Opinion

Candidates not political saviors

Veiled in eloquent expressions of "change," "vision" and these incredibly vague, but somehow moving, declarations of "hope," the true draw of Sen. Barack Obama hadn't hit me until yesterday. Sure, he seems to have a silver tongue that could sooth even the most cynical of observers and a heavy-handed optimism that saturates the faithful's dreams. Yet, we've seen this before. President John F. Kennedy brought this sort of energetic enthusiasm to the forefront, so why should today be any different?

The answer became obvious when I heard that at least three people fainted during Mr. Obama's visit. The blind devotion, the non-stop campaigning and repetition of a religious rhetoric, all finally made sense. Students aren't looking for a president, they're looking for a savior. For the progressive secular masses of Madison, Mr. Obama is their personal Jesus.

The question becomes, why Mr. Obama? The answer has nothing to do with his policies: He shares most of the same stances as frontrunners Hillary Clinton and John Edwards — with the major exception of his foreign policy, which actually makes him sound more comfortable with militarism than his Democratic colleagues.

His devotional following comes from his personal perfection — he's the closest atheists and secular-minded voters will ever come to accepting a man-god. His speech is refined, and his demeanor is the perfect balance between forceful demands and casual acceptance. He may not speak in parables like Jesus, but with such a grand vision that told through condemnations of President Bush and occasional anecdotes, he may as well speak in metaphors. With someone who is both a purely refined model for personal achievement and a blank slate onto which Americans project their dreams, every piece of optimistic idealism that resides in the student political soul soars at the idea of "The Obama."

Now, it becomes obvious why both student youth and Christians ran to the ballots in increased numbers the last two presidential elections. Just as those who heard the extended sermon from Mr. Obama were ready to place their complete faith and trust in him to transform this country, so were evangelical Christians ready to accept President Bush as the "Alpha and Omega" of America's political destiny. If you don't believe that, watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" and then explain how blind faith in one man isn't part of the equation.

What's distressing about this trend in embracing charismatic leadership as a godsend is that it places emphasis for real world change on utopian ideals. We see all sides becoming more involved in the political process, touting their candidates and prodding those passers-by on the street to do the same. However, this is not the sort of idealistic fervor that forces leadership to surrender control of their posts to a determined citizenry. That sort of idealism is possible, but it's completely separate from this standing army of students who are ready to sacrifice their grades and social lives for their preferred candidate.

The real reason for all of this worship is because the frustrated American wants this political messiah to single-handedly deliver us from evil, so to speak. The followers, particularly the Obama faithful, believe that placing their theoretical American savior on the throne will somehow absolve the country of its sins — be it Iraq, racism or a litany of other indiscretions. While voters may have separate ideas as to what's best for America, anything seems possible with a vague but charismatic prophet. All the talk of soaring rhetoric and spiritual terminology mirrors those who turn to god in their moments of desperation and weakness. Those who never abided by "the good lord will provide" theory of life have now turned to a single personality in hopes that, whatever the state of things, Mr. Obama will open the gates to a changed America.

He won't. Unless God happened to plan the second coming around a U.S. senator, his disciples are going to be in for a disappointment. Yes, in their own ways, all the candidates are extreme disappointments, but at least we know why they're disappointing. Mr. Obama has yet to unveil his "Great Society," "New Freedom" or even have a "read my lips" proclamation. The great thing about a hazy vision is that everyone sees what he or she wants to see. The bad thing is that when it comes into focus, many people may recoil in horror at what they've agreed to.

This isn't to say Mr. Obama is a fraud or that hope is a ruse. There is the chance that if elected, Mr. Obama may actually have some concrete ideas for a new tomorrow. However, that's no excuse for the general American public to take a leap of faith and cast aside its own political responsibility. The Campus Anti-war Network may be declared outcasts by those seeking such divine representation, but they have at least acknowledged the power of the masses to effect change. It may be far from effective, but at least they recognize the power of their own voice.

The only obstacle to reconciling national prophets with local heretics on the political plane is a lack of pragmatism. We can go on about hope, vision and wisdom until the end of time, but nothing will change until we apply this optimism to specific policy choices and articulate a way forward.

The day that Mr. Obama replaces "hope" with "comprehensive withdrawal strategy" is the day we may see that he is not the savior we envisioned, but the prodigal son we knew would eventually return America to its true path.

Jason Smathers ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism and history.

