In all seriousness, it goes without saying that the election of Barack Obama was a tremendously powerful and important moment. Indeed, it would be difficult to overstate that. I would like to think we can all put aside our differences for a little while and revel in the beautiful historical significance of the moment.

But of course, just how great the election was necessarily depends on one’s political and social views. I have to say here that those who might be still freaking out and worrying about a President Obama need to a) take a break from AM radio, b) get a little perspective, and c) just chill out. But then on the other end of the spectrum, there is the danger of people now sitting back to relax with their hopes and expectations up too high, thus missing what is really potentially important about this point in time.

On that note, the eminently sensible blogger, Ed Brayton, thoughtfully weighed in on the election of Obama with celebratory words as well as cautious and wisely forward-thinking words such as these:

Barack Obama has stepped into the breach at a crucial moment in history. If the hope and change that he spoke so eloquently about during his campaign is ever to be more than an empty promise, he must turn that talk into action. The opportunity is immense; so is the risk of disappointment.

But he is not the only one that bears responsibility for making such promises a reality. All of us must remain vigilant and engaged. We cannot continue to view politics as a spectator sport, nor can we lapse into thinking that now that a change has been made in our leadership, all our problems will be solved. We must hold the new president’s feet to the fire on all of these issues and more. It is not too dramatic to say that the future of the nation and the world depends not only on our new president, but on us as well.

I think Ed really nails it there. And it ties in with the concluding points in my last post. As ever, It would be a major mistake to just sit back and expect good (or bad) things to flow down from the top now. And, really, this is a big reason to see hope in the election of Barack Obama. Encouraging us to get away from that was, in large part, what his campaign was all about. Of all the great things he said in his moving victory speech, this stood out to me as the most promising and rhetorically empowering:

I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years – block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.

What Obama speaks of represents the healthy swinging of the pendulum away from apathy, from thinking of “the government” as an entity separate from ourselves, and from resigning to a state of more or less bad government, and toward instead a renewed acceptance of our role as We the People, and that we are the “Public” of the public sphere; that the government is ours; indeed, We are the government, and that means we all have ownership in this nation and are invested in each other. As idealistic as that all may sound, I ask you to deeply consider whether there is a direct connection between how far we have come from really believing that and the mess that is now all around us, seemingly out of our control.

I daresay Obama’s right wing opponents have simply failed to understand this at all. Indeed, they have been part of the ideological problem in the divorcing of government from the people. They seem to only want leaders that will, as much as possible, keep government away from them while also protecting them from undesirable outside forces, whether foreign and domestic. They are then blind to the hand they have in fostering a corrupted, unaccountable, and unresponsive government, while they then turn around and point to those attributes as a proof of the supposedly natural evils of government.

They also seem willfully blind to Obama’s ability to mobilize and inspire people to engagement and collective action for the sake of common goals. Perhaps this is because they don’t believe in that, but rather see in it only “loss of liberty” and calls for “evil socialism” – i.e., a burst to their insulated, individualist bubbles. As a result, they think the only kind of people Obama could possibly appeal to are ne’er-do-wells who don’t want to be responsible for themselves but simply want “the government to take care of them.” Maybe there are some people out there who truly think like that, but that is clearly not what Obama has tried to cultivate, and to suggest so reveals a severe misunderstanding – or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation – of the political vision he inspires.

For a comparison, let’s just generally consider the leadership of the last 8 years shall we? We have had a president that certainly fails to inspire, we rarely see, are generally mentally better off not hearing, and whom I cannot remember asking much of anything of us except to keep shopping. Yet, he has led the country into two wars and done little if anything to seek the people’s approval, unite them around the cause, or inspire civilian involvement, service, or sacrifice of any kind. He came in to office under the banner of smaller government, yet government only got bigger and, with the help of his leadership, more disconnected from the people.

Consider McCain and Palin during the campaign as well. They certainly adopted some populist language about government working for the people, but again, the people seemed to be largely relegated to the outside as affected observers in comparison to Obama’s language. And in the debate, when Palin was supposedly speaking for the people, what did she say? She said, the people are saying, “Government, get out of our way!” So much for government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” eh?

What Palin said is reminiscent of what Ronald Reagan said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” In contrast, Obama is saying something more like, “This is your government and your nation which you chose me to lead. Help me lead it.” In effect, it’s like saying, “Help me help you, and let’s fill the gaps by helping each other in the process.” Well by-golly, I don’t know about you, but I say we take him up on that.