With Krugman’s column this past week, I realized that a huge choice has presented itself to us democrats this primary season. The themes of change versus status quo, experience versus freshness, and reality versus idealism, while prominent in this campaign, are the vagaries around a more essential choice we democrats face: that of a choice between optimism and pessimism.
Follow me if you want...
To begin with, a disclosure: first and foremost, I am a democrat at heart. I will vote for our candidate come November, no matter whom he or she is. Second, I am a huge Obama supporter. I have been ever since I saw his speech at the JJ dinner, and I have found myself enthused about the first vote I ever cast this past February 5th in my home state of California.
With that said, I wanted to dive into the issue of zeal that has characterized supporters of both the Hillary and the Obama camps. Krugman wrote last week that he’s witnessed a lot of venom being spat around these days, claiming that most of said toxin has come from the mouth of the Obama camp.
This is where I’ll admit I’ve seen some pretty rough stuff, especially on this website and else where, from Obama supporters. That is not to say that Hillary is off the hook, but it is here that I’m conceding a little ground to Krugman’s argument. Yes, some Obama supporters have been quite vehement.
So then, I realized, I wanted to understand why it is that many of Obama’s supporters are so zealous. Why is it that some of them are seen as spitting venom at any negative mention of their candidate?
Ironically, because of hope. People who’ve been attracted to Obama’s campaign, his movement, his ideology—what ever you want to call it—have had hope instilled in them. Hope for a politics that doesn’t rely on party identity; a politics that is devoid of fear, and filled with ideas and optimism. They have hope that ground can be made on issues without having to alienate half of this country to get it done. They hope that America can be America again, uniting under a type of nationalism that has not been seen since September 11th, Pearl Harbor, or The New Deal. They hope that Obama can actually do what he promises. They hope, and not in some rhetorical, metaphorical and metaphysical sense, but rather they actually, literally, hope. They hope like kids do that the Christmas present they really wanted is underneath the tree. They hope like the teenager does when the girl he really likes notices him for once. They hope, in both the most foolish, and the most profound way imaginable.
Imagine for me a time when you felt that kind of hope. Hope for anything. Just remember that feeling in your heart.
And now imagine having someone tell you that it’s baseless. That it is false. That it is nothing but foolish to hope, because hope lets you think dreams can be reality.
The girl doesn’t know your name. You got socks for Christmas. Your hope was for nothing, if not less then that. Your hope blinded you to the harsh reality of the world. "Tough luck sonny."
Now that you’ve imagined having the hope stamped out of you, what is your feeling? You are incurably depressed and disillusioned. You want to believe. You want that feeling of hope to return. You don’t want to have to face the harsh realities. Essentially, you go into denial. Imagine how you would feel if someone tried to rip the hope out of you. You would go berserk. Everyone would fight for that which they have hope for. Imagine your friend telling you, dude, that girl doesn’t even know your name, and what would you do to that friend who just thought they were heading off disaster? You would snap at them. You would do everything you could to make sure they got their hands off of that precious hope you had in your chest.
That’s where this zeal comes from. Hope is not just a piece of rhetoric for this campaign. It is not, contrary to some people’s belief, a word that can be thrown around lightly. Obama has not just said the word, he has provided the feeling, and there aint no one who has that feeling inside them right now who isn’t going to react negatively to attempts to try and snuff it out.
‘But this proves Hillary’s point,’ some will shout. ‘This is exactly what is wrong with Obama’s message, it gives people hope where they should have none!’ And now comes the point of this diary.
Remember that fundamental choice we have to make as democrats this primary season? The one between optimism and pessimism?
What I am saying in response to the voices that claim Obama’s offering of hope ruins the Democrats ability to look at a situation practically, is that hope doesn’t necessarily equate failure. It is pessimistic to think that all hope is naïve. The Hillary supporters, bless their souls, are trying to, in part, save us Obama supporters from our own downfall. They believe it is a service they are providing to us; putting our feet firmly back on the ground now, so that we don’t have to wait around until November to fall to the cold hard ground as McCain walks all over us and our naïve hope. I know that, at least in part, baring their own brand of zealotry, that is what they are trying to do. They are trying to lay us down softly.
But to me, this mentality prevents any real progression in this country. Progress does not evolve slowly. Progress happens through big shifts in collective mentality. Example: the New Deal was wholly different than anything the United States had ever seen. It was not a tiny piece of legislation that got us out of the depression. Digging ourselves out of that hole began with a stressful 100 days of legislation that introduced wholly new initiatives, rather than improving or modifying existing ones. That is why I believe that hope in a radical change is not necessarily a bad thing. Might it fail? Of course it might. But when it comes down to it, I know that it is important that we try for a big jump, rather than just a step, forward. We’ve gone so far backwards we need a high-speed train or airplane to even get back to where we were 8 years ago, not a damn bicycle. Obama’s people are hopeful, in the sense that they are realistically aware of the challenges, but optimistic about our ability to over come them.
That is why I propose the choice in this election is one of optimism over pessimism. We have the opportunity to fundamentally change our country. I want to hope for that.
It is my belief that either one of these well-qualified candidates will be sitting behind that desk come next year. There will be a democrat in office, because the republicans have done too much wrong for much too long. But if that’s a given, which I believe it is, why wouldn’t we choose a candidate who gives us hope for a giant leap forward, rather than a couple of footsteps? Why wouldn’t we choose optimistic possibility over pessimistic certainty?