Something aspirational that caught my attention, from the 'school of Barack'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

It has a bit of social velocity, probably reaching 2 million viewings this week, its first week.

 

JimBuckley:

Something aspirational that caught my attention, from the 'school of Barack'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

It has a bit of social velocity, probably reaching 2 million viewings this week, its first week.

 

I finally watched that video the other day…I found it stirring.  I find Barack Obama's speeches moving and inspiring.  I've been reluctant to hope that things could get much better around here, after everything that has happened in the last seven years…but I find myself getting sucked in.  It reminds me of my reaction to America as Empire - I'm reminded of the America I love and want to see prosper.  Maybe we've passed a point of no return and the US will go the way of the USSR, or perhaps America's light can outshine its darkness.  I dare to hope, and feel vulnerable as a result.  (A great opportunity to practice nonattachment to outcome, wheeeeee!). 

As I said elsewhere while back, “[Jim Garrison's] book AMERICA AS EMPIRE meant a lot to me - it moved and inspired me, and helped put things in perspective in a wonderful way….I remember him talking about two paths America could take now that it has made a decisive shift from republic to empire - either to become (again) a shining beacon to the world and lead us in a very positive direction, or to go down a path of pursuing power for its own sake in which case America would precipitate a catastrophe the likes of which the world has never seen.

Since then I've been more likely to sing along with Stereolab's Wow and Flutter:

~~~

I thought IBM was born with the world
The US flag would float forever
The cold opponent did pack away
The capital will have to follow
It's not eternal, imperishable
Oh yes it will go
It's not eternal, imterminable
The dinosaur law

~~~

Now…”yes we can”??  Maybe…

spiral out,
Arthur

---

I am seeking meaningful work.

bio: http://aqalicious.gaia.com/

I spend most of my "forum time" these days on The Integral Pod: http://pods.gaia.com/ii/

"You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn

hi jim,

after seeing bert parlee's review of the film 'no country for old men' in the Holons Newsletter, i read the book and found it could actually have been titled 'no country for the old'. this video could easily be interpreted to have been put together, consciously or not, in that spirit.

obama may be talking about uniting our country, he may have a vision, a dream of how it would be, but many of his followers don't appear to have yet attained that world-centric vision, at least to the degree that they would have wanted to include an old woman, say, in this video, which looks like a campaign piece, a piece with a political message, to me, and not simply a musical piece.

put another way, the makers of this video have failed to convey the 'we' that obama has in mind, probably, i'm led to conclude, because they don't have nearly as expansive a 'we' in mind.

---

Ralph, i just viewed this video the other day, and i am an old women, but i took it as a metaphor that Obama's campaign is fresh and new and not "politics as usual". It made me cry. Of coarse, it would be nice to see a whole bunch of different faces, but let the youth bring in the new. ( or the young at heart!)  Obama has stated that he wants to not only end war but change the mind set that starts war.  That is paraphrasing, so my apologies to his campaign if i did not state it exactly as he said it,  but i felt that to be a profound statement. 

Also, I subscribe to Holons and cant find the review on "No Country for Old Men".  I would be interested in Bert Parlee's review, as the movie disturbed me.  Do you have a link?  thanks, lizzie

P.S.  In his speeches, he definately includes everyone: race, nationality, age, etc. He has a real Family of Man (and Women!)  feel to him to me.

This is pretty funny IMO:

Joel Stein:
“He's got Obamaphilia”

It's embarrassing to be among the fanatics of a
relatively mainstream presidential candidate.
February 8, 2008

You are embarrassing yourselves. With your “Yes We
Can” music video, your “Fired Up, Ready to Go” song,
your endless chatter about how he's the first one to
inspire you, to make you really feel something – it's
as if you're tacking photos of Barack Obama to your
locker, secretly slipping him little notes that read,
“Do you like me? Check yes or no.” Some of you even
cry at his speeches. If I were Obama, and you voted
for me, I would so never call you again.

Obamaphilia has gotten creepy. I couldn't figure out
if the two canvassers who came to my door Sunday had
taken Ecstasy or were just fantasizing about an Obama
presidency, but I feared they were going to hug me.
Scarlett Johansson called me twice, asking me to vote
for him. She'd never even called me once about
anything else. Not even to see “The Island.”


What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a
politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions
like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream
one. He has not been firing up the Senate with
stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war.
He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him.
There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I
know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a
better tailor.

