presidency

Cynical, and a Little Jealous: England on Inauguration day

Sunday, January 25th, 2009

210109-steve-bell-on-pr-001

Amid the rampant Obama-mania in the U.S., hearing opinions from across seas, from a cul-de-sac deep in the heart of rural England, can be endlessly refreshing.

“Did you watch the inauguration?”

“Inaugur-what?”

“The swearing-in of America’s new president, Barack Obama.”

“No. For a start, this is England. Who cares who America’s new President is? Anyone is going to be better than Bush.”

As far as some of my British friends are concerned, the mere fact that this new guy “isn’t Bush” is cause for celebration. Expectations are low in the pessimistic isle, because low expectations are more likely to be met. And according to the British public (at least, as far as I can infer) it’s not a good idea to set the bar too high for America, despite their seemingly sane choice for a new president.

Even those who aren’t particularly interested in American politics have adopted the opinion that President Bush’s eight years were a disaster, that he trashed America’s reputation (or, at least, fulfilled all the negative stereotypes that have been bred across seas) and was generally just a “retarded cowboy” (to quote British comedian Russell Brand, who has become a disturbingly influential force in the homeland.)

Anti-American sentiment in the U.K. has significantly grown during Bush’s presidency, roaring into mainstream culture at about the same time the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was released (July 2004) before quieting to an apathetic lull in the past few years. News became opinion, opinion became gossip, gossip became stereotype, and suddenly everyone thought that “bad president” and “George Bush” went together like tea and biscuits. No argument. Everyone was willing to take part in the Bush-bashing party. Yet ask the average man-on-the-street (outside of London) to name three things that President Bush did during his presidency, good or bad, and you might find that popular opinion deflates like a balloon. The British, as Polly Toynbee from The Guardian explains, are “lazily cynical.” Rather than rejoice, they prefer to believe that “political passion is unfashionable, risky, naive, and destined for disappointment.”

Despite Toynbee’s declaration that Jan. 20 was accompanied by a world-wide “tidal wave of optimism”, reactions to the inauguration (for those I know who watched it in the UK) were pretty tame compared to election night. It was a very polite historical event, and Britain already has its fair share of those (Victory in England day, the Queen’s Speech, the Royal Variety Show… it can seem like one a week sometimes.) As is the case with such events, TV sets were tuned to BBC news and left on, buzzing in the background all day, keeping audiences plugged into what they kept being told was “an important day in history.”

Unlike election night, when that “tidal wave of optimism” was thick and clear around the world, inauguration day in Britain seems to have better suited the image of an ominously still lake. There was a “wait and see” attitude toward the celebrations. “I’ve got a bad feeling about today,” commented one Guardian reader. “Prepare for the worst,” wrote another. “Cynicism isn’t lazy,” explained a third. “It may be wrong but it isn’t lazy. Cynicism is bred of long despairing and we have been long despairing.”

The fears bubbled and frothed. Where is the story going to lead, working backwards from this happy ending? Are the troops really going to come back from Iraq now? Is the American government going to aid its poor, hungry, jobless, huddled masses yearning to breathe free? What’s going to be the new definition for that controversial word, “Israel”? There are too many questions for this new President to answer, and the cynics are waiting with abated breath for the storm to come. “As a purely historical observation,” wrote another Guardian commenter, “America doesn’t do “good” presidents or charismatic black leaders… at least, not for long.”

But having low-expectations (or even extremely morbid expectations) may simply be a sign of Britain’s own esteem issues. This is a country without cheerleaders, root beer, or Las Vegas. This is a country that ceded its power after centuries of global dominance only to watch America become master in a fraction of the time. It’s no wonder that the U.K. ranks 26th in a global study of self-esteem, a full 20 places behind the U.S. As British journalist Mark Austin bluntly puts it, “Barack Obama makes me jealous.”

Cynical. Optimistic. Jealous. Thankful. Scared. Happy. Historical events always spark a mish-mash of emotion. But there are only two words that will define the next 100 days… “We’ll see.”

fully articulated

Saturday, February 10th, 2007

obama feb

He came. He announced. He referenced Abe Lincoln as much as possible. Then he flew to Iowa to campaign.

“[Lincoln's life] tells us that a different future is possible, that there is power in words, that there is power in conviction… that beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people. [His life] tells us that there is power in hope.”

Meantime the press is flogging the first-term senator’s lack of experience, as if that has ever in modern history, for better or for worse, been a deciding concern for American voters, as if anything in the present president’s background, for example, prepared him in the slightest to lead the most powerful military on the planet on a massive nation-building enterprise in the Middle East that has included jolting reinterpretations of U.S. law regarding military engagement, combatant detainment and domestic surveillance.

At very least, Obama has experience as a community organizer, an attorney, a senator and as a fully literate and reflective human being. He has a law degree from Harvard and has authored by himself without help two bestselling books on american life and politics. His colleague Joe Biden has also assured us that Obama has experience speaking correctly in public and washing himself properly on a regular basis. Obama may not make the best president. He may not be the best candidate for president. But can we please, given the standard set over the past eight years, not pretend to worry over any purported lack of experience on the man’s part? Blaaaah!