Crossing the Mara-Mara
contributed by Charles Lemos
Every decision is liberating, even if it leads to disaster. Otherwise, why do so many people walk upright and with open eyes into their misfortune? –Elias Canetti
Canetti might have written that of wildebeests as they gleefully jump into the Mara-Mara on the their annual migration across the plains of Africa and often into the waiting jaws of a Nile crocodile. Why do they do it? Why do we do it?
Perhaps Americans being born here and not generally getting out much are not terribly well-suited to recognizing that something is indeed amiss even though it has happened before in American politics. Both Ronald Reagan, he of the Reagan coalition, and Richard Nixon, he of the silent majority, were masters of crowd psychology. Obama is no different. His politics may be different no doubt but his approach is the same.
The definitive work on crowds was written by Elias Canetti (1905-1994), a Sephardic Jew born in Bulgaria who wrote in German but largely lived in England and Switzerland. He won the 1981 Nobel Prize for Literature. While he primarily wrote novels, his opus major was a volume of non-fiction entitled “Crowds and Power” written in German in 1962. It is not an easy volume to read much less encapsulate in a sentence or two (the book runs over 600 pages and it is dense), but if you were to read it you will never perceive any event that involves more than a few people ever again in the same way. It is simply a powerful book, a sociological and philosophical treatise of the first magnitude, useful for understanding the need for religion to the need for sport or simply a company picnic and Canetti most acutely observed the nature and psyche of the behavior of crowds. It attempts to answer the what, how and why of crowds.
Elias Canetti wrote on the types of crowds (baiting, flight, prohibition, reversal, and feast) and I think Obama crowds fit well into what Canetti called the baiting crowd phenomenon. It is not so much that he has wide-spread support, it is the kind of wide-spread that he enjoys. It is not very reflective nor deep, it is based on a hunch and a willingness to go along for a ride. It is rarely born of pensive assessment but more properly of opportunism. The ability to seize a moment.
Canetti classifies crowds by their prevailing emotion. The baiting crowd forms “in reference to quickly attainable goal.” It is characterized by a quickly growing crowd. As Canetti notes “the speed, elation and conviction of a baiting crowd is something uncanny.” Whether they are truly right is immaterial, they themselves and they alone are convinced that they right. It is generally pointless to argue over the merits of an argument, because the speed of their decision-making impairs generally reflective judgment. It is more emotive than rational. Under these circumstances, evidence is either discarded, rejected out of hand, or more apt wholly ignored. Canetti concludes, “it is the excitement of blind men who are blindest when they suddenly think that they can see.” It is akin to the bandwagon effect.
The baiting crowd also might describe Tony Blair back in 1997 with his New Labour rhetoric. Shorter on specifics (to be fair, the Westminster System is a better system than the US system for policy debates) and longer on emotional appeals. I can still hear the echo in my ear, “Time for a New Britain and a New Labour.” Look how well that turned out. And mind you Tony Blair was actually a progressive, or so we thought.
The baiting crowd also fits the psychology of a lynch mob. And if you think no one has been lynched during the course of this campaign ask Bill Clinton what happened to him the week before South Carolina. You might also ask John Edwards his thoughts about haircuts. I realize that latter lynching was largely done by the national media and not by the Obama campaign or his supporters but it is the same principle at work. And I don’t dispute that Obama too has been treated unfairly at times but it pales in comparison to what he or his surrogates have subjected both Mrs. Clinton and John Edwards.
Since I neither support Clinton or Obama (though I will support either in a general election), I can honestly see remarkable differences in the nature of their supporters and of the psychology behind the plebian mob if you will.
While neither group is composed of saints, the Obama crowd has a larger percentage of devils. Nothing stops them from accomplishing their task and they don’t allow anyone to get in their way. Witness the attacks on the Huffington Post alone on John Edwards by Lawrence O'Donnell who called him "a loser" for not stepping aside and now another one by another hack who argues John Edwards is forfeiting his right to lead because he hasn't endorsed Obama as yet. The obsession over the goal and coupled with the density of numbers is the classic trait of a baiting crowd. It doesn't matter that they trash John Edwards' reputation, what matters was to secure his departure and now his endorsement. It’s an odd way to go about it, if you ask me.
