Why is the cynic a "he" and why need a critic of Obama be a cynic at all. I guess I am a naive Marxist who thinks that principles and values are dialectically related to the mode of production. Obama is capitalist through and through and it is Zizek who ignores the power of illusions. Obamas support among otherwise intelligent leftists is good evidence of this. THere is nothing cynical about all this in my opinion. It is fact and the basis for any realistic assessment of the situation.
[...]
.....
Gendered language policing aside (what is this, 1975?), I think you're missing the mark.
Zizek agrees with you when you say "Obama is capitalist through and through" beginning the piece with this explicit acknowledgment of reality:
I fully share Chomsky's doubts about the real consequences of Obama's victory: From a pragmatic-realistic perspective, it is quite possible that Obama will just do some minor face-lifting improvements, turning out to be "Bush with a human face." He will pursue the same basic politics in a more attractive mode and thus effectively even strengthen U.S. hegemony, which has been severely damaged by the catastrophe of the Bush years.
[...]
So, I don't think he's under any illusions at all about the Obama administration's likely policies (and this sets his position apart from that of more enthusiastic leftists who've suspended their disbelief). He's talking about something outside of Obama's actually existing politics -- in fact, outside of the way we've debated this subject to-date.
In short, many people believe something new is afoot. This belief *itself* may have pleasant consequences we can't predict. The 'cynicism' Zizek's addressing isn't a lack of faith in the Obama presidency (because, as Zizek stated at the top of his essay, you shouldn't have any faith), but rather, a lack of faith in the unforeseen happening.
.d.