Obama, Hope and the Godcon

-- By AnjaliBhat - 27 Feb 2009

Barack Obama was widely perceived as a uniquely inspirational candidate, one who appealed to moderates and independents but also to an idealistic base of people enraged about foreign policy, torture, civil liberties and poverty. His campaign seemed to give people permission to talk about hope, change and justice in a sincere and non-ironic fashion. While many of his supporters voted for him in full cognizance of the limits of what he could do as president, and indeed some of the moderate and conservative Obama voters may have voted for him precisely because of those limits, there were also many who expected great things from him. Among those, the belief that Obama was not an ordinary politician seemed prevalent. He seemed to hold the promise of solving lots of problems: a horrible economy, Iraq, and America's age-old problems with race. Some of his actions after the election have been in keeping with this promise, but many others have been the exact opposite. Pointing this out sometimes elicits reactions of anger and defensiveness. In what way is this dynamic similar to the cons Leff describes, and if so, what kind of con?

Obama's actions and some reactions to them

Obama portrayed himself to his base as a liberal uniquely gifted in communicating with those who disagreed with him, but also committed to his own principles. One of the major selling points for him over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary was that Clinton had voted to authorize George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Obama had never done any such thing, making her directly complicit in the much-hated war in a way that he was not. Obama also spoke of the hope of transcending past mistakes, from Iraq to the economy to racism.

Since taking office, Obama has signed an executive order closing Guantanamo, a move many were clamoring for and hailed as a major symbolic victory when Obama announced his intention to make it. Obama also signed an executive order ending CIA secret prisons, mandating that interrogations follow the Army Field Manual, and ending the global gag rule. Yet Obama has taken other measures of the type that his idealistic supporters scorned during Bush's term. His administration has affirmed the Bush policy that detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their detention and retained rendition as a counterterrorism tool. There has been little expressed criticism of the former from Obama supporters. Civil libertarian Obama-supporting lawyers like Scott Horton and Glenn Greenwald have reacted to the latter by mistakenly accusing the LA Times of confusing “extraordinary rendition” with just “rendition” (Horton) and claiming that the article is symptomatic of an attempt on the part of Bush loyalists, intelligence officers, the establishment media and nihilists to get people to lose faith in Obama (Greenwald). In addition, Greenwald posed a somewhat contrived hypothetical to defend rendition (a possible argument, but I wonder if Greenwald would have made it while Bush was president), while Horton confined himself to emphasizing that extraordinary rendition was much worse. Both had more reasoned later responses, but the initial one was anger and defensiveness: similar to reactions I have gotten when bringing this up to people in political conversations.

Why this reaction?

But why the defensiveness? Why not simply defend Obama on the merits, or admit that he did wrong? After all, admitting this would not negate the argument that he was still much better than the alternatives. It is in this defensiveness that I see fear of having been conned, and anger at those who appear to be pointing out the con. If one believed wholeheartedly in a heroic and charismatic leader uniquely capable of helping the country in unprecedented ways, then one will feel conned if he turns out to be just a more-decent-than-average politician. Obama inspired his base to trust and believe in him, despite the cultural tendency to project an aura of cool apathy and the liberal value for skeptical questioning. This was partly because of the factors touched on in Judith Warner's “Dreaming of the Obamas” article: he's charismatic, high-achieving, has a fascinating biography and seems to have an exciting, even sexy, current life. He could get away with appealing to idealism because he was so obviously cool, and he thereby gave his supporters “permission” to care and dream as well.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, he is extremely intelligent and gives the impression of someone who is interested in ideas for their own sake. This is especially important because those who supported Obama are often of demographics bashed by conservatives for being too eggheaded. Some turn this into a point of pride: liberals are more rational than conservatives, so the song goes, more independent-minded and less prone to being swept up by the emotional currents generated by religion, patriotism and “strong leaders.” This view may even have some truth, as liberal value systems generally include an emphasis on questioning authority that conservative ones traditionally do not. But because Obama is so intellectual, believing in him could not be a stupid or mindless thing to do. Therefore, for many among his more fervent supporters, Obama provided a unique opportunity to believe in a leader without sacrificing self-respect. If the belief proves to be misplaced or exaggerated, the result is a loss of self-respect even worse than that of the “mark” in an ordinary con. Here the marks pride themselves on intelligence, independence of mind and a certain ironic detachment, and yet were taken in by a desire for a leader.

A con? And what kind?

To clarify, I am not arguing that hopes in Obama have been completely misplaced or even that his supporters have been "conned" in the sense of being cheated. Rather, I am arguing that the dynamics of belief, hope, fear and defensiveness among his supporters are con-like. I believe Obama's campaign can be described as similar to Leff's “Godcon.” He publicly offered something ineffable and potentially plentiful—hope—in exchange for monetary and other support. The purpose of the deal was to benefit America and humanity in general and give them a share of the hope. “Hope” can substitute for “grace” in Leff's formulation. But unlike in a true Godcon where you don't know if you were truly saved until you die, we will be able to find out whether the distributed hope had any real foundation in the next few years.

• I think the mechanism of the essay obscures rather than illuminating. There were unusually strong feelings among the electorate and the rest of society during last year's campaign. Many people followed the inauguration and early weeks of this administration as they have done with no other in their lifetimes. Circumstances have caused people who usually feel that they have no expectations from politics to look to this President and this Administration to save them from serious economic injury. Political supporters, many of them passionate, knowing what is at stake, are reluctant to break with the president over any issue, and would prefer to overlook the inevitable compromises and disappointments. Why do we need to discuss con games in order to appreciate the role that repression of cognitive dissonance has in the attitudes of political supporters of this or any other administration?

• I don't doubt that without the Leff mechanism you can write an accomplished and self-consistent essay on this theme. I wonder, however, whether it serves you well to do so. Switching perspectives, and asking what the public-communications problems of the Administration are, and outlining how to handle them, would be very much more challenging and a better showcase for your talents.