In the past week, the words "hero" and "Obama" have appeared in the same sentence with increasing frequency, along with the hope that he will in fact be one. Whether or not President Obama, the man, will be or is a hero, will be revealed over the course of his life, as will the personal significance that this idea holds for him. In this sense, he is like the rest of us.
But being called to be President of the United States is clearly a huge task, and to be a heroic president, well, that is potentially overwhelming, and tricky. Tricky because what it means to be heroic in that context is ambiguous. The ambiguity is inherent in a symbol as powerful as the presidency, and it is further reflected in the myriad and often inchoate desires of the public that called him into service. I don't think we diminish the man by recognizing that the luminosity of his election and tremendous power of his inauguration stem from our melding of the power of that office with the mythology of America, vested in one human being. The Obama we see is largely our creation, the acceptable symbolic response to a collective desire. So I have two questions. First, can we collectively separate the man from the symbol and understand the difference? Second, what does this symbol mean, that is, what do we desire? Hope? Change? What kind of change?
The distinction between the symbol and the man is crucial, akin to recognizing the difference between fact and fiction. That President Obama will disappoint some, if not of all us, to varying degrees, is a given. We're all human and the problems that face us are complex. If we understand the difference between our hopes and ideals, and the man vested with the power to help us realize them, we can continue to draw sustenance from the principles that animate us, and take responsibility for their fulfillment, even if we become disillusioned with Obama. If we succeed at this, the present day hopefulness may result in real change that extends well beyond Obama's presidency and deeply permeates the fabric of our society.
Which leads back to my second question, what do we want? I doubt that every American will answer the question in the same way, but that is is one more reason that we should ask it, of ourselves and each other. "What does Obama symbolize to you?" I keep asking myself, in the face of my own joy and relief. I don't really know. I know I thrill to a sense of cosmic justice restored, now that a black family lives in the White House built by slaves. But I don't know how Obama's presidency will impact the lived experience of black people or others of color, nor do I have any plan to participate concretely in the extension of this "justice." This illustrates, for me, the difference between the symbolism of a black president and the emotional response that evokes, and the more difficult task of translating that emotion into action. I can be very satisfied by my personal experience of this abstraction, and do nothing. I can lay the problem of race relations at Obama's feet. Or I can, spurred by the surprising power of this historical event, get engaged with the problems myself. In possession of this realization, what will I do? Stay tuned.
This kind of reflection, which historically, has not been our country's strong suit, is important. Each of us has a moral obligation to understand the contents of our individual consciousness, to own our prejudices and the values that we project onto other people, especially those who operate as powerful symbols. This kind of awareness also makes it easier to avoid falling into group-think. We need free and open debate and disagreement after eight years of lockdown. We need to be clear about what we are up to.
Just before the inauguration, the Huffington Post circulated a video of ordinary Americans taking the oath of office. We've all been inaugurated is the message. Check it out, imagine what kind of president you would be, and consider what Obama means to you. Take the Oath video