The Willing Suspension of Disbelief

When Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined this richly associative phrase nearly two centuries ago he was talking, of course, about literature. Specifically, he wanted to justify his love of fantasy, arguing that "human interest and a semblance of truth" would serve to seduce the reader into an imaginative compact with the author. The thought came to mind this morning as I searched for a way to respond to yet another skeptical correspondent who demanded to know why he should continue to believe in the good faith of President Obama and his ability to enact significant health care reform.

Friends write to me to let me know of their distress. I get sometimes bitterly angry comments to my online posts. I read and hear what the left-wing prophets of doom assert: that Obama -- if he was really anything other than one more crass politician who deceived us into voting for him -- has already capitulated to the corporate oligarchy and the strident voices of the right. He should never have been so naïve as to put his faith in the mirage of bi-partisanship. He lacks strength and sense of purpose. He should have spoken out earlier and more forcefully. He should be out there, leading...

I know. I hear these things, and I share the deep and troubling concern that gives rise to them. There is a whole big part of me that is ready to give up on all of it; to abandon hope in the weak-kneed Democrats who lack the vision and the conviction to come up with a plan they can agree on; and, yes, to blame a President who at times seems aloof from the fray and disconnected from the people who placed their trust in him as the last great hope for change.

And yet... there are times when the willing suspension of disbelief seems appropriate and necessary, in order to remain true to my own commitment to do what I can do for my fellow-beings with whom I share this planet. I share the skepticism. Call it, perhaps, realism: the facts of this country's recent history and its current affairs speak loudly. Deadlock and acrimony confront us everywhere we look -- here in my own state, California, and in the nation's capital. We are addicted to the material comforts of our lives, to such well-being as each of us has attained; and despite the demand for change on the left side of our national discourse, it seems that great power still lies in the hands of those who are adamantly, fiercely resistant to it. We are like some old, weary Gulliver, unable to break free from the multiple bonds of the Lilliputians who hold us captive.

In this circumstance, one useful strategy that stands between me and despair is the willing suspension of disbelief. I realize that it's a choice: it's "willing." But for the sake of my own sanity in a political culture that my more rational self deems utterly deranged and utterly beyond redemption, I make the active choice, for now, to suspend my disbelief. The act falls short of actually believing. I hold on to a small mental space where I acknowledge it to be a matter of intellectual and emotional choice rather than rational conviction. But the choice is still an empowering one, requiring that I not sink back into inertia.

It's also a "suspension." The mind-space I'm attempting to describe is temporal and provisional. I find that by suspending my disbelief I can more easily watch and wait, and find the patience needed to allow change to happen and, insofar as I am able, to help it along the way. It provides me with a place from which I can continue to act, in the hope that we can still return to our senses as a country, and that we can collectively reconnect with traditional values like compassion and responsibility toward others as well as for ourselves, with a sense of common social purpose, and with that truly American vision of "a more perfect union" that Obama has publicly embraced.

Call me naïve. Okay. An idealist. I'd rather be an idealist than an ideologue. But I'm constitutionally and temperamentally averse to succumbing to the kind of inaction and despair I might find myself accepting if I chose to surrender my willing suspension of disbelief. I'll settle for "human interest and a semblance of truth." And for believing, passionately, that acting as if something were possible can be the catalyst to make it happen. This, at least, is the path I choose.

Comments

[ouroborous]

So, the answer to Obama's likely deep and utter betrayal of the progressives who got him elected is -- to make believe? To pretend? To join hands and hope?

I'm sorry, but that achieves even less than cynicism and despair. Ultimately, what will fuel change will be the utter rage you're going to see from the progressive wing on Wednesday after Obama gives his speech -- his eloquent, empty speech -- telling us how he just can't win a public option.

We will make sure he is not elected in 2012. We will clean house in 2010 with primary challenges. The DLC will understand "shock and awe" as they realize that abandoning your base is political suicide. We will destroy the party, in order to remake it as something that's actually relevant, that actually STANDS for something.

No, sir, make believe is not for me. For me, action. I'm already thinking about who we'll primary in 2010, and how we'll make sure someone OTHER than Obama represents us in 2012.

[kaygee]

Buyers' remorse is spreading and perhaps people do have the right to believe that they've been conned, but Obama gave many signs before being elected that he wasn't the right guy for the job -- at least at this time. He announced he would ramp up the war in Afghnistan even before he had nailed the Democratic nomination and that war has a major effect on the budget for health care and on the state of our ecconomy. But even if we had had an optimal candidate, the damage done in the last few months of the Bush presidency is probably irreparable.
Your phrase "join hands and hope" simply points up the vulnerability of voters to all those empty speeches at the beginning of Obama's campaign. His campaign manager, a brilliant manipulater of public opinion , supposedly persuaded the voters in Illinois to accept an increase in the price of one of their utilities. Slick talkers.
But somehow I don't think that anyone who voted for Obama can let himself or herself off the hook. His record as a state and national senator expressed what kind of president he was going to be.

