Obama's Hope and The Perfect Paradox

Professor Schaff brews an odd mix of politics and theology this Sabbath. He strikes a Clintonesque tone, criticizing all this fluff and nonsense about hope. He cites Charles Krauthammer, who, remarkably, likens Obama to organized religion, that worldwide sham turning salvation into a commodity (I wonder what Krauthammer thinks of the the hucksters selling "The Truth Project" DVDs for $179 at a Bible study near you. I also wonder when Sibby will brand allegedly good conservative a Marxist for his anti-religion comment.)

Lest you think liberal academia has finally caught up with the good professor, Dr. Schaff quickly turns to a more theological critique of Obama's hope mantra. Schaff turns to Georgetown government professor Patrick Deneen, who mentions Pelagianism and Montanism (two labels sure to resonate with the electorate ) before appealing to the worthy Augustine:

...the greatest critiques of just these sorts of inappropriate and unrealistic aspirations to "repair the world" or "make time different" have not been secular -- which has often adapted this kind of belief in the form of political ideology -- but rather, orthodox belief, particularly the main Christian tradition firmly established by Augustine during the early Church. Insisting upon the distinction between the City of God where the heart can rest and salvation lies, and the City of Man, which is inescapably marked by the stain of Original Sin and the inexpungable human lust for dominion ("libido dominandi"), Augustine chided heretical contemporaries against the belief in perfectibility in this world, cautioned against the belief that salvation lie in our power to achieve, and urged upon his contemporaries a realism and humility regarding what is possible in the realm of politics. Most importantly, Augustinian realism clarifies the distinction between "hope" and "optimism," the former which is closely aligned to humility and modest expectations for what is possible in the saeculum, the latter which inclines toward over-confidence in the human power of transformation and perfection. Hope resists ideology and overinvesting in the prospect of political transformation; optimism either results in ideology resistant to the hard data of reality with attendant abuses by political elites, and ultimately elicits in optimism's close kin, disappointment, cynicism and despair [Patrick Deneen, "Hope Against Hope," What I Saw in America, 2008.02.15].

We can only hope the pious folks trying to return abortion to the November ballot will read those lines, put down their petitions, and go home, humbly ending their own overinvestment in the power of political transformation.

Deneen refers to Obama's language of hope as "salvific and heretical." Heretical to urge people to work for a better world? To dare suggest we fight bad guys? To try?

Evidently. And Deneen applies this view to every candidate for President:

Indeed, what marks above all the fundamental similarity of all the candidates in the current election season is the absence of any such theologically-informed realism based on belief in the two cities of Augustine....

Double-check that paragraph: it doesn't say "similarity of Clinton and Obama" or "similarity of all liberals." It says "fundamental similarity of all the candidates." If Schaff is attempting to cite Deneen as a reason to vote for someone other than Obama, he fails to notice that Deneen sees all the candidates as heretics.

Deneen even sees this heresy in our right pious current President:

In this sense, amid our readiness for "change, we should recognize a deeper consistency between the appeal of one who would "heal the world" and the messianism that has so often colored the language of our current President. Particularly pronounced in his Second Inaugural, President Bush declared that it was now the permanent intention of the United States to support freedom everywhere, with the "ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The war in Iraq was undertaken for many and mixed reasons, but among them certainly -- and perhaps underlying most deeply the optimism that informed the belief in the best-case scenario following the invasion, rather the possibility of a worse- or worst-case scenario -- was this belief in the capacity of our nation to be the agent of the expulsion of "libido dominandi" from the world.

Am I to believe the Republicans' Saint Ronald (Reagan, not McDonald) is a heretic as well, for inspiring Americans to believe they could seek that "shining city on a hill"?

By Deneen's reasoning, Obama's "hope" is not only heretical false optimism but a practical recipe for disillusionment. After "the disastrous Presidency of G.W. Bush," says Deneen, "the expectations for transformation... will run so high as to exceed the capacity of any political leader to realize." So again, Deneen does not support any argument that any candidate is better than another: in his eyes, Obama does no worse than anyone else in the field.

Schaff's knock at Obama and Deneen's whole spiel thus lack any prescriptive force. Deneen's critique doesn't offer us any choices for President, or for politics in general. If Obama's a heretic, then so is every candidate -- heck, every blogger, for that matter. Why do you think we write? I tread on thin ice presuming to divine Dr. Schaff's motivations, but I suspect his match mine and PP's, Sibby's and Todd's: we write because we think we can make a difference, clear up some ignorance, persuade at least a few folks to vote a certain way that we think will make the world better. Heretics all, I guess.

But maybe the real heretic is Deneen himself. The doctrine of human fallibility tells us we're not perfect and never will be, it doesn't then tell us "Therefore, trying to do good is futile, so just sit around and wait for the Apocalypse." Far from it:

To be a Christian is to live under the sign of him who "came from heaven down to earth," to live under the sign of his cross and resurrection, and thus to wait hopefully, patiently, on this earth by making it a better place and to challenge the world, through one's vocation and the church to do the same [Gerhard O. Forde, professor of systematic theology, Where God Meets Man, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972, p. 128].

In other words, Christianity says, sure, salvation is coming, and that's great, but you have work to do in this world. The work you do won't be perfect, it won't ever fully succeed, but don't let that stop you. You can't win, but you play the game as if you could.

Obama's hope fits that perfect paradox as well as anyone's. Will Obama make the world perfect? Of course not. No politician will. But only a cynic -- or a heretic -- would suggest there's any harm in trying to make the world a better place.