All of this is clear to me, and yet I have fallen
victim. I was at an Obama rally in Las Vegas last
month, hanging at the rope line afterward in the cold
night desert air, just to see him up close, to make
sure he was real. I'd never heard a politician talk so
bluntly, calling U.S. immigration policy
“scapegoating” and “demagoguery.” I'd never had even a
history teacher argue that our nation's history is a
series of brave people changing others' minds when
things were on the verge of collapse. I want the man
to hope all over me.

Still, I can't help but feel incredibly embarrassed
about my feelings. In the “Yes We Can” music video
that will.i.am made of Obama's Jan. 8 speech, I
spotted Eric Christian Olsen, a very smart actor I
know. (His line is “Yes we can.”) I called to see if
he had gone all bobby-soxer for Obama, or if he was
just shrewdly taking a part in a project that upped
his Q rating.

Turns out Olsen not only contributed money, he
volunteered in Iowa and California and made hundreds
of calls. He also sent out a mass e-mail to his
friends that contained these lines: “Nothing is more
fundamentally powerful than how I felt when I met him.
I stood, my hand embraced in his, and … I felt
something … something that I can only describe as an
overpowering sense of Hope.” That's the gayest e-mail
I've ever read, and I get notes from guys who've seen
me on E!

When I started to make fun of Olsen, he said: “I get
that it's a movement. But it's not like a movement for
Nickelback. For the first time, we should feel
justified in our passion. You don't have to feel
embarrassed about it, buddy.” It was a convincing
argument until he told me he cried during an Obama
speech. That did not help me feel less lame.

So to de-Romeo-ize, I called someone immune to Obama's
hottie dreaminess: a white suburban feminist baby
boomer. To get two things done at once, I called my
mother.

My mom, a passionate Hillary Clinton supporter,
immediately attacked Obamamania. “Some part of me
wants to say, 'People wake up. He has no plans.' I get
frustrated listening to his speeches after awhile,”
she said. She also said that the new vacation house in
Key West is really great and her vertigo hasn't been
acting up.

I started to feel a little more grounded again. Did I
want to be some dreamer hippie loser, or a person who
understands that change emerges from hard work and
conflict? “People are projecting an awful lot onto
him,” Mom said. “Almost like what was that movie with,
oh, the movie, oh God. That English actor, he
practically said nothing. Oh shoot. He was the butler
and everybody loved him and what he was thinking and
feeling. Do you know the movie I'm talking about? You
don't.” Hers, of course, is the demographic most
likely to vote.

But she's right. Obama is Peter Sellers in “Being
There.” As a therapist, she's seen the danger of
ungrounded expectations. “You feel young again. You
feel like everything is possible. He helps you feel
that way and you want to feel that way; it's a great
marriage. Unfortunately, the divorce will happen very
quickly.” Mom is the kind of realistic tough-talker
who isn't afraid to make divorce analogies to a child
of divorce.

“We want what he represents,” she said. “A young,
idealistic person who really believes it. And he
believes it. He believes he can change the world. I
just don't think he can.”

