In the recent post Politic and Pessimism I wrote, “unless something happens that is interesting enough to compel me to write, … this and one following short post will probably be the last things I say on [presidential politics] this year.”

Well I guess something interesting enough happened after all (although it has taken me many weeks to finish writing about it). I had the opportunity to see Barack Obama speak about a month ago here in Birmingham to a crowd of about 11,000 people at my school, UAB. And I must say, even for a borderline cynic like me, it was quite moving.

There was, of course, the ever-present motif of “change” – which I criticized so much before – in both the rhetoric and the banners surrounding him on all sides. And in his speech he pointed out that, while now practically everyone is talking about the need for change and running on such a platform, his campaign has been about that from the beginning. Indeed, I was reminded of seeing him for the first time on the Tonight Show what must have been over a year ago and hearing him talk about that very thing, how there was the need for “new blood” in the White House; and even then, just as now, he spoke a message of unity, declaring that the majority of the American people don’t really fall into the sharp, bitter dividing lines of Red state / Blue state, Democrat / Republican or Conservative / Liberal; you know, the whole thing about instead of being a bunch of sharply blue and red states, the nation is mixed more into a purplish hue. On the most basic level those sentiments had made him instantly appealing to me, and after seeing him speak in person now, there is no doubting he gains even more appeal by being a wonderful, confident and infectious orator.

The primary reason I have chosen to write about the event is to share some of the surprising and unexpected feelings I had during it. For perhaps the first time, I felt like I really understood why people become drawn to a leader figure and how that figure can point them to purpose and meaning and, in the case of Obama, “hope.” Obama definitely has that ability to make one feel hopeful and proud to be an “American” here and now in a way that is inclusive and not in any way aggressively nationalistic and / or xenophobic. When it comes to this facet of Obama’s speaking ability, Ezra Klein might have said it best when he wrote,

Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.

I think Obama understands this and regularly insists his campaign is about much more than him. And I think a lot of his popularity has more to do with that than any individual policies per se. It may just have a lot to do with the way he makes people feel. Sure, electing presidents has something to do with policies, platforms and ideals, but I think, in the end, it can be much more about personality and how a candidate resonates with the people and makes them feel about themselves and the direction of their nation.

Even so, it was through seeing this and through the content of his speech that I came to realize what I now think much of the big fuss over Obama and Huckabee winning in Iowa was all about; namely, it occurred to me that these men (but especially Obama) – at the very least – seem to point to a move in this country towards more populism, power that is for the people and a full-blown belief that a large government can be effectively guided away from corruption and toward the betterment of its people. And, in many ways, to hear Obama speak of it, it sounds great. It produces grand images of a wonderful blending of an ideal of government that actually tries to work well for the people and an active, civically engaged people who are proud of their country and encouraged about their place and involvement in society.

Of course, within that comes questions like can such a government really be controlled and directed in a healthy manner; what about all the corruption and waste and taxation and spending issues of our system? Obama speaks of ideal scenarios like standing up to and shutting out special interest groups and lobbyists that seem to dominate the system and points out some reasonable ways to pay for things, for example, but some don’t quite satisfy. For instance, he speaks of all the money spent on the unnecessary Iraq War that could have been spent here at home, but that money was really only dug up because of the war in the first place right? I for one would like to hear more discussion of ways to direct funds to the most pressing issues while truly cutting back on the massive waste (I guess where eliminating special interests comes in for Obama) instead of the talk of either calling up money out of thin air or cutting the funds from a huge project only to dramatically add funds to another (often disguised in the form of budget reductions as in President Bush’s SOTU speech). I would also like to hear a message of solving problems that is much more tempered by not letting the people off so easy in their own choices. To his credit, Obama somewhat did this while talking about strengthening the Department of Education in also reminding parents that they have the personal and weighty responsibility, first and foremost, to parent.

I would love to hear more talk like that, which reminds people of the responsibility and impact they have for and in their own families and communities. But talk of personal responsibility seems a difficult matter in our political debate because it implies standing on an either / or political ideology, either government or not government; government social responsibility or individual responsibility.

Though nothing is just that simple, and we have always been a nation of complications, contradictions and small, painful steps around them, we still love to talk in extremes. So, on the one hand, there are those that put more expectation on government than perhaps they should, and on the other there are those that say big government is really the source of our problems and must be largely stripped away. Looking beyond the fact that many do not agree with the latter view (and I think, in many ways, for some arguably good historical reason or at least as a result of the way things have played out in our history), even if limited government in the extreme could be said to be the most desirable outcome it is important to see that the majority of the American people are simply not ready for such a change nor such an extreme.

That brings me to something else Obama said in his speech. He said he believes “change in America comes from the bottom up”, that is, “change doesn’t come in America unless the American people are ready for it.” This was one of the most hopeful points in his speech because of the implication (especially with reference to the historical context of events like the Civil Rights Movement) that it is really the people who have the power to demand changes in the system if they are united and want to see them badly enough. It is an inspiring and ideal democratic notion, but of course it also seems to potentially reinforce the idea that people must ultimately go through government to see their hopes and needs met which will always be a source of argument in our politics.

But all of that arguing I refer to is just talk that really amounts to nothing. People go back and forth and on and on as if the president is going to be the one to achieve just what is needed or the one to destroy the country. But what we have is a complicated and complex mess that has many causes and many players. It is full of unforeseen changes, shifts and unintended consequences, and we all really need to show much more humility and understanding for why we are what we are and a realization of the part we all have played in what we have become and what part we can play in making change. It is very probable there are many areas in which we would do much better with less government and more personal / private control and responsibility, but it is also possible that there are many areas that are just too big and are fit for the influence or the intervention of government, at least in our present state.

Ideally, we should work together in our communities to determine which route might be best for each given area. Those that wish to see more control put into the hands and more money left in the pockets of the people probably will do best to be as active as they can be in their cities and communities, taking hold of those things they can control or impact and help others address local problems in creative ways to help them see if and how they can take more control of their lives and communities. If we can do that, then perhaps Obama’s belief of the people’s role in change reveals the best method to achieve it. If the people can truly come together in community, consistently looking for solutions to determine what is really possible and what is required, then they will be able to clearly see how they can be best served or serve themselves given their area’s makeup. Then, together they can stand up with a clear voice for the change they wish to see after they have united around causes for community instead of being separated by dominant individualism.

I know all of that is so much easier said than done, and that is part of the point. As it is the bulk of the people either do not really desire an extremely limited government or are not ready for the responsibilities that would entail. Whatever benefits we might see from a more limited government would likely be counteracted by negative consequences to our structure surrounded by a people that are largely not vigilant, active, nor concerned enough to currently make it work.

When I was growing up there was a verse in one of Jesus’ parables my parents loved to recite to me regarding the granting of privileges: “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.” Granted, this statement could really be applied to our government, and, we could say that we the people have entrusted government with many functions it has not proved to be trustworthy with. Some may think it ideal and proper, then, to take away many of the government’s “privileges”, but now that it controls those functions, and considering all the reasons it does, it is not a simple task at all to transfer the trust or know in what areas we can. As it is, perhaps first, people must step up and prove themselves trustworthy and responsible in the simple areas they influence the most – that is, their families, their communities, their neighborhoods and workplaces, their local governments and civic organizations, et cetera – before they might expect or demand to be trusted with larger issues affecting the nation. As Obama said, regardless of the state of national education, parents, in the first place, have to be parents in a healthy and responsible sense. My point, in other words, is – for one example – if we can somehow loosely define what this responsibility entails, and if all parents are not doing it, how can the people be trusted fully with the private education of our youth everywhere – or with many other desired functions – regardless of how poor the present state may be?