During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama referred to himself as a "Rorshach test."
I wonder if he knew how prescient that comment was. Because, as anyone knows who has been paying attention, a very strange psychology is at work in this year's election.
On the one hand, a large and very vocal segment of the conservative right view Mr. Obama as essentially the embodiment of evil. This belief persists despite all available evidence that Mr. Obama is, in fact, quite a reasonable, thoughtful, pragmatic person.
A commenter on a Yahoo news item refers to Obama as "the black Hitler." Another refers to him as the "Divider-in-Chief," despite clear evidence that he has done far more to seek areas of compromise with the opposition than his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Yet another commenter refers to Obama as "the greatest enemy of freedom in the history of the United States."
What would prompt such vitriolic indictments? The stimulus bill? Health care reform? Increased financial aid to college students? More help for veterans? What??
The obvious answer is None of the Above. This wildly distorted perception of President Obama has nothing to do with anything Obama has actually done. Obama could grow angel wings and magically heal the sick and these folks would still think he is Hitler, Stalin and Satan all rolled into one.
That's their reality.
From the other side of the spectrum is an equally strong, but I would maintain slightly more rational, disappointment and disillusionment with President Obama. Call it the "What-did-I-Ever-See-In-Him?" syndrome.
Many Liberals and indeed many Independents viewed Obama as a transformational figure. The Messiah jokes weren't part of the 2008 campaign for nothing. Many on the left truly believed Obama was going to usher in a new age of progressivism in America. Many Independents saw in Obama a real opportunity to transcend the hyper-partisan politics in Washington.
The left was bound to be disappointed. Any time you believe an individual politician is capable of ushering in a new era, you are simply asking for disappointment.
Independents, however, had every reason to be hopeful. What they didn't see coming - like most of the rest of us, including the Obama administration - was the surprising success of the Mitch McConnell-Frank Luntz strategy of total obstruction. They handcuffed President Obama with his own pledges of bipartisanship and led him step by step to the political gallows, where he is now swinging rather uncomfortably.
When Obama did respond with some partisan rhetoric, arm-twisting and (gasp!) back-room deals, the GOP excoriated him for "Chicago-style" politics. Incredibly, both strategies worked like a charm.
It's extremely unfortunate that a majority of Independents seem to place the blame on President Obama for the lack of bipartisanship, when the GOP has made no secret of their obstructionist strategy. That, too, is part of the strange psychology at work in this election cycle.
And finally, there is the Tea Party and the new crop of candidates that movement has produced.
Again, there are two completely opposite perceptions driving the campaigns.
For my part - if I may be so bold as to claim to represent the majority opinion on the left - never in my life have I seen so many candidates running for national or state office who are so transparently unqualified, dishonest, hypocritical, ignorant and, in some cases, mentally unhinged.
Christine O'Donnell in Delaware; Joe Miller in Alaska; Sharron Angle in Nevada; Ken Buck in Colorado; Ron Johnson in Wisconsin; Linda McMahon in Connecitcut; Rand Paul in Kentucky; Charles Paladino in New York; Nikki Haley in South Carolina: Jan Brewer in Arizona - the list goes on. And, of course, cheering them on, the ever-present Sarah Palin - a woman so dishonest, narcissistic and malicious she makes all the rest pale in comparison; and the endlessly entertaining Michele Bachmann - the candidate who, prior to the emergence of Christine O'Donnell, proudly carried the title, "Most Inane and Ignorant Person In Recent Political History."
Yet thousands of others on the right and in the middle see these candidates as saviors, precisely the way Liberals viewed candidate Obama. They believe these new candidates are going to "fix" Washington, "take our country back" from the demonic Obama/Pelosi/Hitler triumvirate and "restore" America to its former glory.
So, who is right? (Obviously, I am, but that's not the point of this essay.)
The point is, it doesn't matter. Reality is subjective and perception is reality. People see what they want to see. For a great many people, on the right and the left, there is simply no amount of evidence or persuasion that will alter their basic outlook. We are becoming a nation of closed minds.
The larger point is that no matter what happens in November, it is not going to end happily for most of us.
If the new saviors lose, their defeat will reinforce and solidify the anger of the citizens who believed so fervently in them. It's hard to say what the ramifications of this will be, but it cannot be good.
If the new saviors win, politics in America will be far worse than they are today. The political culture in Washington will become even more sordid and disgusting than it already is, and millions of people will be further turned off from the entire so-called democratic process.
Once the new saviors are installed in Washington, or in the state capitol, with the expectation that they are going to "fix" a broken political system or even - God forbid - represent the interests of the people who voted them into office, these new saviors will quickly find they have very little power to change anything.
There is a larger, even more painful reality that I perceive, which may never sink in with the Tea Party/Conservative element of the electorate. It is this: None of these new saviors gives a damn about the people they are stirring up in order to get elected. If and when they are put in power, their voting records will no doubt reflect this.
Power and money will continue to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Life will not, in fact, improve for the average, working middle-class family simply because these new candidates were "swept into office." (In political writing, candidates are always "swept into office".) In fact, I would not be surprised if things got considerably worse.
For those of us on the left, this scenario will confirm our view that the fervor gripping the Tea Party crowd is nothing but a mass delusion.
Those on the right will continue to be as angry and frustrated as they are now, but I fear this will not alter their basic mindset. The fact that their candidates did not deliver on their promises will not stop them from directing their fury at the wrong people: President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and all of the other perceived "enemies of freedom." They will remain a corrosive and destructive force in the country no matter what the outcome of the November elections. The ratings at Fox News will go through the roof.
They will also continue to be used and exploited by right-wing politicians who sense great potential benefits from stoking their anger and resentment.
That's the reality I perceive. And I'm sticking to it!