Thing is, I've watched too many movies and read too
many novels; I can't root against a person who
believes he can change the world. The best we
Obamaphiles can do is to refrain from embarrassing
ourselves. And I do believe that we can resist making
more “We Are the World”-type videos. We can resist
crying jags. We can resist, in every dinner argument
and every e-mail, the word “inspiration.” Yes, we can.

~~~

---

I am seeking meaningful work.

bio: http://aqalicious.gaia.com/

I spend most of my "forum time" these days on The Integral Pod: http://pods.gaia.com/ii/

"You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn

Friends,

 

I Was at Fielding Graduate Institute last year studying the Integral method. Now I’m taking a little time to check out these forums and see if I can find a way to participate. Online dialogue comes quite naturally to some, but is quite difficult for others. I probably fall somewhere in-between. I’m interested in some analytical posts I’ve seen, and am intrigued by the ilp postings of fairyfaye, and hope to contribute to that topic.  I’m just learning what people’s sensitivities are.

 

Regarding this Barack Obama posting; it was a non analytical gesture. I’m not usually enthusiastic about a politician, and the democrats have sold out more times in the last 45 years, that only Noam Chomsky can keep count. So, for 4 minutes, like Lizzie, I thought I’d suspend the analysis.

 

Regarding the enthusiasm of the people, are they really so many hippies? Is Obama not taking risks? and is the enthusiasm so embarrasing?

 

Well, anyway, it is true that they will overdo it, that’s a done deal. But the enthusiasm, and the varying degrees of idealism will all too soon fade, and grim reality will set in.

 

I wouldn’t, in this particular thread, analyze the Obama movement from the point of view of Integral Politics or issues. However, I would suggest an assessment regarding Integral love, and whether a pluralism is being a healthy all quadrant expression of what they profess, as rw points out. And exactly what Obama is trying to do with a unifying campaign, and not business as usual.

 

A Post-Modern, pluralistic communal action can be healthy, dysfunctional, or pathological. It can come from an emotional, sentimental heart or a mature, sophisticated, consciousness raising head/heart place. I think there will be a mix of all that. Even a healthy Green is caught up in the present, and the process. And this present and process, seems to be quite a thing. I’m even giving it a second look.

 

A Teal, transforming pluralism, like the Integral community, can have something to contribute to that. If KW says that Clinton and Karl Rove read the Integral literature, then surly Obama will be open to some input. What is a healthy Teal contribution to the present, the process, the longer term analysis? The Teal strategist can have a non-possessive love and  care, an authentic sympathy and wish to help, lead. Anger with what the last 7 years have been may or may not be rightly channeled by a post-modern group. And anger, or impatience with others growth and what they should be, may or may not be rightly channeled by a Teal group. Integral is a practice, it is applied, and I wonder what we can contribute.

 

An Indigo heart; what would that look like, and an Indigo communal solidarity and practice? A deep recognition of being interconnected, dialogic, and fully empathetic. A true unifier.

 

I once heard of the Thalmud debaters; a concourse of discussions, each with a right answer, or a part of a right answer, depending on phenomenal application or noumena application.

 

J

 

I'd add just a couple things to Jim's thoughtful post.  First, for those that find themselves inclined to accept the caricature that Senator Obama is simply words without plans or actions, I'd urge you to read The Audacity of Hope (more words, yes - but outlining his past actions as well as his plans and thought process in detail) and look into his specific plans announced during this campaign (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/).

He's a great and inspiring speaker, yes (and there's value to that, as has been pointed out).  But I'd urge us all to look deeper before we buy at face value that criticism that, because this skill has been lauded, he must have no others.  "Change" vs. "experience," "idealism" vs. "pragmatism," "enthusiasm" vs. "practicality" - none of these easy categories capture ANY of the candidates, Senator Obama included.

And, I might add, this thread seems to me to be a good example of people willing to look deeper and not buy into easy categories (the posted Stein piece being pretty careful with that).  Thanks to you all for being so, well - inspiring. 

cgnost:

And, I might add, this thread seems to me to be a good example of people willing to look deeper and not buy into easy categories

the unspoken message, no?, is that too many are willing to buy into easy categories.

i've been generally supportive of clinton myself while trying to manage, not too successfully, an integral perspective. a truly integral approach would, among other things, be willing to look deeper, to question what we think we already know, albeit in a constructive manner.

and that's the rub. present day politics is generally not very integral/constructive. if that's what we want, then we're pretty much on our own. we can note how the many perspectives offered on the presidential race are almost all, each in their own way, less than integral, e.g. the 'yes, we can' video. but that leaves us with the task of putting together a more integral perspective on our own.

