Power is a corrupting force. And politics – a process in which power is acquired – is no exception. So when I see power being amassed, even for good, I wince. To me, politics should always be engaged with a critical eye. And I say this not as a cynic but as someone who believes in politics.
So it is interesting for me to see people so willingly give up power. One of the ways that I think power is given up is by engaging politics emotionally. And on the inauguration of Barack Obama I found it ironic to see people willingly give themselves up to a man who’s key message is of the dangers of the blind and irrational in politics.
But that is the nature of power. Power requires people to put down their guards and follow. To trust that they will not be marched off a cliff. This is an awesome tool and, I acknowledge, one that is required to accomplish great things. Humans are social creatures and in order for us to work together we must be coordinated. Skyscrapers, cities, republics and empires are envisioned by leaders and dutifully executed by the people. Nothing would ever be accomplished if every order was questioned by every person. On certain occasions we need the collective to act as one. But group-think is also responsible for the worst of humanity; ranging from riots, nationalism and stampedes at Wal-Mart.
So we should take no comfort knowing that Leaders have often used this power to send men off to die in distant lands for issues unrelated to them.
But the times are different and Obama will be a great leader, right? Well, I “believe”, but it is not whether or not we agree with the one at the helm that gives me pause. It’s simply seeing how power is so easily given up and amassed that puts me in awe; like seeing history play itself out in real time.
With that being said, I don’t think that all aspects of life should be engaged this critically. There are many things that I believe being part of the collective is great. For example, dancing is best experienced in a social environment and without thought. But politics is one of these areas in life that I think should always be engaged with a certain level of detachment. Politics is a process and it should remain as so. So when politics and emotions meet, that’s when we should be most cautious.
Marcus Gilroy-Ware 12:45 pm on January 23, 2009 Permalink
Eddie, I’m not sure it isn’t a bit unfair to say that people are “giving themselves up” to Barack Obama.
This election was very important to a lot of people for reasons that, even if we don’t want to get subjective, we can objectively say are historically significant. I admit there has been some serious some Kool-aid drinking going on, but we have to see it in context, and believe me it won’t last.
Also, technically speaking, since the USA never has public referendums, all presidents have the same executive power once they are elected.
Whether people love you or hate you doesn’t really affect what you can actually do – the definition of power, it’s just a sign of whether the public approve of what you’ve done so far.
You aren’t relinquishing power to Barack Obama, or to any other president by approving of him, or even dare I say it, being inspired by him. The moment you offer to relinquish power to him is when you vote for him or her, and that’s what democracy is all about – managing that transfer of power.
Once he or she is in office, whether you like him or hate him doesn’t involve any meaningful transfer of power, thankfully. Until the next time you have to vote, that is…
Eddie A. Tejeda 6:20 pm on January 24, 2009 Permalink
Marcus,
I acknowledge that we are living through a historical period, but we must also remember that the historical significance is within a political frame. In the terms of electing a black president, it’s a somber reminder that politics is just now accepting ideas that modern ethics have long resolved; in that race is an illegitimate inhibitor of one’s success.
On the issue of relinquishing power: I think that there is an important how you hand over power. This is where idea of mandates comes into play. We can elect and then challenge or we can elect and abide. When it’s the latter, and based on emotions we see things like the Iraq War after September 11th. Eventually people to their sense, but it’s sadly often after the leadership has caused great damage. I think with Obama, we should let him do this job, but I think we should give him a mandate based on reason and not faith.
Victoria 2:10 pm on January 26, 2009 Permalink
There’s certainly reason to take pause witnessing the inauguration, as one should with all political events or engagements, though especially considering that one of the most valid criticisms brought against the Bush II regime and its supporters was that it was a faith-based presidency. The president asked for its citizens to be faithful to him, patriotic by not questioning his administration, and by most all accounts (for one, see http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660) 43rd’s administration was also anti-intellectual and anti-rational within the white house. Emotional appeal, particularly patriotism and fear and a sense of victory, were used in ways we’re all quite aware of by this point in time.
The irony of 2m people on January 20 engaging a politician and a political moment with emotions, when chances are most all of those people would agree that Bush II’s emotional engagement and manipulation were one of the worst things about his administration, is certainly there. I think that it matters on this occasion to discern what the emotions were and why, and then to evaluate what comes next on the morning after.
Let’s first think about why people felt emotions that day. From those I spoke to and interviews I’ve watched, there were two reasons that were far less partisan: to celebrate that we are lucky to have a peaceful transition of power and to celebrate or feel joy because the first black president means something (should we not celebrate just because we have racial equality laws already? I would have a hard time saying that anyone who questioned whether we’d have a non-white male president for racial reasons, or any civil rights activists or victims of discrimination shouldn’t celebrate a symbolic passage of a painful era), and then two reasons that are more partisan: those who attended to be a part of something historic and those who are so-called Obamaphiles or Obamaites celebrating victory. For all of these reasons, but especially the last two, we need to ask: what comes after the emotions of inauguration day?
Those who gave up power are those whose inclination or ability to hold Obama (or any political leader), accountable is lessened or eliminated because of their emotional engagement. This does not apply to everyone who felt something on that day.
As an example of the nuanced role of emotions in politics: people in San Francisco engaged Harvey Milk (first gay elected representative) and the issues he was elected around emotionally, and because of that he had an engaged and attentive constituency of new voters who helped elect him. These people followed Milk’s every move in City Hall, and would have noticed if he suddenly supported something he said he would not. It might be said, then, that an involved (with emotions as well) constituency holds their leaders as accountable as a non-emotional and purely rational constituency. And system says that if these people, emotionally engaged or not, can hold these people accountable through regular elections, the ability to protest, etc etc.
I recall that not too many years ago, particularly after the 2004 election, people I came in contact with felt hopeless and were going towards apathy with American politics. The inauguration was, among it’s many nuances good and bad, a sign that people do care and feel engaged with politics enough to, in the way it should happen and does with many, be informed and on top of things in order to hold Obama accountable.
Did some people give up their power to the Obama brand? No doubt. Did everyone by virtue of participating in Jan 20 excitement? Not if they honor one of the tenants of this system– that we can criticize our leader and participate in change if we’re not happy with how things are going. As many opposing Bush said all along, questioning the president indeed is the most patriotic thing one can do. But, that doesn’t mean we can be happy when things change.
***
(On a side note, an interesting discussion would be on the potential for our nation to evolve (I choose that word on purpose) into a multi-party democracy, thereby weakening the detrimental ‘my team versus your team’ mentality that so often prevents people from holding folks like Obama accountable. Particularly Americans tend to not switch team loyalties readily (we’re a very sports team loyal culture) and would be better served by an even more critical citizenry that has a larger array of options in order to better regulate politicians in office. )
Cameron 2:51 pm on January 27, 2009 Permalink
I agree. I’m all for obama’s positions on a bunch of stuff. but just cause “our guy” is in power, doesn’t mean the questioning of his logic, motives, and judgment stops. questioning bush wasn’t wrong then, even tho it was framed as unpatriotic. its not wrong now, even tho we’ve essentially elected the antithesis of bush. what might be different now, is our questions might not fall on entirely deaf ears.