Have a thought? We welcome your input, but please be polite and stay on topic wherever possible. Your comment may be deleted if it is inappropriately off topic or promotional or if it is unnecessarily rude or contains personal attacks. We may delete comments for other reasons as well. Just keep it simple and focus on your points as respectfully as possible.

We allow and encourage comments employing satire, wit and irony to make points. Do not flag comments just because you disagree. Flagged comments will be immunized from further flagging unless they stray far from the guidelines and do not add to the discussion. Before flagging a comment you think is offensive, consider your time might be better spent rebutting it than censoring it.

blog comments powered by Disqus

11 older comments

user-pic

Terrible Jason. You told us that hope should be dismissed because Mr. Obama is hopeful. You told us that his policies are nearly equivalent to his Democratic counterparts, yet he shouldn’t be elected because of his policy shortcomings. Check out ya boy Granias’ blog post from yesterday. You’re another one of the “narcissistic, egotistical, stubborn” pricks ya boy talks about who is too afraid to believe in change. Yes people believe in Barack because they believe he represents change and hope for a failing America. But what is the alternative? The same policy promises without the hope? Without the change? Without a promise of honesty? If you want to talk pragmatism, you had damn well better realize that in all practical terms, America needs to shape the fuck up. And now. So logically, America is yearning to be lead by someone who promises and represents change. Stop. masquerading. behind. your. fake. intellectual. demeanor. Embrace change.

user-pic

“Students aren't looking for a president, they're looking for a savior.”

Jesus wasn’t the messiah the Jews were looking for either.

Why does the BH feel the need to bash Obama daily? Out of all the candidates, Obama seems to inspire us the most. The President won’t change America, the PEOPLE will change America.

The President is not our king. This is a county who desperately NEEDS to be inspired, in case you haven’t noticed.

Presidential candidates: Just inspire us, and we’ll do the rest.

user-pic

Very good Jason, and that first comment confirms everything you said. We can talk about “hope,” “believing,” “change” but those are but those just vail our true political hopelessness.

user-pic

The premise of your column is wrong; many like me who like Obama are with him because of where he’s at on the issues, not because of the sense of “hope.” It’s definitely an added bonus but it all comes back to the issues.

War, healthcare, equality for all people, making college affordable - these are all things on which Obama has a better record and a better vision.

You complain because of a lack of details, but you probably haven’t taken the time to actually read his proposals, either. If you want the details, find them. They are there.

For you to shortchange Obama in this way - and shortchange your fellow students for assuming they are merely following a “black Jesus leading heretics” is unfortunate, and shows that you’re allowing yourself to succumb to the same cynicism Obama rails against. Perhaps you should, instead of trying to find chinks in the armor and pick at them, listen to what he says and internalize it.

user-pic

What is the alternative? Dammit, there goes voting for Ron Paul ;)

user-pic

I agree, this is absolutely terrible. You talk about the negatives of utopian ideals, but I didn’t realize making America an arbiter of humanity was such a bad thing. My bad I guess.

You’re right that Obama will not “open the gates to a changed America,” but the movement and supporters he inspires can. Millions of people believe in his message of hope, and if you think millions of people can’t change America then you are sadly mistaken.

And who’s to say all the candidates are extreme disappointments? Except for those at the bottom of the pack, they all bring ideas with them that add to the discussion of making our country better. The same obviously can’t be said about you.

user-pic

good work, keep it up

user-pic

Jason, Good article, but I would have preferred to see a scathing attack on candidates flouting their religion for votes given the title. Organized religion has gotten so entertwined with campaign politics it makes me ill. While I agree there is a rather blind devotion to Barack Obama…is there not a beneficial trade off in merely attracting any significant number of people to any political campaign, although most political affiliations of the everyday man are simply blind devotion when serious care is not placed in one’s political decisions.

user-pic

So voting for Ron Paul it is.

user-pic

I would agree with you Jason… I was told by an officer of the Obama campaign to go to the rally because, “it will be the greatest memory of my five years here at Madison.” Then I found $5.

I skipped class, attended the rally, and have to say, it didn’t make my top 10 (or 20) moments.

I don’t know if that organization is blind, naive or star-struck, but I was at the 250,000 person Kerry rally in ‘04. The Boss and Foo Fighters, now that was a good time.

user-pic

It was 80,000 people, and that one was free and only a few days before the election.

And thanks for censoring my comment earlier Jason, good to know you can take criticism well.

Donate