i've been looking lately for some political insight into how to do this from nytimes columnist david brooks. he's definitely conservative and anti-liberal, but with the bush administration/neocon debacle, he seemed to have begun questioning his own assumptions and actually 'came out' for obama last year. moreover, even if he is less than integral, my own estimation, from reading his two books, which spoof green, is that he is definitely 2nd tier.

yet he remains adamantly opposed to clinton, and now he is backtracking on obama (from his op-ed piece 'questions for dr. retail, feb. 8th):

Then did you see the Hopemeister’s speech? His schtick makes sense if you’ve got a basic level of security in your life, if you’re looking up, not down. Meanwhile, Obama’s people are so taken with their messiah that soon they’ll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings. There’s a “Yes We Can” video floating around YouTube in which a bunch of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and the guy from the Black Eyed Peas are singing the words to an Obama speech in escalating states of righteousness and ecstasy. If that video doesn’t creep out normal working-class voters, then nothing will.

working-class voters, incidentally, who generally support clinton.

so, not only are we a divided red-and-blue country, but we seem to be becoming increasingly divided in many other, narcissistically pluralistic ways.

maybe i'm being too pessimistic, because somehow we've come up with three, main candidates who, i believe, are all working to unite our country. not only that, they all bring something important to the integral table, even huckabee, for that matter, although i certainly wouldn't want him to become our next president.

anyway, with all this in mind, i'm beginning to think it may be better not to endorse any one candidate, but to begin pointing out what is good about each one of them--what they bring to the integral table, and noting, to a lesser extent, their limitations.

---

"So, for 4 minutes, like Lizzie. I thought I'd suspend the analysis."  Well, it is true, there have been times when I am pumped up about Senator Obama, that i feel that I am at a party drinking too much champagne and while I know I will have a hang-over in the morning ,I just cant stop drinking while the party is  going on.  But then, he says things like i mentioned above about changing "the mind-set" that causes war (which no rational person believes mean eliminating or weakening the military, but understands that is is a seed).  And then he mentions that he believes in opening up dialoque to leaders whether we like them or not..  Then he says that he will make availiable student loans to kids who want to go to college, but he will require volunteer work from them in return.  

 That is what i love about his ideas, that he wants people to participate more in their government.  I dont think he can be dismissed as just a good speaker because it isnt just up to him to initiate change, it is up to us, and that is the message he conveys.  We'll see. Pass the bubbly!

Cheers, lizzie

ralphweidner:

[maybe i'm being too pessimistic, because somehow we've come up with three, main candidates who, i believe, are all working to unite our country. not only that, they all bring something important to the integral table, even huckabee, for that matter, although i certainly wouldn't want him to become our next president.

I agree with this, and I too don't want Huckabee to become president because like my father was saying, "he'd take us back to the dark ages," but I think he still means well in his own right.  I'm a dedicated follower of Hillary just because I think she has a inward personal conviction that goes beyond what a lot of people can understand.  Obama is very inspirational, but I hope people can translate that yes we can accurately, and it doesn't mean a yes you can after the excitement dies down.  I'm trying not to be too pessimistic but I can't help but wonder if I am given Obama's hugely popular reception. 

hi,

it sounds like we're seeing alot of the same things.  my local paper, this morning, shows someone with a poster that simply says "OBAMA FOR ME" in conjunction with a story on Obama's wins this past weekend.  they are either unaware or not at all concerned about the narcissism this expresses.

---

Jim, I enjoy your phrasing "aspirational" as distinct from inspirational, while inspiration is contained within aspiration in many ways I think. It's true that Obama is pretty inspirational. I have never been a huge fan of the chants at rallies (including the "Yes, We Can") and those things make me uneasy. From this perspective, I share in your discomfort with the idealism in his campaign that you noted will have to come back to a reality check. But on the other hand, every campaign has these sorts of slogans. I doubt Hillary would object to having one of her phrases taken up by the youth/pop/music culture and popularized. Ralph, when you say the "Yes We Can" ads are less than integral, I think anyone would have to agree with you, but it's a music video, its a piece of mass media-- is it suppose to be integral? Is there a place for entertainment and inspiration for its own sake? Does it creep out middle-class voters? I'm not sure about this.. people like movies and pop icons. And again, all the campaigns pull in every celebrity they can.

But that add seems be rather beside the point. I had the opportunity of caucusing in Iowa in a highly populated youth area, so unfortunately I got to see some of the narcissism that you speak of here. At the beginning of the night, the Obama crowd was larger than any other by a factor of at least four, but there were still many candidates represented. I would say there were around 400 people there total, with at least 200 in the Obama camp to begin, the vast majority of them falling into the 18-29 age bracket. The rules had specified for 30 minutes where a representative from each candidacy would get up and give a speech in support, but there had been a motion to lessen this time. We'd agreed on 15 minutes instead, yet the Obama throng was screaming to make it "5 minutes." Only five minutes to have 8 representatives give a speech for their candidates? It was obvious they cared less about the process and more about the result ("win"). As the night went on and other candidates were vying for the loose voters, Obama kids were shouting anything from "hurry up" to "yes, we can" while others were still trying to negotiate. Still, I was just as disheartened by an Edwards and Hillary campaign who'd brought cookies to the place. Before his camp was found to have so many people, Obama people were going to play some sort of game that the first people who showed up to caucus could participate in. While the different camps were negotiating, there was no discussion of issues or policy (none of that "healthy public debate" we hear that caucuses are suppose to have), there was deal making and figuring out how to ciphon people off from enough groups to get delegates. The caucus chair, the man in charge, was a Hillary man and had not been following the rules, allowed extra time for the parts where people can convince others to join their candidate, and by the end, was trying to deem Hillary's camp "viable" when she clearly did not have enough people to be viable. There were motions first to replace him as chair, which he silenced by not even allowing it, then a motion to settle the night with Edwards 2 and Obama 5. I'm sorry to say, this would have been the count without any of the volatile arguing (and there really were some obscene times there, under-represented groups being red-faced and manipulating, the Obama and Edwards people eager to get on with it and loudly impatient). So the narciccism is evident across the lines, but I can only agree with the sentiment that this is a bigger deal with the youth, who primarily lie with the Obama camp. Well-- that age group is (I think) rightly categorized as the "me generation," so how surprising is this and how much does it have to do with Obama? I happen to think that, while a young person might not know why they're being inspired and will tend to go with the emotion wave, their enthusasim can point to a Truth that lies beneath or past even their own understanding. I think the fact that Obama is also winning among the highly-educated is indicative of this.

To cap it all off, there was a group of about twenty foreign students visiting to watch. I was standing next to a Chicago student and he was absolutely fascinated and pumped up by the passion everyone was displaying. To me it was obvious that most of these people were more concerned with justifying the time they'd already given to a candidate by being as ruthless as possible to get delegates, most of it to no avail, or just trying to get on with their Wednesday nights. For half of us, it was a comedy. I had walked in uncommitted, sided with Biden for the first few rounds, then ultimately gave my vote over to Obama after the reality had set in with everyone so eager to fight for the lowest spots and the game was over. As a side note, it was one of those occasions that turned out to be surprisingly thought-provoking and spiritual I guess. I stood up on a chair gazing out into the sea of faces, watching them all opposed or together, smiling or upset... and I just fell in to this meditation and started to see everyone as part of the eternal face, that the separation they are seeing between themselves is simply not there as they conceive of it to be, all their commotion based on relatively limited world views or perspectives. It only made me smile and just feel really glad that everyone cared so much about themselves, shallow as that self or that caring might have been. Anyone ever fall into these experiences? That feeling of "this is us, this is Me as all of us" or "Wow, here we are! Look as us grow!" I think that's the Obama feeling for me and for all those people who report being so moved after attending his rallies or speeches. Its that feeling that We (in the broadest integral sense, even) really are changing, this is the time, "the time is now,"  "cliche" as all these sound. Well, I think they're only cliche if we allow them to fade away as ineffectual. That so many don't find the chant "Yes, We Can" creepy or odd or out of place just seems like a testament to the depth/reality that might truly lie beneath them. I left energized and feeling very whole with my community, despite the narcissism and self-serving behavior of people from all the camps there. In the end, its democrats expressing consent to change, need for change, a care for country, and a renewed attitude of social/political engagement that can only be a wonderful sign for our nation and the welfare of our people. It is under that banner that the country can be united for any sort of revolution which should be more like an evolution (perhaps even a "Teal" one).

Well I'm not sure how much that story is worth. I will say that I have shed an aspirational tear once or twice when listening to Barack speak. There is something undeniably moving about him, his demeanor and character, his ability to raise money from grandmas and students across the nation, to win delegate counts all across the country and not just in the higher populated areas. I trust people who come to me with his book and say how aspirational it was, inspirational, too, and they have not been swayed by a pop media production. It would be unfair of me to not represent myself as an Obama supporter and also a young person-- I am both.