[Inquisitr]

You may be willing to give up to provide yourself comfort sir, but I am not. The betrayal I feel is my moral compass. I've seen far to many empty words in my time to give any benefit of the doubt. I like to think I voted for Obama because I really thought he was better than McCain, and I did, but I have to admit that even I got caught up in "Obamania" myself, even if just a little. I desperately listened to those speeches and tried to see if I could find Kennedy in there. And as always if a mind is looking for something it will find it.

But it's all fake. He got lucky in ways we don't even really understand yet. It was a con flux of happenstance, going up against people we knew to be morally bankrupt, and circus clowns. the stars aligned for him. And as a country, we all hoped this would help blot out that dark stain of our original sin.

But we are here in reality now, and we have all been splashed by the cold water of reality. You suspend disbelief for the same reason people have faith, it makes you feel better at night. But just because you believe in god doesn't mean you go to heaven when you die, nor does it mean just because you hope that Obama is truly is the change you can believe in.

Face reality, we must..

[Sinick]

Thanks, I needed that pep talk. Nitpick--"Lilliputians?" We Americans are bound by corporate Goliaths.

[capitaldysfunction]

Peter Clothier is a poet for punked progressives. Is age what mellows an older liberal like myself these days? Younger libs declare themselves punked by Obama and want to give up on activism. I share their anger but refuse to quit. Edward Kennedy was most inspiring of all. He sometimes seethed at the Carters and Clintons for being less than liberal, but he kept trudging on despite defeats and frustrations, insisting that the Democrat party must be a liberal party. Indeed, what purpose or reason to have a Democrat party if it is not liberal? To hope when hope has been ripped from us is why we revere Edward Kennedy, and why we choose to cry with optimism that one day change will come.

[BLBass]

Beautiful expression of sentiments I think I share. To suspend my disbelief in Obama's honesty when he spoke so inspirationally and earned the support of millions who wanted fundamental change, would mean to believe that he can still be influenced to do what we think is right. I act and speak out of just that belief. But the problem with this presentation is that many will take it as an excuse to push back, out of fear that our political influence will vanish as it did 15 years ago, against idealists who are acting to make something possible simply because they don't believe it's impossible. To those I say, shame on you.

[silverball]

...my glass is still half full....but i feel like it's been a drought........

[Social Construct]

"And for believing, passionately, that acting as if something were possible can be the catalyst to make it happen. This, at least, is the path I choose." - Peter Clothier, The Willing Suspension of Disbelief.
Exactly! I have voted third party based on a belief system that the author so eloquently and logically states. Rather than take heed of the negative view that any vote outside of our two party system is a vote against one's own interests, I make the conscious, and informed, choice to believe and act as if the possibility of my speaking on behalf of, and voting for, candidates with less connection to monied interests and more connection to the people and ideals of our constitutional form of representative government may be a catalyst to make it happen. I believe in President Obama's vision for the future of this country can be a positive change for the betterment of all Americans; a fairer and more just nation. However, I do not believe in his party as a catalyst for the kind of change he envisions. Stronlgy supported third party candidates can steer the two "too big to fail" parties back toward representing their real constituents: the people.

[traveler501]

you know...there's altruism and then there's pragmatism. it helps not to confuse these two. what I hear you saying is that you did the right thing, while helping George Bush become president twice...or I suppose, you would say all the other people who voted for a Democrat did that by not also voting 3rd party. we can't always afford the luxury of altruism without exercising the responsiblity of getting off our butts and making sure everyone else is with us. consider reading the "Selfish Gene"

[Social Construct]

Thanks. I'll check out your suggested reading. However, I am less concerned with others' political choices as I am that when voting for either of the two mainstream parties, my vote is, for more or less, mutated into a vote for large monied interests with varying degrees of "trickle-down", secondary consideration for the citizens of our nation. If democrats and republicans are fine with the message of their parties, I hold no ill will towards them. I am merely suggesting that those of us voting outside the mainstream are due the same consideration. Take Sen. Sanders of Vermont as an example: although he holds a unique principled stand politically, he does take sides when he votes within the senate.

[mommadona]

OK - 'out of the box' thinking is good at this point.

BUT

The battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is also being played out with all of this, and I am afraid the young man from Illinois has taken the DLC route (what an oxymoron) and allowed the Rahm machine full access - thereby the stoic pragmatic cynicism toward Obama et al.

"Ya gotta go along to git along" DLC versus "Yes we can" DNC

HE has a personal choice to make.

[VMA]

I too hoose that path. I believe we have the chance for a lot of good to come from the Obama Administration, but I also know that change doesn't happen overnight. It's good to let the Pres. know our feelings, but the name calling is not constructive. There are time that I've been angry on this blog and have resorted to name calling, but I will endeavor to do better because it really is counterproductive.

I'm navie enough to continue to wish that we can work toward a common goal by using dignity and respect.