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

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

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...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...