Skip to main content

The Audacity Of Hope: Prologue

I have always wanted to read this book. I have a complicated relationship with President Obama. As many of you may know, I cast my vote for him in 2008. I remember the speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 that launched him as a political superstar. Two years later, at a march on Washington to bring the nation's attention to genocide around the world, I heard Obama speak. I predicted after that speech that he would be our president. We will always be at a variance over abortion and other moral issues, such as the meaning of marriage, and increasingly, religious freedom. My disagreement with President Obama has never been personal. Indeed, I could say in some sense that I like President Obama. I've been at times very critical, and even downright mad, but I feel differently on that level than most people.

It might be my undergraduate training in political science. Politics in America is like a brotherhood; when the sides aren't fighting, most folks have a deep respect for the other, an awareness of the hardships of trying to succeed. And there is a built-in institutionalism to the study of politics. It pushes one away from the extremes, even as great passion has pushed one into politics in the first place.

What we see today is, as many have called it, an anti-politics, a fury with the political class that is reflected in the campaign we're seeing now. In this way, I consider myself very much a creature of our institutions, and proud of that fact. Anger that doesn't issue forth in ideas is just anger, and as I've said before, I don't feel an obligation to respond to it, or respect it.

One specific line in the prologue caught my attention. Obama writes, "I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." I have seen this line--without the bit about being new on the scene--used several times on right-wing internet sites, to push the idea that Obama was some sort of Manchurian candidate. He goes on to say that he knows he's bound to disappoint some of those people, if not all of them, and he hopes to retain the center of his philosophy, even as he advances. By all means, disagree with any or all of that philosophy. I must say, however, that I am ashamed at the extent of the twisting and deception by his opponents. I wonder to what extent I have fallen for those distortions these roughly 8 years?

Fair to say that if you hate Obama, this series of posts may not be to your taste. I want to know what I missed, in the time of being too undisciplined to really listen.

On another note, I remain deeply thankful that two young African-American girls (now young women) think that their father being president is perfectly normal. Because now it is. And we'll be unable to calculate how valuable that is, to generations we have yet to meet.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar