In "Informed Enthusiasm," (Oct. 20), Peter Blair '12 picks up a gun intended for Dogmatism and aims it at Hope.
Maybe I'm just a foolish and overly idealistic young'un, but to me the idea that it's somehow juvenile or ignorant to be markedly "enthused, energized, inspired" by a presidential candidate seems a bit ridiculous.
I agree with Blair that it's dangerous to view "political figures as secular messiahs," even if he takes Obama's Superman reference completely out of context ("Context, Please," Oct. 22). As with any form of dogmatism, the deification of a politician brings with it the danger of closed-mindedness -- in Blair's words, it "disallows critical analysis." And there are certainly voters who are guilty of such dogmatism.
But this presidential election cycle is nothing new in that regard. Every four years, an unsettlingly large sector of our electorate casts its ballot dogmatically along party lines, regardless of the quality of the candidates and often because of irrelevant factors like family tradition or reputation. I'm not talking about Americans who are, for example, so strongly pro-choice that they would never help elect a pro-life president. I'm talking about Americans who have no substantive ideology, but who still vote for only one party, and who would never vote for the other. These voters, like those that accord Obama -- or, as Blair mentions, Palin --- a divine status, are impervious to discourse, and largely exempt themselves from the benefits provided by our culture of free speech and ideas.
So, I think Blair is right to argue that we should not elevate our politicians to Olympian heights -- to do so weakens our democracy. I disagree, however, that "earthly objects ... are unsound focuses for such a high level of hope" as many enthusiastic supporters are investing in this year's presidential (and vice-presidential) candidates.
I, for one, admit to having invested hope (in Obama, not Palin). And contrary to Blair's assumptions, I do not consider myself to be politically dogmatic -- in fact, I think I would have classified myself as politically apathetic until about a year and a half ago. Still, this fall I felt inspired enough to drive out to Columbus, Ohio (I live in Massachusetts), to campaign for Barack in a battleground state. Does the fact that I was so moved by a presidential candidate mean that I'm "naive and untouched by experience"? I sure hope not -- at least I would like to think of myself as having maintained some sense of realism.
Do I think that Obama will single-handedly solve problems with the economy, Iraq and Afghanistan? No. Do I think he's in many ways just another politician? Probably. Do I think he's our ultimate savior? Absolutely not.
But I do think he's the best chance we've got if, for example, we want to start restoring our global image, or if we want to preserve our basic civil rights. These goals, while optimistic, are at the same time realistic -- Obama does appeal to a vast international audience, and the nomination of Justices is, in fact, an executive power.
And on a less pragmatic note, I'm drawn to his personality. I have no problem acknowledging that one of the main reasons I got involved with the campaign was that Obama's presence, poise and intelligence -- aside from being what I consider appropriately presidential qualities -- did, and still do, inspire hope in me.
Blair argues that "We should evaluate political candidates with our heads, not our hearts," but I disagree. I think we should use both; there's nothing wrong with appealing to our affective responses as we try to form attitudes about politicians. To exclude our visceral reactions from the evaluation process would be imprudent. After all, the nature of our emotions defines, at least in part, who we are.
Of course, if we rely too heavily on our emotions, we risk behaving rashly and, in the case of political decisions, dogmatically. Conversely, though, if "we Dartmouth students" take Blair's advice and "consider putting aside our youthful enthusiasm when we enter the voting booth," we will not be entering the booth as ourselves. And the ballots we cast will not be authentic.
To follow our gut is not inherently foolish, even if our gut is telling us to hope.