Jim and Ralph too I'd be interesting in hearing an analytical and integral look at the top candidates as you've both mentioned as worthwhile. I am curious as to how you would characterize them and would be as interested to hear of their "limitations," as you see them. It was mentioned that this is not the appropriate place for that, why not? Interested to hear..

Tim

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

hi tim,

you wrote:

Jim and Ralph too I'd be interesting in hearing an analytical and integral look at the top candidates as you've both mentioned as worthwhile. I am curious as to how you would characterize them and would be as interested to hear of their "limitations," as you see them. It was mentioned that this is not the appropriate place for that, why not? Interested to hear..

i agree with you. in the latest Holons Newsletter i-i staff member corey de vos looked at a column on obama and mccain by david brooks from an integral perspective, suggesting, as i understood, how they complemented each other in certain ways. the implication for me was that a candidate who included the stated qualities of both of these candidates would be a more integral candidate, hence a better one.

of course, such a candidate doesn't exist. i have generally supported clinton, so my hope has been that she would emerge as the more integral candidate, but i have to admit that, if anyone, obama shows the greatest potential along those lines. i've actually done my homework in this regard: i've read both his books, have listened closely to the debates, and so on. incidentally, if you are seriously interested in obama, as you've shown by going to the trouble of participating in a caucus, then i urge you to read--study, if you have the time--his first book, 'dreams from my father'. he wrote it with the intention of becoming a writer. only after it failed to sell did he decide to try instead politics. as a result it is a much more open book by far than any politician could write.

in particular, it allows for an in depth psychological study. we can surmise, so to speak, what makes him tick. i was very impressed, but as the campaign has heated up, i have begun to realize more and more how the baggage, the karma, the history we all carry with us is, in his case, influencing that campaign in ways that he may not be conscious of or, to the extent he may be aware, not in control of.

again, that's no doubt true of the other candidates as well--i just don't know as much about them--and even more true of myself, for instance, which is why i would never dare, never did, go into something like politics.

so while, like you, i've been wanting to ascend to a more integral perspective, i've often gotten caught up in the immediate drama, in this instance, the direction the obama campaign seems to be taking in its quest for victory.

when i do succeed in stepping back from it all, i can see where all the candidates, former and present, bring something important to the table. in that light we can ask which of the candidates will best be able to draw on this community of wisdom. i don't know the answer. i'd be glad to hear what others have to say. as an example, i'm pasting in a blog i've borrowed from iNYC (i'm not even going to try to provide a link):

Obama vs. the Phobocracy

By Michael Chabon
Monday, February 4, 2008; 12:00 AM

There are many reasons not to support Barack Obama's candidacy for president, but every one of them is bad for the same reason.

Because I have come out publicly for the senator from Illinois, I am often called upon to listen as people offer up -- with wistfulness and regret, or with a pundit's show of certainty, or with a well-earned but useless skepticism -- their bad reasons for not giving Obama their support. For a long time now, I have listened to these people with forbearance and with a sense of duty -- not to some principle of open debate or of the inherent merit in the free exchange of even meritless ideas, but rather out of obligation to the candidate whose cause I champion.

Because Obama appears to be a patient, forbearing man with a gift for listening, I figured I owed it to him to play the thing his way. So I have nodded and looked into their eyes and hummed sympathetically as people gave their reasons and made their excuses and generally offered up, as if they were golden ingots of profound wisdom, the handful of two-penny nails with which they plan to board up the windows of their hopes for themselves, their families, their country and the world.

But now, with everything seeming to come down, at last, to the first Tuesday in February, and in the wake of an all-out, months-long push by the cynicism industry to cook up an entire line of bad reasons ready to heat and serve, I admit that I'm getting tired of listening to rationales from people who know that Obama is a remarkable, even an extraordinary politician, the kind who comes along, in this era of snakes and empty smiles, no more than once a generation.

Oh, sure, most of these people tell me they would like to see Obama become president. No question, he comes off as at once brilliant and sensible, vibrant and measured, engaged and engaging, talented, forthright, quick-witted, passionate, thoughtful and, as with all remarkable people whom experience has taught both the extent and the bitter limits of their gifts, reasonably humble. In a better world, people tell me, in theory, sure, having a president like Barack Obama sounds great. But not, you know, for real. Not in the base, corrupt, morally spent, toxic and reeling rats' nest that we like to call home. Things are so bad we just can't afford to waste our votes, people tell me, on some fantasy super-president with magical powers. We need someone electable, someone, as I have been told repeatedly in the past year, who can win.

