Views » January 23, 2009 » Web Only

The Difference Between Hope and Change

By David Sirota

A confession: I occasionally cry during romantic movies and History Channel documentaries. Another confession: I often pretend that I’m coughing or clearing my throat in order to obscure said crying from friends and family. But watching the presidential inauguration, I — like millions of Americans — lost the ability to hide a public case of ocular Niagara Falls.

History undoubtedly spurred some of our national outpouring this week. A black man being sworn in to lead a country built on slavery, segregation and persistent racism is an unfathomable landmark.

There were also tears of prospective jubilation. Hearing a new president deliver a Rooseveltian “we’re all in this together” speech instead of a Reagan-esque “every man for himself”•diatribe implied the closure of an entire political era. In that sense, the moment felt like the first day of the rest of America’s life.

Transcending our past and beginning a new future — these are heady undertakings whose complexity and uncertainty explains the apprehension many sensed rumbling beneath their inaugural elation. Though presidential festivities and media superlatives tried to numb any feeling other than happiness, it’s only natural to experience a twinge of anxiety while celebrating at the edge of an abyss.

America is certainly optimistic that Obama will take bold action. But with failed get-rich-quick schemes now bleeding risk into every corner of the economy, it’s hard to feel like rescue is even possible. Indeed, with so many of the same people still calling the shots on Wall Street and in Washington, speeches about American resilience can seem like hospice anesthesia rather than promising reasons to hang on for a cure.

While rightfully commemorating Obama’s victory as a step toward Martin Luther King’s dream, African-Americans also wonder about new polls showing the country thinks racism isn’t a problem anymore. Black leaders fear that Obama’s ascent could be used as another excuse to ignore rampant inequalities. As Dr. King’s son warned: “Obama’s election is not a panacea for race relations in this country.” Can White America accept that truism?

Thinking about future generations, parents and youth fret about whether our government — even led by a forward thinker — can muster the will to fight climate change. Is spaceship Earth the Apollo 13, headed for a miraculous recovery? Or are we on the Challenger, destined for a deadly explosion?

These are only a few of what Donald Rumsfeld might call “known unknowns” — and the most opaque of them is Obama himself.

Cut through the meaningless platitudes describing our new president as a post-partisan, post-racial pragmatist, and you find a brilliant leader who organized us around optimism. Then consider that leader’s behavior since the election, and you run into that nagging speck of doubt. His less-than-inspiring Cabinet appointments, his support of Bush’s Wall Street bailout, his embrace of nonsensical corporate tax cuts — these moves raise questions about whether Obama is willing to differentiate between his two campaign themes: hope and change.

While both those things have lately been in short supply, the distance between them on policy is the gulf separating ambition and realization. Hope is a bill peppered with “may” — the word that merely asks banks or polluters to regulate themselves. Change is a statute teeming with “shall” — a term forcing its targets to comply. Hope is telegenic glamour, winning smiles, and poignant one-liners. Change is all the grinding work and uncomfortable confrontations that come with challenging power and enacting transformative laws.

The reason so many cried this week is because we can finally glimpse that change in the distance. And yet, those pangs of concern linger. They don’t undermine the euphoria or diminish Obama’s promise. But they do recognize that we worry about hope’s mirage — and pray there are no illusions this time.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I didn’t cry, but just acknowledged that “things could be worse.”

  I was encouraged early in the campaign, when Obama strongly criticized the old “trickle down economics.” This has been a disastrous strategy for the poor -to-middle classes.  Then, within a couple weeks of the election, Obama “clarified” that his social agenda for the poor consists of ... you guessed it, “trickle down economics.”

  It makes sense, in a hopeless sort of way.  A whole generation has been born and reached adulthood since the Reagan years, when the campaign to raid public welfare funds began in earnest.  This generation has had it drummed into their heads that unemployment equals deviance, and that the poor are a subspecies.  We live in an era when there is no outrage about those small back-page items of “homeless man found beaten to death.”  Insanely, we even refer to being destitute as a “lifestyle choice”!

  We’ve embraced a social philosophy very much like that of the Nazi era—the sole worth of a human is determined by his employment. Those who can’t work, or for whom there are no jobs at this time,  are something less than human, mere parasites.  No way do we see a connection between those revered international human rights protections and America’s
  treatment of its poor.

  And this isn’t going to change under Obama, and that makes me feel like crying.

  Posted by dhfabian on Feb 15, 2009 at 1:44 AM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by David Sirota

• Intelligentsia Against Intelligence
  In the parlance of our times, the term "Idiocracy" means a nation run… morePosted on November 20, 2009
• Where Are the Real Deficit Hawks?
  Let's say you're a congressperson or tea party leader looking to champion deficit… morePosted on November 14, 2009
• We Are What We Trade and How We Trade It
  Trade and globalization--when not referencing blockbuster sports transactions or raucous street protests, debates… morePosted on November 7, 2009
• TARP on Steroids
  I recall that September day like it was yesterday--the explosion so stunning, so… morePosted on October 31, 2009
• A Party With No Punch
  Three parables for progressives and the Grand Old (Democratic) Party. Posted on October 26, 2009