Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
The two words have become, in the last week, buzzwords. They’ve becoming annoying, as many candidates start trying to insert them into every sentence they can, without knowing anything more than that doing so is what their campaign consultants tell them to do.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking, however, that these words mean nothing. In the election of 2008, hope and change have profound meaning.
The meaning of hope is best understood when it’s remembered that hope is not just some vapid, foggy notion of good things happening in the future. Hope is the opposite of fear.
Hope requires courage. An authentic message of hope is a signal to all who are brave enough to unbow their heads and heed it that there is no more need for cowering. Hope is the understanding that there is no need to “balance” freedom with security, because freedom is our security.
Hope is the idea that we have the power to turn our backs on fear and walk away from it.
Change means that things don’t always have to be the way that they have been. Change is the answer to those who say that we have to make choice between our ideals and our actions. Change is the argument against those who say that America just isn’t ready to do what’s right.
Change is the idea that prove ourselves ready to do what’s right by doing it, not by hoping that the time will be right some time later.
This week, there have been a lot of presidential candidates using the words “hope” and “change”, thinking that just by using those words, they will catch enough of the persuasive power of Barack Obama to have a chance of winning the New Hampshire primary.
Here’s where I get a hokey: I believe that there’s a difference between them and Barack Obama. I believe that Barack Obama understands what the concepts of hope and change mean, and understands why they are important, in a way that the other presidential candidates, with the possible exception of John Edwards, do not understand.
It’s more than just a little exasperating the way that many Americans are only now paying attention to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, only considering his candidacy when it became popular to do so. However, we here at Irregular Times have been following Barack Obama for years now.
I won’t speak for the other writers here, but here’s what I have concluded about Barack Obama: I think that he understands the historical moment in a way that the other candidates do not. I also think that, often, Barack Obama loses sight of that understanding. Sometimes, it’s quite clear that Barack Obama becomes distracted by the political moment, and forgets the significance of the historical moment. It’s then that he loses track, and betrays the promise of hope and change. Look around here at Irregular Times, and you’ll find my strong objections at the times when he has lost track in the past.
However, I am willing to cast my vote for Barack Obama. It’s not because I think that he’s a hero. It’s not that I think he will change things for us, or give us hope.
In fact, if Barack Obama could change things for us, or give us hope, I think he’d be the wrong choice. Democracy is not something that anyone can do for us.
Rather, I am willing to cast my vote for Barack Obama because I believe that he’s seen and comprehended an authentic vision of hope and change for America. Because of that, I believe that he’ll be more likely to listen to the side of America that is willing to say that we can do better, and that we no longer need to be afraid.
Barack Obama may, like many successful politicians, become arrogant. It then becomes our duty to speak loudly against his arrogance. In fact, even as Barack Obama surges toward the Democratic nomination, it is our duty to remind voters of Obama’s shortcomings, as well as his assets.
In doing so, if he is willing to listen, we will help Barack Obama gain political strength, by keeping him close to the course of his motivating vision.
If I’m wrong, and Obama is not willing to listen, then he isn’t worthy of the presidency, and our criticism will have the merit of preventing his corrupted influence on the government.
I’ve said that I am willing to cast a vote for Barack Obama, but I am not committed to doing so. In America, we should not so much elect presidents as hold them on a leash.
That goes for Barack Obama as much as anyone else.
(151 votes, average: 2.97 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
72 queries. 0.876 seconds
Top Article Last Week
January 8th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Psst. When I’m talking about change here, one of the dimensions I’m talking about is the ability to leave behind this outdated talk that Hillary Clinton can’t win because she’s a woman or Barack Obama can’t win because he’s not purely European-American.
People who make these arguments can’t understand the concept of change in 2008 because they’re still stuck in the 1900s. Most of America has moved on past that nonsense, and is evaluating Obama and Clinton on their merits.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Psst. Or, it could be that Barack Obama won’t win.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Is change supposed to mean a change from Bush policies? If so that means Clinton–if you assume all Clinton policies are the same–would be a return to paying down the national debt and economic prosperity.
Or does it mean a change from both Bush AND Clinton policies? In favor of what?
I suspect a lot of the change talk has to do with generations. The same with the talk about Hillary having a “witch face”. Those are wrinkles baby, and if you live long enough you’ll get them too. Hillary is older than I am, but she looks much more well preserved. “Change” really means “why don’t you boomers hurry up and die and get out of our way”.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
No, it’s bigger than that. It includes change from those people who call themselves “progressives” but say that no one with any African ancestry can be President.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:44 am
So you want to vote for someone just because they’re black? I’ll give you a hint. You say, “Barack Obama may, like many successful politicians, become arrogant. It then becomes our duty to speak loudly against his arrogance.” In this country you can’t criticize black people. If you do, you’re a racist.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Looks like you’ve stopped being coy and finally made an endorsement.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Iroquois, that is so lame, and untrue. What you can’t do is say that you can’t criticize black people without being a racist, without being a racist. You’re really living in the past on this issue.
Hillary Clinton has criticized Barack Obama plenty, and almost everyone but a few out-of-date kooks understand that it’s not racist.
And J. Clifford has not endorsed Barack Obama. He’s endorsed some central ideas of the campaign, and explicitly not committed to Obama.
J. Clifford never said that he wants you to vote for Obama because he’s black. Are especially tired and bleary eyed, or missing your reading glasses?
January 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
What a snark. If “Frank Liberal” has to resort to personal attacks, he must not have a reasonable response.
So, you can’t criticize black people without being a racist. And you can’t even sayyou can’t say you can’t criticize black people without being a racist. That’s sort of like ‘you can’t say the emperor has no clothes and you can’t even say you can’t say the emperor has no clothes’. No wonder the Clinton campaign says the press treats Obama with velvet gloves.
If you think jcliffrod isn’t endorsing Obama, look again, Frank. Do a ‘find on this page’ for “I am willing to cast my vote for Barack Obama”. He says it three times.
I bet he is willing to cast his vote for Ralph Nader too.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Did you ever stop to think as a black man he has to be extra careful not to offend the media? jclifford is giving his opinion - and it is exactly that an opinion - if you don’t agree with him don’t vote for Obama - simple as that.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I don’t believe in “hope” and “change” I think it’s a bunch of hooey.
The Irregular Times writers spend a lot of energy making fun of people who can’t prove any religious kind of stuff they believe in, yet they take this “hope and change” invisible political vision smoke-and-mirrors stuff and swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Where is this hope and change stuff? It’s supposed to be the absence of fear? Where is the fear? I don’t look out of my window and see people quivering away. I’m sorry, but people here are just slogging away one paycheck at a time. They’re not cowering at all. They’re not seething away with any kind of emotions.
Prove to me that all this hope and change and fear stuff really exists.