Disappointing leaders and cynicism. Even on the day of Barack Obama’s inauguration the western world struggles with a misplaced definition of “realism”.

3MT : The difference between optimism and realism [ 5:03 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (164)

An interesting interview on Radio 4′s Today programme this morning, gearing up for the orgy of inauguration which is now upon us. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, made a great play between the optimism surrounding the possibilities of Barack Obama’s presidency and the inevitable disappointment by which it will be tempered.

“The most important thing to keep in mind, once we get past the celebrations, is that no matter how talented, charismatic, driven, and strategically sound this man is, he faces a continuing dysfunctional political system…The real test of a president comes not in the flush of the honeymoon, but when serious adversity hits.”

Ornstein concluded, sombrely, “There’s reason to be optimistic, but realism does set in here.”

There is a difference, Ornstein proposes, between optimism on the one hand and realism on the other: an interesting idea, and one which is very popular in our day. As was said on Simon Mayo’s programme later on in the day, “we don’t do hope” in Great Britain, and neither, it seems, is it much liked in the political circles of the United States. We have elevated “realism” as the greatest political virtue, and in doing so, we have mistaken what actually constitutes realism. We now seem to believe that realism is one part cynicism and two parts disappointment, and to drink deeply and despondently of such a potion is the sign of the “realist”. The world will eventually disappoint you, and your leaders will inevitably let you down. To be cynical merely means getting your disappointment in first.

Perhaps this is true. After all, Heifetz and Linsky of Harvard Business School have defined leadership as “disappointing people at a rate they can absorb.”¹ And this was certainly the experience of Jesus in the years of his teaching ministry. After his “difficult” teaching on the bread of heaven, “many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.” (John 6.66). Jesus disappointed his disciples at a rate greater than they could absorb.

Even so, the opposite of optimism is not realism: it is pessimism. Pessimism is the sense that nothing will make any difference; our destiny is to go to hell in a handbasket (The Duke of Wellington’s comment, “Reform, sir! Reform! aren’t things bad enough already?” is the peak of pessimism). The handmaid of pessimism is cynicism, the belief that things will go bad because of stupidity, greed and deliberate malfeasance. Optimism, on the other hand, is the belief that there is more good than evil in the universe, and that good will ultimately win out. This belief does not, should not, exist as a wide-eyed and unworldly pollyanna-ism. After all, optimism’s first principle is that evil exists and bad things happen. Rather, optimism’s handmaid is a clear-sighted realism: being able to look at the world as it truly is, and see where the forces of good are at work and where they need to be strengthened.

And the personification of the optimistic realist (or realistic optimist) is Jesus. After all, it was he who sent his disciples out with this hopeful piece of advice: “‘See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16).

1. Ronald A. Heifetz and Martin Linsky, Leadership on the line: staying alive through the dangers of leading (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 2002). [↩]