A new day brings more of the same

Alas, the election is over and a new president is now in office. The politicking has long been over and for many of us, getting up in the morning is less exciting because of it. The inauguration was the last day for Obama supporters to gloat and many wanted to stay home to watch the historic event. But alas, the transition is now behind us and we will waste less time surfing the web for news stories, videos, and opinions that have led up to one of the most watched elections ever. We will have to channel our addictions to the news cycles by doing something else. As we detoxify, I am struck by the bitterness of the losers (don't read too much into this...McCain lost the election, so he is a loser. Not in the Beck Hanson "Loser" kind of way, just in the way that he had less votes than Obama and therefore is not the winner.)

The antipathy amazes me. Seriously, I was not an early supporter of Obama, but you got to like his style, don't you? Even if you don't believe in his policies, when was the last time you were inspired by a George Bush speech? Even McCain admits that as a person, Obama is genuinely a good guy. Yes, we are not entirely sure what the new presidency will bring, but can we at least all agree that changing the individual in the Oval Office is at least a change for hope. I am nottrying to fan the flames that separate the two parties but to acknowledge that there are difficult times ahead for this president and think that during a difficult time, there needs to be some constraint to give Obama a chance to set the new direction. And I hope that I am not misunderestimating him.

This stands in stark contrast to the election of 2004, which was an eye-opener for me personally. To be fair, let me say that I was strongly opposed to the Iraq war before we ravaged their country and created a breeding ground for the growth of anti-American sentiment. Unlike the Persian Gulf war, we clearly did not have as much international support for a new war and it was clear to me that by going in by ourselves, we would isolate ourselves from the global community. We clearly did not have enough evidence that Iraq had WMDs, or was in the process of making them, since few countries were convinced enough to jump on our war bandwagon (my apologies if I forgot Poland).

Anyway, when Bush beat Kerry in 2004, I was honestly, in a word... stunned. I could not believe that George W. Bush beat John Kerry. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying John Kerry was the greatest candidate Americans could ever hope for and that we all missed the boat when we didn't elect John Kerry (hmmm...was it a Swift Boat?) But John Kerry did have one strong characteristic that made him the better candidate in the 2004 election which was the distinguishing feature when I stepped into the voting booth: John Kerry was not George Bush and that was good enough for me. Just about anyone else would have done just fine - if the name on the ballot said something different than "George Bush" it would have gotten my vote.

For most elections, or at least the ones that I've been available to vote in, it is often a choice of the lesser of two evils. I have told my wife that I usually vote for president by asking myself a simple question: who am I least likely to break my television when I see them on the screen over the next four years. Al Gore could not pass that test in 2000 for me (Don't take this too far, I also did not vote for George Bush in 2000. For the uninformed, there are other options on the ballot.) Anyway, as disappointing as it was, George Bush won in 2004 and I began to have major concerns that I would be breaking my TV every time he showed up on my screen. The election result was eye-opening since it clearly meant that the country I was living in did not see the world as I did. This was a crushing personal defeat since, as a professor, I live in my own theoretical world and if you change the starting assumptions, my artifical construct becomes rubble. This was a pivotal moment in the US and the world was just as confused as me as hope in the future began to erode significantly.

Anyway, do I have a point? Not really... but keep reading.

I remember election night 2008, when I was struck by the differences in the crowds of supporters at the Obama camp (in Chicago's Grant park) and for McCain (at the Biltmore hotel in Arizona). Aside from the sizes of the crowds (I suppose a ritzy hotel can't hold 250,000 supporters), I was amazed by the reaction of Obama supporters. This was hope personified. How many people did you see crying because Obama WON? Those same people would have been crying if Obama lost because he represented change and hope which people were desperate to believe could exist. Argue what you want about McCain vs. Obama, it was clear that Obama was a different direction and for many, many, many people, different meant a shot at something good, especially during these troubled times.

However, at the McCain camp after the election, there was no crying, but rather a lot of angry yelling criticizing the election outcome. Even John McCain seemed genuinely surprised by the negative mentality of the crowd and he really looked like he wanted to divorce himself from the kind of people who call Barack Obama an Arab.

This same hatred reared its ugly head over the last few days as the inauguration drew near. I'm not sure why it so surprising to me because it is exactly the kind of rhetoric that began before the election. Look at the kind of lies that people have swallowed:

• Obama is a Muslim
• Obama pals around with terrorists
• Obama will raise everyone's taxes
• Obama is a socialist
  
• Criticizing Michelle Obama
• Only some parts of the US are pro-America
  

Take a look at some of these articles since the election passed:

• The WSJ published an opinion about how this election means that we have forgotten 9/11. This is almost as low a blow as you can give. The author intimates that by electing Barack Obama, we are essentially ignoring the devastating losses of that tragic day. The author legitimizes John McCain's claim that he is the only one that knows how to find Osama Bin Laden. The tone is disgusting: a vote for Obama means that you are allowing terrorists to get away with horrendous acts.
  
• There have been a series of articles that allege that George Bush has got no respect and therefore, for Republicans, treating Obama poorly is just payback for 4-6 years of Democratic disrespect. Of course, one HUGE difference between the two is that George Bush earned his disrespect on the job after one of the biggest errors in American history - attacking the wrong country - OOPS! Remarkably, even at the end of his term, 25% of the public approved of the job that George Bush was doing. TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT APPROVE!!
  

Most analysts recognize that the Republican party needs to regroup after a sound thumping in all races last November. The strategy of manipulating the media (Fox Noise, Rush Limbaugh) has left people full from drinking the gallons of Kool-Aid and numb to its intended effects. It appears that hate is a human emotion that has its limits. Some credit is due to Obama's strategy to control more of the language of the conversation by craftily using the internet and his new White House blog will continue to inform the masses of people who have renewed hope for the future and concern with the way the rest of the world views the US.

The inauguration was the last straw for me. It brought out the last bastion of neocons who criticize the new president before the first step has been taken, before he had even moved his personal belongings into the White House.

I suppose that my comment is this: I am not trying to persuade you to support what he has done as president - after all, I admit that in less than 24 hours, he has done absolutely nothing. But for at least one day, can't you at least have hope?