscious. We won't be able to make the forces of greed feel sorry for us.
    "Negotiation" only works if you can impose more severe consequences against the opposition, then the consequences of accepting your position.
    The mistake Obama is making is that he's operating from a flawed assumption that greed has a conscious.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site