An Emotional Vote

I wonder: what has made people choose Barack Obama in 2008?  Actually, I am not interested in his policies at the moment.  What I find odd and fascinating at the same time, is the emotional aspect of people who chose to vote for Obama.  And so, I am interested in the psychology of the masses and the way Obama supporters interacted with Obama and/or the image of Obama.

Yesterday, I watched some old footage, which among others, included Obama’s acceptance speech in Chicago.  I am sure that everyone can recall it: people crying, swooning, fainting, screaming.  It was a cross between Beatlemania and Pentecostal church gathering. 

Let me also recall the celebrity video of “I pledge” in which various actors and performers—the Hollywood elite—said things like “I pledge to be a servant to the President.”

This is what’s so intriguing to me.  My question is what is the impetus, which makes a person behave in such a way?  And what has been happening historically with America (as well as the rest of the world) to warrant such a reaction?

I should warn the reader that I most likely will not have a clear cut answer to these questions.  But I think it is worth exploring. 

Let us begin with somewhat simple stuff: the Bush Presidency.  It was obvious that people have gotten tired of Bush, the war in Iraq, the whole “weapons of mass destruction” thing.  Somehow, they have felt drained (perhaps spiritually?) by Bush’s policies, or the way they have interpreted Bush’s policies.  Or, the other option was that Bush could have been any Republican president and liberal voters would still be angry.  So, were they angry about something entirely different, and Bush was just a small part of the unleashing of anger?  Anything’s possible.

Given the fact that the liberal voters were exhausted by Bush, it only seemed perfectly plausible that they would want something new, something shiny, something, which will bring light into their lives.  Here, we reach another (more complex) issue: placing all of one’s trust in a leader of one’s nation. 

Obama has promised many things, and in many ways, I cannot even say that I fully fault Obama (although his level of arrogance, wherever it may have originated, is undeniable).  Rather, I wonder what would possess an individual to become certain that one man can save the entire nation?  And more importantly, save the nation from what?

Is it laziness and the need for someone else to make decisions for me?  Is it incapability of seeing the reality of the world—in other words, that the world is primarily made of “vale of tears” rather than soft, bourgeois pseudo-justice?  Was it the fact that liberal bourgeoisie, for quite some time, have been detesting their own origins and have been craving the otherness?  Obama provided this “otherness.” 

But I do think that even a definition of otherness has been misunderstood.  I fully support the idea of cosmopolitan society, as well as unity in diversity.  But this has been misunderstood.  We are all “other than ourselves” to one another.  And so, Obama’s exoticism was like the best sugary confection that our bodies could desire.  Obama’s exoticism also absolved him of being of this world, being a human being, like the rest of us.  And being like the rest of us means having finitude, flaws, and a capability of doing harm.  The act of secular absolution elevated Obama to a “Savior” status.  Again, I ask, why think, to begin with, that one man can save us, whether he is a President or your next door neighbor?

One segment of the population, namely the white pseudo-intellectual elite, had gotten so comfortable in their lives.  In order to be free, they masochistically seek someone to whip them (metaphorically of course) in order to feel the pain of the less fortunate.  Whipping yourself in an effort to feel closer to the unfortunate and the poor will not help.  It will only whip you into submission.  And the less fortunate and the ordinary and the poor really don’t give a hoot about your compassion.

The idea of dictatorship has long left our vocabulary and most of all, our consciousness.  We are post that thing, which only existed in fascism.  There is no Big Brother, etc, etc.  I go back to the statement: “I pledge to be a servant to the President.”  This is a willing submission to the dictatorship.  Essentially, with this statement, one has effectively erased any possibility for the existence of the Divine Creator, as well as willingly submitted to the whims of another man.  They have created a Master-Slave relationship.  The confounding fact for me is that people like that did not find anything wrong with that.  The statement also reminds me of when I pledged an oath as a first grader to Comrade Tito. 

Being free is actually tough.  Once you accept that you are free, then you have to affirm the reality of our society, namely that we can be pretty nasty, brutal and evil to each other.  But being free also means affirming ideals, which take us out of the slime of evil and give us a possibility of being.

Being free also means that you have to stand alone, that is, you have a voice, uniquely yours.  All good, right?  Sure.  But here’s another difficulty of freedom, perhaps the largest and most complex—once you have accepted the uniqueness of your voice, then be prepared to accept that you might be rejected, and that in this rejection (which might evolve into hatred) you still have to persevere in the uniqueness of your voice. 

The voice of the people is not only one voice and it is not the voice of sameness.  It is each individual bringing something of himself to the community.  But bringing something willingly.  For example, I grew up in a family where being hospitable to others (including strangers) and being generous was simply part of the Bosnian culture.  It still is.  However, it was of your willingness that you chose to share, not because someone imposed it on you. Besides, the impetus to share and to be charitable has always been the path provided and urged by religion or a moral code, but not by the State. 

We are always called to think and evaluate and be careful not to make decisions purely based on emotion.  I think that a vote for Obama was an emotional vote.  As the Knight said to Indiana Jones, “choose wisely.”