Visiting A Place Called Hope

During the recent conservative era in America, circa 1980-1992, liberals were often accused of hoping for things to go badly. There was some justice in this accusation. As conservatives are now discovering, the psychology of political opposition is complicated. Of course, for reasons both patriotic and selfish, you don't want calamity to befall the United States of America. On the other hand, it is hard not to relish a certain gloomy anticipation of seeing your predictions of doom come true. And as a practical matter, bad times are the + usual way the out-of-power side gets back in.

But the psychology of political ascendance turns out to be complicated as well. Liberals these days are called upon to perform the novel, and surprisingly arduous, exercise of hoping for a President to succeed. Some aren't up to it. American liberals have basically been in opposition mode since around 1966, halfway through L.B.J.'s second term (except perhaps for a week or two in 1977 at the beginning of the Carter Administration). For most, that period covers their entire politically aware lives. Many are too young to have experienced firsthand the euphoria of J.F.K.'s Camelot, but are now too old and world-weary to join the twentysomethings who swoon unselfconsciously without shame for Bill Clinton.

These pathetic souls have wandered for years in the political desert. Now they stand outside the promised land -- a Place Called Hope -- yet they cannot enter. What blocks their way? Four things.

First, knee-jerk iconoclasm. The habit of a lifetime is hard to break. The very phrase "the President's economic plan" starts the facial nerves twitching into the formation of a cynical sneer. As proposals for reform of everything under the sun come cascading out of the Administration, the first instinct is to assume there is something wrong with each of them.

Second, there is the phenomenon known as "the narcissism of small differences." Liberals and left-wingers are enthusiastic sectarians. Some are ready to denounce Clinton for not being a "real Democrat" whenever he compromises or takes a moderate position. Others are equally quick to denounce him for not being a "new Democrat" whenever he holds firm to some traditional liberal principle they would rather see abandoned.

We all have our political hobbyhorses. One of mine, for example, has been tax reform: eliminate loopholes and lower the rates. Clinton's tax plan undoes much of tax reform. It not only raises rates but also reintroduces a variety of (in my view) stupid tax breaks for this or that business activity. But I ask myself, Is tax reform more important than curbing the deficit and reinvigorating the government? I swallow hard and say no.

A third guardian at the gates of hope is a fear of seeming boosterish. Naked sincerity and enthusiasm can be embarrassing. One must protect one's reputation for skepticism. One doesn't want to be thought of as a cadre or a Moonie, like those absurd Reaganites of the early- to mid-1980s. Nor does one want to be associated with the real Clintonite swooners, not all of whom are youths in their 20s.