Of course this misses the point; it misses all kinds of points. In a better world, if there were such a thing (and so far there never has been), we would not need a president like Obama as badly as we do. If there were less at stake, if our democracy had not been permitted, indeed encouraged, to sink to its present degraded and embattled condition not only by the present administration but by a fair number of those people now seeking to head up the next one, perhaps then we could afford to waste our votes on the candidate who knows best how to jigger, to manipulate and to conform to the vapid specifications of the debased electoral process it has been our unhappy fate to construct for ourselves.

Because ultimately, that is the point of Obama's candidacy -- of the hope, enthusiasm and sense of purpose it inspires, yes, but more crucially, of the very doubts and reservations expressed by those who pronounce, whether in tones of regret, certainty or skepticism, that America is not ready for Obama, or that Obama is not ready for the job, or that nobody of any worth or decency -- supposing there even to be such a person left on the American political scene -- can be expected to survive for a moment with his idealism and principle intact.

The point of Obama's candidacy is that the damaged state of American democracy is not the fault of George W. Bush and his minions, the corporate-controlle d media, the insurance industry, the oil industry, lobbyists, terrorists, illegal immigrants or Satan. The point is that this mess is our fault. We let in the serpents and liars, we exchanged shining ideals for a handful of nails and some two-by-fours, and we did it by resorting to the simplest, deepest-seated and readiest method we possess as human beings for trying to make sense of the world: through our fear. America has become a phobocracy.

Since I started talking and writing about Obama I have come to see that this ruling fear, and nothing else, lies at the back of every objection or reservation people raise or harbor regarding the man and his candidacy.

Fear whispers to us that white voters have a nasty tendency to tell pollsters, friends and neighbors that they support an African American candidate, then go into the voting booth and let the fear known as racism pull the lever.

Fear tells us that ugliness, rage and brutality are the central facts of human existence, that decency and tolerance are luxuries on whose altar our enemies will be only too happy to sacrifice us.

It is through our fear of falling prey to the calamity and misadventure from which the media promise faithlessly to protect us -- a fear manufactured and sold by the media themselves -- that we accept without question the media-borne canard (tainted, in my view, by a racism as insidious as any that hides behind the curtains of voting booths) that Barack Obama, a seasoned and successful 46-year-old husband and father of two, a man sweeping into the prime of his life with all his sails and flags unfurled, is too young and inexperienced for a job that demands vitality and flexibility and that, furthermore, has made nonsense of glittering resumes, laughingstocks of practiced old hands and, in a reverse of Popeye's old trick, ravenous alligators out of years of accumulated baggage.

Fear and those who fatten on it spread vile lies about Obama's religion, his past drug use, his views on Israel and the Jews. Fear makes us see the world purely in terms of enemies and perils, and leads us to seek out the promise of leadership, however spurious it proves to be, among those who speak the language of that doomed and demeaning, that inhuman view of the world.

But the most pitiable fear of all is the fear of disappointment, of having our hearts broken and our hopes dashed by this radiant, humane politician who seems not just with his words but with every step he takes, simply by the fact of his running at all, to promise so much for our country, for our future and for the eventual state of our national soul. I say "pitiable" because this fear of disappointment, which I hear underlying so many of the doubts that people express to me, is ultimately a fear of finding out the truth about ourselves and the extent of the mess that we have gotten ourselves into. If we do fight for Obama, work for him, believe in him, vote for him, and the man goes down to defeat by the big-money machines and the merchants of fear, then what hope will we have left to hold on to?

Thus in the name of preserving hope do we disdain it. That is how a phobocracy maintains its grip on power.

To support Obama, we must permit ourselves to feel hope, to acknowledge the possibility that we can aspire as a nation to be more than merely secure or predominant. We must allow ourselves to believe in Obama, not blindly or unquestioningly as we might believe in some demagogue or figurehead but as we believe in the comfort we take in our families, in the pleasure of good company, in the blessings of peace and liberty, in any thing that requires us to put our trust in the best part of ourselves and others. That kind of belief is a revolutionary act. It holds the power, in time, to overturn and repair all the damage that our fear has driven us to inflict on ourselves and the world.

And when we all wake up on Nov. 5, 2008, to find that we have made Barack Obama the president of the United States, the world is already going to feel, to all of us, a little different, a little truer to its, and our, better nature. It is part of the world's nature and of our own to break, ruin and destroy; but it is also our nature and the world's to find ways to mend what has been broken. We can do that. Come on. Don't be afraid.

mchabon@gmail. com

Michael Chabon's novels include "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay," "The Yiddish Policemen's Union" and, most recently, "Gentlemen of the Road."

__._

---