Barack Obama, like Bobby Kennedy before him, recognizes that any transformative power he might achieve will require a motivated and mobilized electorate. He clearly recognizes, in spite of criticism to the contrary, that widespread hope for a better future is only a necessary condition for change, not a sufficient condition.

::::::::

At the outset I would like to distinguish between hope as a realistic expectation for improvements in one’s worldly existence versus hope for a better life to follow. This latter form of hope, or faith, is outside the realm of politics and should play no role in it, though this rule is obviously often violated.

 

Barrack Obama has spent a good deal of time in his campaign speeches and in debates talking about hope.  He has been trying to inspire hope in an electorate that has become turned off from politics, an electorate that has become cynical after seven years of an administration where hope was given only to those in the upper income ranks, an electorate that has seen the catastrophe of September 11, 2001 transformed from a national tragedy into a bludgeon to force the nation into a pointless war with tragic loss of U.S. soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and the waste of over two trillion dollars.

 

Senator Clinton as well as John McCain has tried to use Senator Obama’s efforts to inspire hope in the American people as evidence that he is an unrealistic dreamer, all words but no action, even hinting that he is some sort of impostor or charlatan.

 

However, Senator Obama has argued that if the American people do not have hope, if they do not feel that their federal government is at least as concerned for the common man as it is for the rich and powerful, then they will continue to be disinterested in the political process, will continue to vote in low numbers, and will therefore not provide the grassroots muscle needed to overcome the grip of the special interests upon the national discourse and the decision making process.

 

In their debate in Cleveland on February 26, 2008 Senator Obama responded to a video clip showing Senator Clinton making fun of his rhetoric of hope.  Obama:

 

“I am absolutely clear that hope is not enough.  It is not going to be easy to pass health care.  If it [were] it would already have gotten done. It’s not going to be easy to have a sensible energy policy in this country.  Exxon-Mobil made $11 billion last quarter.  They are not going to give up those profits easily.” 

 

“But what I also believe is that the only way we are going to actually get this stuff done is, number one, we’re going to have to mobilize and inspire the American people so that they’re paying attention to what their government is doing.  And that’s what I have been doing in this campaign and that’s what I will do as President.”

 

“And there’s nothing romantic or silly about that. If the American people are activated, that’s how change is going to happen.”

 

“The second thing we are going to have to do is we’re actually going to have to go after the special interests…[Senator Clinton said] you can’t just wave a magic wand and expect special interests to go away.  That is absolutely true.  But it doesn’t help if you’re taking millions of dollars in contributions from those special interests-- they are [then] less likely to go away.  So it is important for us to crack down on how those special interests are able to influence Congress.  And yes it is important for us to inspire and mobilize and motivate the American people to get involved and pay attention.”

 

In short, Senator Obama does realize that the mere generation of hope for the future is not sufficient to bring about the changes needed to overcome the power of vested interests.  But, he argues that a hopeful attitude by a majority of the American people is an absolute prerequisite for positive change to occur. Hope is necessary, but not sufficient.

 

Senator Obama’s campaign style and his message have been compared to those of Robert F. Kennedy when he made his fateful run for the Presidency 40 years ago.  Senator Kennedy, too, argued that hope is a prerequisite for change. In a speech given at the University of California at Berkeley on October 22, 1966 Senator Kennedy said the following:

 .

 .

"Men without hope, resigned to despair and oppression, do not make revolutions. It is when expectation replaces submission, when despair is touched with the awareness of possibility, that the forces of human desire and the passion for justice are

unloosed." (Robert F. Kennedy, Univ. of Calif. Berkeley, Oct. 22, 1966)

 

Some might argue that it is a stretch to compare the controversies facing Senator Obama today with the tumult and dissension that confronted Senator Kennedy and the nation in 1966, in the midst of the civil rights upheaval at home and the Vietnam War abroad. They will say a revolution today is not necessary, indeed is not desirable. But as President Bush constantly reminds us, for his own purposes, we are at war today.  It is only because there is no military draft, because he can get other nations to finance this war, and because the returning coffins are kept from public view that most Americans have been relatively unaffected.  But that is changing. The number of U.S. military men and women killed in Iraq will soon pass the four thousand mark.  The total eventual cost of the war is now estimated at upwards of three trillion dollars.  And Senator McCain tells us that our commitment to the Iraq war and its aftermath will likely continue for many decades. To prevent this colossal tragedy from being repeated, say by undertaking a new war against Iran, a revolution is in fact needed—a revolution in how decisions are made and in whose interests they are made.

 

The mounting death toll in Iraq, the crisis in foreclosures affecting the many families who have already lost their homes, the worsening economic situation with increases in unemployment, rising gasoline prices and the falling dollar, the remaining millions of people without health insurance, the failure of No Child Left Behind to deliver on its promise, and yes, the lack of hope by millions of Americans that the Bush Administration can do anything about these problems—all are reasons why the need for change is so palpable. 

 

The upsurge in optimism, largely inspired by Senator Obama’s candidacy, is why we see millions of Americans joining in the political process for the first time this year, why we see nearly a million people making small donations in support of his campaign for change, why in state after state we have seen the numbers of Democratic voters in the primaries far exceeding those of the Republicans.

 

I was a student at Berkeley when Senator Kennedy spoke there in the fall of 1966.  I attended his speech, and took several photographs of him, including the two inserted herein.  But only recently did I pull those negatives out of their file box and take a close look at them, some for the first time. And what did I see?  I saw hope on the faces of those students, then reaching out to touch the Senator’s hand, now reaching out across time to touch us all.  I saw an excitement that has long been absent in U.S. politics, until now. Yes, the elections in 2006, which returned the Democrats to the majority in Congress, did have a certain amount of energy and excitement, but that energy and excitement were motivated more by disgust with the recent past than by optimism for the future.

 .

(Univ. of Calif. Berkeley, Oct. 22, 1966)

.

Let the record show that the Berkeley students in the photographs are well groomed and beardless.  They were baby-boomers all. But today, nearly 42 years later, they are once again feeling the inspiration of hope for the future of our nation that they felt back in 1966.  They are also grateful that a new generation of young people is finally being offered the same opportunity.

 

Let the record also show that I was inspired to dig out those old negatives from the sixties after reading Susan DuQuesnay Bankston’s account of her attendance at the Obama-Clinton debate in Austin, Texas on February 21, 2008. She describes here, with her usual incisive humor, her own gut-wrenching struggle in deciding which candidate to support in the March 4th Texas primary. Thanks, Susan.

Authors Bio:
Laurence A.Toenjes is retired from the University of Houston ?s Department of Sociology where he was a researcher with The Sociology of Education Research Group. Toenjes received his doctorate in economics from Southern Illinois University.