The audacity of asking for a definition of "hope"

I should point out that my post, "How shall we judge our new leader?", was not plagiarized from Amy Welborn's post, "Put not your trust." I say that in jest, but we did hit on several of the same points and we quote the same Juan Williams' piece. In fact, I just read Amy's excellent post a couple of hours ago for the first time. Highly recommended. A quick taste:

I wonder if we, in our celebrity culture, still obviously yearning for a monarchy and even for spiritual leadership, place too much weight on the presidency.

Secondly, why do people need a president to give them hope? Let me repeat - I can see it in relationship to #1 above, that he functions in that way - but, in general, who needs the presence of a particular individual in the White House to shape how they feel about life, about possibility, about the responsibility to serve others?

The topic of "hope", as Amy notes, was a key part of the campaign run by President Obama; the "audacity of hope" was both catchy and rather inchoate. I was struck, in watching a bit of the television coverage yesterday, by the number of people who talked about "having hope" and "needing hope" and so forth as they spoke about the election and the inauguration. The Seattle Times ran an editorial cooing about how "Inauguration Day 2009 was an adult conversation about the audacity of hope." There is now hope for the economy, hope for international affairs, hope for the entire world, hope for equality, hope for just about everything. Ta-da!

Ironically, some of the news articles and opinion pieces that talked about this vague and ill-defined (never-defined?) "hope" also spoke of the victory of "pragmatism" over against "ideology", the advent of an "optimistic pragmatism", and the acceptance of a "centrist pragmatism." (Of course, pragmatism itself can easily become an ideology of sorts, so the "pragmatism" vs. "ideology" construct seems a bit contrived.) It is beyond me how hope that is as wildly unrealistic as it is widely bantered can be squared with a practical, foot-firmly-on-terra-firma approach to matters. Part of answer surely lies in the desire for "spiritual leadership" mentioned by Amy. I touched on this notion a couple of years ago in an article, "An Apologetic of Hope," written for This Rock:

In the Dictionary of Theology, Rev. Louis Bouyer wrote that "even today, one of the most urgent problems facing Christian thought is to give a greater emphasis to the definition of supernatural hope in the context of the different hopes harbored in the modern world." Christian hope, he explained, cannot be confused with a natural though doomed attempt to achieve human perfection. This is especially important in the face of evils that have been perpetrated in the name of social, political, and technological "progress."

In recent decades, theories about politics and society have frequently been based on the belief that freedom, human dignity, and justice are shifting cultural values or man-made ideas created to meet particular needs at various points in history. This is the essence of trendy theories that undermine belief in an objective, transcendent moral order. Their materialist assumptions lead to the belief that man’s "hope" and "meaning" is found in material things—ranging from political movements to fine wine to video games—and that progress is inevitable because of advances in science and technology. Man’s hope for anything beyond himself is diverted into dead ends, including the literal ones produced by abortion, euthanasia, and other "solutions" to man’s material problems.

In a culture of death, the tension that man experiences as one who is "on the way" must be dulled or destroyed. As Peter Kreeft shows in Heaven: The Heart’s Deepest Longing, the questions "In what may I hope?" and "What may I hope for?" are either infrequently asked or are relegated to the realm of private belief. Sometimes they are "answered" by pointing the questioner to earthly hopes for improved health, longer life, more justice, less hate, a helpful government.

But man is desperate to reach beyond himself, to find fulfillment beyond this world. Christians should readily pose questions pointing to true hope: Why do I exist? What is the meaning of my life? What am I living for? Is there something beyond here and now? It is Christian hope, based in the gospel, that answers man’s questions about his ultimate destiny.

All of this, of course, is addressed far more eloquently and with profound insight by Pope Benedict XVI in Spe Salvi (which came out after my article, otherwise I would have referenced it many times):

 Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope. Given the developments of the modern age, the quotation from Saint Paul with which I began (Eph 2:12) proves to be thoroughly realistic and plainly true. There is no doubt, therefore, that a “Kingdom of God” accomplished without God—a kingdom therefore of man alone—inevitably ends up as the “perverse end” of all things as described by Kant: we have seen it, and we see it over and over again. Yet neither is there any doubt that God truly enters into human affairs only when, rather than being present merely in our thinking, he himself comes towards us and speaks to us. Reason therefore needs faith if it is to be completely itself: reason and faith need one another in order to fulfil their true nature and their mission.

Faith in politicians is a perilous path, whatever one's political persuasion. Some of President Obama's supporters will undoubtedly be frustrated, even angry, as he makes decisions and implements policies. On the other hand, those of us with many questions and doubts may be surprised. Hopefully for the best, but it's best to be a bit pragmatic about one's chances when earthly, political hopes are the issue at hand.

Comments

[Telemachus]

"Pragmatism," one of the most deceptive ideas in existence today:

***************************

The claim of "pragmatism" essentially allows a person to mask his ideology from not only the outside world but from HIMSELF. Therein lies the danger: a pragmatist who strongly believes in a particular world-view thinks that he is acting PURELY OUT OF NECESSITY, which inoculates him from all criticism. Pragmatism is an accessory to ideology, not an ideology.

Now, these are the marks of the pragmatist that I have been able to establish:
(1) Constant referral to "studies," various statistics and factoids.

(2) In combination with (1), the use of psycho-babble to deconstruct all human relationships, convinced that he understands them as an engineer understands a coffee machine. It follows that if only a few "knobs could be tweaked," everything would be just dandy.

(3) Following from (2), a desire for "solutions" to human problems that "just work." A person need only ask the pragmatist "How are you evaluating whether something related to the human condition 'works' or not? Is that not a value opinion which requires an underlying world-view?" The pragmatist will go into a tail-spin of frustration, simply unable to comprehend how his interlocutor could not be understanding what they are trying to say. "You're just uninformed."

(4) Claimed "neutrality," believing his opinions to be scientifically justified and therefore no more charged with ideology than a rock.

(5) Finally, a pathological compulsion to "do something about something." The pragmatist cannot keep his nose out of or his hands off of anything having to do with society. Thus, there is a great overlap between pragmatist and social-engineer.

***************************

The pragmatist is dangerous, a wolf in sheep's clothing: he believes that he doesn't believe in anything, and avoids (or simply doesn't have) the reflective thought necessary to realize the unreality of such. The pragmatist KNOWS that something MUST be done about something, and if he can't get his way through persuasion, he will effect it through coercion.

In short, the pragmatist is a zombie-ideologue, someone to be feared far more than he that knows himself to be an ideologue. Hillare Belloc referred to this person as the "Practical Man" in The Servile State, and what he had to say rings true to this very day.

The above comments in form of a 10-second play:
"Brains..."
"Yes, I know, but how do you propose to get these brains?"
"Just need brains..."
"Augh, get away from me!"
*chomp*