Hope Has a Name, and It’s Not ‘Barack’

During an interview with Oprah Winfrey last week, First Lady Michelle Obama unmasked our national political problem.

Oprah asked, “Your husband’s administration, everything, was all about hope. Do you think that this administration achieved that?”

Here is the response:

Yes, I do. Because we feel the difference now. Now, we’re feeling what not having hope feels like. Hope is necessary. It’s a necessary concept. Barack didn’t just talk about hope because he thought it was a nice slogan to get votes. He and I and so many believe, that what else do you have if you don’t have hope? What do you give your kids if you can’t give them hope? Our children respond to crises the way they see us respond. It’s like the toddler that bumps his head on the table, and they look up at you to figure out whether it hurts, if you’re like, “Oh my god,” they’re crying. If you’re like, “You know what? Babe it’s okay,” it’s okay.

What do we do if we don’t have hope? The answer is simple and it’s about the source.

The First Lady is right in recognizing hope is essential. But hope is much more than a political concept. In fact, it’s not a concept at all. Hope is a person. The problem Mrs. Obama seems to miss is the president is not the embodiment of our hope — nor the person in which we find our hope.

But politicians are tapping into something real: an electorate desperately looking for something or someone in which to hope. Over the years, campaigns have learned hopelessness is a powerful sentiment that, if harnessed, results in votes. Both parties do it — just with different language. It would be disingenuous to deny hope is woven into the very fabric of the Trump campaign slogan to “Make America Great Again.”