Why I Can't Support Obama

Maybe it comes down to this: I can't think of any leader I've ever admired who aimed to convince people that he alone could fulfill their hopes.

I’ve asked myself repeatedly if the intensity of my resistance to Obama is due to subliminal racism or just a perverse desire not to "follow the crowd." But my concerns just keep growing along with his support base. The primary reason is that from the beginning, those growing crowds have seemed so willing to accept his persuasion without proof. The suspension of critical thought is never a good sign, but coming right on the heels of all the bitter lessons we’ve learned about the danger of powerful rhetoric the last few years, it suggested that right now we're willing to simply ricochet from one type of emotional manipulation to another. And no one who seeks to lead should encourage that.

So, if Obama is not a huckster, why is he acting like one? Why does he continue to use emotionally resonant slogans that say nothing? And more importantly, why does he insist upon maintaining the focus on himself, rather than on his policies?

It’s hard to charge him with intentionally manipulative rhetoric, but he blurs a very fine line, very well. He loves to cull inspiration from America ’s great activist movements -- for example, when he says, “Nothing in this country worthwhile has ever happened except when somebody somewhere was willing to hope.” But think about it. Those movements did not happen because someone was willing to hope. They happened because people risked and sacrificed when there was no reason for hope at all.

Or the line that's so often admiringly repeated: “There’s no such thing as false hope.” That’s just silly. Of course there’s such a thing. It’s been around at least since a snake in a garden asked Adam and Eve to give him a little of their trust for a whole lotta’ rewards. But of course the line succeeds, because it sounds so profound.

Does it matter that by blurring the fine points, Obama is turning the word “hope” -- and ultimately hope itself -- into a brand as empty of meaning as Bush’s “patriotism” or “war on terror”? Maybe for most of us, it actually doesn’t. For those of us who are relatively comfortable and just want to stop feeling angry and guilty, the more symbolic the change, the better; then it won't cost us anything. But for those who desperately need real change, the intention, the degree of realness, behind the words matters a lot. If I were one of those people, I think I’d be sick to death of swaying crowds chanting “we can” and looking so proud of themselves while doing it. I think I’d rather those crowds ask probing questions and demand clear answers at every opportunity -- just on the off-chance that real change might be possible even for my life.

How differently I would feel if Obama were simply relying on his intelligence and thoughtful policy positions rather than on sweeping people away. That he has chosen this style for an entire campaign to me indicates a big lack of judgment, or hubris, or maybe that he’s fallen a bit too much in love with himself. (As one blogger put it, his campaign isn’t just self-referential, it’s self-reverential.) Or a savvy recognition that people are more easily manipulated by emotion than policy choices, and a willingness to take advantage of that. (Please don't give me the excuse that he "has to" in order to win and do great deeds. The end doesn't justify the means in this instance, either.)

Or maybe it indicates a lack of seasoning: Not the seasoning of vast political experience necessarily, but whatever creates the seasoning that would instill a deep, fearful awe in a person who wants to make himself responsible for the hopes, dreams, and lives of 300 million people and the great part of the world that is influenced by America's acts. It bothers me that I have never seen in Obama any trace of that awe -- just a cocksure attitude that suggests his confidence can handle anything. I believe some of his policies are good and could be helpful, but awe would definitely be helpful, as would the humility that comes from discovering you can’t do everything simply because you're confident. He is offering us “happily ever after," and meanwhile the real legacy of the Bush years is epitomized for me by the image of the innocent Afghan prisoner Dilawar hanging from a ceiling with his legs beaten to a pulp, and his sisters' pilgrimage to retrieve his body and beg for assurance that their brother had not suffered. No amount of confidence can heal that atrocity or so many others generated by the Bush years. But the realization that some things cannot be healed, and the willingness to say so, is a start.

But more than Obama's speech style, the evidence to me that some form of hucksterism is going on is in the emotionality of Obama's supporters. That some of our best writers and thinkers would compare the "movement" recently arising from Obama's year-old campaign to the untold hardship, patience and sacrifice of the civil rights movement, for example, really makes no sense, but the emotion of the writers who are saying it seems quite real. I think perhaps Obama has an ability to tap into his listeners' deepest dreams, especially long-lost dreams, and somehow make those individuals believe that the dreams can be restored, no matter how tenuous or false the connection to his campaign. So the emotion for those people is powerful, though its source is unclear.

Then there is the extreme negative emotion being directed by Obama's supporters at anyone who is not with them. Just a few months ago, Dems, liberals and progressives were exuberant that we had so many excellent candidates, any of whom, we agreed, would be light-years better than George Bush. Hillary Clinton has never been a progressive favorite, but there was acknowledgment that she is a brilliant, decent, if imperfect candidate. Now that has changed to truly vicious vilification of her and of anyone so “unpatriotic” as to support her. Why is this happening? Is their belief in their candidate actually so thin that it's necessary for Obama's supporters to turn the opposition into a monster? Or is the reason that Obama's message actually is not “we can,” but “we can’t”-- not without him. That distinction is a warning sign so big it should be the topic of discussion all over the liberal blogsphere, but it’s not.

This blurring of the distinction between Obama's capacity to be an agent for change and his presentation of himself as the only possible agent for change is enormously dangerous. Wanting to believe in something is very different from needing to believe it so much that the believer, in effect, doesn’t claim his power, but surrenders it. We are, after all, truly the change we seek. We always have been, always will be, and we don't need anyone to tell us. But in using such an emotional pitch, Obama is creating a situation where half the country has been led to believe that if he does not win, they have been deprived of their only opportunity for change.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton says, "We'll be fine." It’s not a line that will make the strong faint, but it puts the focus where it belongs. And when she says it, I believe her.

Despite all this, I am serious when I say that I would love to support Obama. Any day that he decides to start treating the voters with genuine respect, I'm there. But I actually harbor the wish that Hillary and he would join up (Hillary as president, he as veep -- sorry, she is seasoned, and he is not). It would be excruciating to their egos, but good for them and us; and the balance of new and traditional ideas, grassroots and insider input contributed by two imperfect people who both, I believe, genuinely love this country, could be a real and powerful source of healing, without an ounce of snake oil.