“How’s that hopey/changey thing workin’ out for ya?”
**Wiz? El Wot here. You neglected to give this post a title, and if you check the by-laws (6.c) you’ll see that, in such a situation, it’s open-season for unilateral titling. Should you have a problem with this I’ll see you at the next board meeting (the Denny’s in El Paso in June).**
It is currently fashionable to mock those who held high hopes for the Obama administration. “I was never one of those people who bought into the Obama-as-savior myth,” the insider says. “Only the naïve would do that! Real and serious people always understood that hope and change stuff to be nonsense.”
If this was just normal ex-post-facto posturing, it would be merely annoying, a way to feel superior to the rubes. But, of course, the subtext is that anyone who continues to hold the administration to high standards is being unrealistic, naïve, or just plain doesn’t get it; that of course Obama is only capable of achieving small- bore micro-policies, that of course Obama must continue every shitty Bush-era civil liberties violation, that of course those promises about re-writing NAFTA and allowing drugs from Canada in were just lies. Of course, the effect of this narrative is to normalize the complacency of the insiders and their status quo, while marginalizing the voices of outsiders who actually would like some of that hope and change.
Anyway, I just thought it was important to remind people out there of the difference between hope and expectation. It is one thing to hope for something without facts, to have faith in the unknown. It is another to expect that when a president wins a decisive election with huge majorities in both houses, he will actually be able to accomplish a couple of the things he promised. I don’t actually think that is asking too much.