Baby Barack and Obama the Musical?
In the days following Obama’s election, reports in the various news media spoke of everything from a rash of babies named after the president-elect to, yes it’s happened already: Obama, the Musical. A playhouse in Kenya held several showings of the 1 hour musical biography of our first African-American President, and already audiences are asking for an encore (see: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96778361).
Such a reaction from those outside the US sort of begs the question: what exactly does the world see in President-elect Obama? In his Mission and Menace, Robert Jewett speaks of the dark side of American religious zeal. He warns of the dangers that arise when our nation, whether consciously or unconsciously, begins to view itself as God’s New Israel and our appointed leader as his anointed man/woman. I wonder, what does Jewett have to say now when it seems that those outside our nation are viewing our newest leader with similar exaltation?
Both inside and outside of the US, the comments that we hear are heavily toward one side or the other: people see Obama either as the great hope for our nation or a force that will bring utter destruction. Frankly, I’m inclined to think that either would be somewhat more palatable to our current tastes than something in the middle. Indeed, it seems that the most devastating of consequences would be not that Obama should fail at his task, but that we should find him very much like every other president.
The truth is: I think we are ready to claim him as hero or villain, because either role makes him something bigger than life and brings with it the promise of change. Either role allows him (and vicariously us) to rise above the status quo of our imperfect democratic system and to claim that somehow we can stand in control of our collective destiny. Either role, for better or for worse, harkens in the nebulous “change” that we so eagerly desire.
Realistically, however, I find it reasonable to expect Obama, like all other presidents, to do some good and some bad but never fully triumph over the faults of our system. Perhaps he will do better than McCain might have done – in which case we’ve chosen well. And perhaps not. But ultimately, it seems reasonable to consider that whatever changes he makes will eventually blur into the long history of American political endeavors and lose their distinctiveness. Because the crux of the matter is that no man or woman appointed to earthly office will ever bring us the substantial change that we seem so eagerly to desire. One man and one man alone initiated genuinely lasting change and only in embracing the call of his cross are we likely to find fulfillment in our quest for transformation and, ultimately, salvation.
November 11, 2008 at 11:10 am
I tend to agree with you. I think the hope that a new president will bring about great and wonderful change is always going to be present. But, in reality, much of this change never occurs. I think this will be the case once again with Barack.
Something that I found interesting was that Barack’s campaign was centered around change. When compared to George’s presidency and John’s campaign, yes, it looks different. But, when you throw someone like Ron Paul into the mix, all of a sudden, Barack doesn’t look that different from George and John. Now, Ron would be the one to bring change. Change is very relative and that should be remembered.
It will be interesting to see how Barack’s presidency plays out…especially considering the international sentiment toward him.
November 12, 2008 at 9:34 am
I think there will be a certain degree of change simply because Barack’s ideology is very different from W’s. They won’t do everything they want to do, but they dream world they envision is, I think, quite different. This alone will significantly impact their decisions. There’s a lot of buzz about various things Obama and the transition team are working on, and certainly they won’t get all of it done as quickly as they hope. But opening doors to more embryonic stem cell research would be a significant change. Beginning the peace process in the Middle East sometime in his first YEAR (he’s saying month, but Clinton and W were both their LAST YEAR getting starting) would be new. He’s significantly restricting the roles lobbyists often play in the transition to power. Little things, big things, are going to be different.
I agree that there are those in the U.S. and elsewhere that make Obama too big, but for the most part, I think people throughout the world are not so much looking to Obama to be the one that makes America that saving force in the world, but rather, they understand that the U.S. has power. Disproportionate power. If the U.S. has to be so powerful and they have to deal with that, then dang right they want a president they trust. Do they want to be dependent on the U.S. or see the U.S. as morally superior? No. But they are definitely more enthusiastic about Obama for a leader rather than Bush or McCain.