You know I'm not prone to post about politics, but this is the most insightful thing I've read on the current crisis in our government, written by my friend Steve Garber* of the Washington Institute:
I try pretty hard to think about politics differently. Not for difference’s sake, but because I believe that the truest truths of the universe cut deeper than the partisan divide.
So sometimes I may look more conservative, and sometimes more liberal. But the terms themselves are deeply flawed, though I know thousands of millions of people pour themselves out in hope that they are absolutely and completely right about the way things ought to be politically, sure that being a “liberal” or a “conservative” answers all the important questions. I don’t mean this with a hard edge, but it just doesn’t seem that easy to me.
So, where am I going?
Reading the world the last few weeks, especially the political world of Washington, I have thought again and again of my ponderings five years ago when Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton were battling it out for the Democratic nomination. His vision intrigued me, and he was so charismatic and so eloquent. But he had never been a serious politician; in fact those most close to him in Illinois and on Capitol Hill mostly saw his ambition. He didn’t seem to really like politics at all, and often didn’t seem to like people either. He did like to campaign, and he was brilliant at it. And then he won, and another battle began, which he won again; by mid-September, for the first time in my life, we knew who would be president. The election was over, two months early. Unprecedented.
I thought then, as I still do, that Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” was the most prescient reading of what happened that fall. Written 25 years earlier, in the middle of the Reagan years, he was not writing about Barack Obama; in fact Postman died long before that election. But what he saw about us as a people was deeply true, and it was profoundly written into what did happen. We wanted a pop star for president; we required an icon to lead us.
And Obama allowed himself to be that. Remember the iconic poster, Obama so very artfully and dramatically pictured with the word, “Hope”? And then incredibly he actually did say that the cosmos would be healed, with his presidency. He really did. All the hurts and wounds of previous years and administrations would be redeemed, with the advent of his administration. If we had ears to hear, we would have wondered….
But it is now four years later, and it is not so easy to be president after all. And in the spring of 2013 Barack Obama is in trouble. God alone knows where it will go. I have no idea. But when the critics become more than Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, and the BBC U.S. editor weighs in, and CNN’s political editor adds her critique, and the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank who is predictably partisan in defense of the political left keeps pressing the story, you know that something has changed.
For me, one of the most damaging faces of the stories over the last weeks has been watching what it means for the twenty-somethings of the world, of America in particular. I know that I winced five years ago, watching as I was, loving them as I have and do, knowing that their eagerness and zeal for Obama could not be sustained, that his willingness to be adored would not be good for him, or the nation—especially the younger ones among us. Over time, they would become cynical, now knowing what they would come to know.
And now they know, and that is what we are seeing.
This morning I read an essay in the Daily Beast; yes, it is actually named that. You can imagine their perspective on life and the world. “How Hope and Change Came to Spying on Our Press” is the headline. If we care, we sigh--and we groan.
*Steve Garber was my InterVarsity Christian Fellowship staffer when I was in college.