Start with the idea of hope. S.M. Smith, summarizing the work of Jurgen Moltmann, writes:
The church is to be seen as the people of hope, experiencing hope in the God who is present in his promises. The coming kingdom gives the church a much broader vision of reality than a “merely” private vision of personal salvation. The church is to contest all the barriers that have been constructed by man for security; it challenges all structures that absolutize themselves, and all barriers erected between peoples in the name of the reality that is to come in Jesus Christ. The coming kingdom creates confronting and transforming vision for the mission of the people of God.
And Walter Brueggemann says,
Hope is the refusal to accept the reading of reality which is the majority opinion, and does that only at great political and existential risk.
Hope is subversive, and it is impatient with present realities. Keep all of this in mind as you read Cynthia Tucker talking to a psychology professor about the present political situation:
“When people are anxious and angry, they look to their leaders for a way to channel that anger that is productive. That is part of what leadership is. (But) this president and his leadership team believe that leadership is channeling hope, and even touching anybody’s anger and anxiety is off limits. It’s the politics of Dukakis,” Westen said.
This perhaps unintentionally gets at the nub of the issue. Not all Americans are members of a church. They’re certainly not The Church. But they are looking for something beyond personal salvation, in the economic as well as the soteriological sense. By large majorities, we want our leaders to contest the barriers that keep us from one another, all the absolutized structures that divide us into a nation of haves and have-nots.
We are, in brief, pissed off and looking for real answers.
Furthermore, we are looking for a sense of purpose as a nation. This is often overlooked in talk about the damage forty years of conservative ascendancy has done to the nation. From Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, we went from being a country with a collective (if contested) purpose to being one with no real reason to be other than getting some for ourselves. That obviously has hurt our sense of community, but it has also wounded our collective psyche. We are hungry for “action and change,” in James Cone’s words, and we don’t mean just frittering around the edges.
Why someone like Barack Obama, who ran on the themes of hope and change, would get down in the mud with someone like Rahm Emanuel, whose entire political career has been dedicated to stasis, I do not know.
I do know this: he’s got just about one chance left to convince the nation that his vision does include meaningful action and change. Otherwise, he will be rejected as a prophet of false hope, and the anger seething through the nation will be uncontainable.
We’ll know which path he’s chosen almost immediately. Brueggemann says that prophetic energizing depends on recalling - and mourning - the past, then articulating with amazement the new possibilities we are being led into.
If Obama starts off his message with a statement of optimism that a deal can be struck, we’re screwed.
But if he begins with a recitation of American history, laments the order that has passed away, and recognizes the anger and anxiety its demise has provoked, we have a shot. The last thing he will have to do is announce his willingness to confront the powers that are propping up the old order and his intent to transform the system so Americans can get back to their national mission. That and commit to a public option. Then - and only then - can we have some real hope.
(h/t to John Aravosis)
Schultz! I just discovered your writings on here. Keep up the good work. I'm high-five-ing about 90% of your diatribes.
As for this one, I find it comforting to find that some of the leftists out there are realizing that they have been worshiping a false messiah. I have "hope" that this trend will continue as his term goes on... and so does my mom!
~Andrea from PIUS
I want to make it as clear as possible that this is not about Obama's supposed messianism. I don't know anyone who idolizes Obama, or thought that he would lead us to a new and golden age.
He made promises that he has failed to deliver on. This makes sense in a theological context, but that does not make him a savior, only a run-of-the-mill politician.
I never cease to be amazed at friends and colleagues who are now voicing their "disappointment" at Brand Obama's concessions to opponents of reform. What were you all expecting? Obama is part of the System, not an "agent of change," as the new buzz-phrase has it. "Down in the mud" with the likes of Rahm Emmanuel? Obama already was in the mud with the likes of Rahm Emmanuel. Why else would he have chosen him to be his chief of staff? Why else would he have chosen the likes of Summmers, Geithner, Gates, Clinton, etc., to be in his cabinet? By their appointments ye shall know them.
And all of that's not to mention his continuation of Bush's policy in Afghanistan. I read this morning that there's a "healthy debate" going on in the White House about how many more troops to send there. It's not "healthy," of course, for the soldiers and civilians whose blood Obama will have on his hands. More change we can't believe in.
And exactly who, Dan, is "we" in "we are hungry for change"? "We" are as divided as can be about what "change" means. Even the Tea-baggers want "change they can believe in," Dan. "Change" is just the newest advertising slogan for the same old corporate politics. Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss.
Well, here we are, seven months into Obama's four-year term, and we're already declaring it dead. The left are declaring their hopes to be dashed and preparing to retreat to their caves for another 40 years of wandering in the wilderness - because maybe, just maybe, being in power is frightening and unknown (after 40 years of conservative rule) and wit would rather go back to what's known and comfortable. Obama needs to lead more, yes, but Congressional Democrats also need to govern: work out a compromise with each other and get substantial reform passed this fall, so people can see it and feel it within a years' time. That's the best re-election strategy.
I have a lot of hope for everything that President Obama is going to accomplish. He is doing his best. I never thought that was the case with Bush. President Obama is up against the same hate and evil that President Clinton faced for all eight years. Republicans have not given President Obama even one day's worth of lets see if he is going to do a good job to help America. What he is doing is pulling the economy out of free fall. He has restarted the sell of cars/trucks. He is also working very hard to get Health Care Reform passed. I have a lot of hope for my President. I voted for him and I will support him and fight the liars who lie about him and hate him for no reason at all. I will be on his side because he is on my side. There are the rich tea partyers who don't pay their fair share of taxes but are republicans who will shout and yell against the policies that benefit other Americans less fortunate who deserve fair taxing as well. Then there are people who are full of misinformation and hateful lies about the president and will be against their own best interests because they are just too determined to believe lies. Most of us are backing President Obama because the country depends on him getting things right.
President Bush did his best too. They are just working for different people. As President Bush said near the beginning of his term, his base is the haves and the have mores. One thing I have to disagree with you on, the tea partyers are not rich. It is a strong testament to the success of the Bush administration when those who are not rich are so passionate about doing all they can to help the rich get richer at their own expense.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.