Here’s the link to the Lawrence O’Donnell blog:
And the Guy Saperstein (the other hack, I have no idea who this is) link
As a someone who was born overseas, it bemuses me to see the movement that is Obama and compare it to the founder of the Falange in Spain, Jose Primo de Rivera. The similarities are striking. Young, articulate, ambitious, good-looking, vague promises yet a clearly defined goal (power) and unfortunately the willingness to do or say anything in the name of political expediency such as tell the Reno Gazette-Journal that Ronald Reagan was a demi-God and the GOP "the party of ideas" (the former is an exaggeration; the latter a fact a direct quote) and there are other examples (Alice Palmer; driver licenses for illegal aliens now that he is in California but was not exactly for them when he was in Iowa; in his own private Idaho over the weekend Obama brought up an issue dear to progressives by stating that ”we've got a lot of hunters in Southern Illinois and I've got no intention of taking away people's guns” fair enough but you might have told them that we need to get guns off the streets of urban America and why; or telling South Carolinians about his religious conversion as an adult). Granted, I don't think Obama is willing to seize power by force as Primo de Rivera urged nor are their political programs the same but at the same time Obama has tried to silence his critics either directly or through surrogates. His supporters have attacked Univision for being pro-Clinton even though Hispanics are largely pro-Clinton but more troubling was his complaint to CNN over coverage there which led to the ouster of Carville and Begala (Clinton got Carville reinstated). I know I will be attacked for some of what I am stating but to quote the robot from Lost in Space: “Danger Will Robinson.” I would be remiss if I didn’t voice my concerns. The goal of any political campaign is power but how you get there does matter and should matter to progressives.
There are also elements of what is called suspension of disbelief. You refuse to believe something because you so buy into the goods that just a hint of flaw is simply implausible. You choose not to see things because you do not want to see them not because they are not there.
For social scientists, the warning signs are self-evident. This is not a political movement based on conviction of ideas (though admittedly there are people who prefer his health care plan to others or honestly believe that the bipartisan approach is the right approach) but one based largely on personality and emotive pleas such as "unity" "hope" and "change". It taps into a deep yearning even though the specifics are largely missing or fly in the face of the substantive proposals being discussed.
In my first post, my letter to Norm, I wrote that Obama was the Barnum Effect Candidate. It bears repeating.
He is the Barnum Effect candidate. If you're not familiar with the Barnum Effect, it is the principle behind astrology and horoscopes. Couch things in general enough terms and they can apply to anyone. You see meaning because you want to see meaning not because there is any actual meaning there. Senator Obama talks of "hope" "unity" and "change". Well who doesn't want that? We all do and hence his appeal to independents and to a younger generation that has not been tempered by the experience of everything the progressive left has endured since 1968.
But Obama also bears being tagged with the Forer Effect. The Forer Effect reflects several human behaviors primarily hope, wishful thinking and vanity. For example Obama often talks about the Americans are better than divisive politics. Here’s a quote from a stump speech given in Des Moines, Iowa on December 27, 2007:
Most of all, I believed in the power of the American people to be the real agents of change in this country – because we are not as divided as our politics suggests; because we are a decent, generous people willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations; and I was certain that if we could just mobilize our voices to challenge the special interests that dominate Washington and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there was no problem we couldn’t solve – no destiny we couldn’t fulfill.
In that one excerpt above, Obama has hope “no destiny we couldn’t fulfill”, wishful thinking “if we could just mobilize our voices to be the real agents of change” as if Americans are going to remain involved in the political process come and beyond January 2009, and of course the vanity “the power of the American people . . . we are a decent, generous people.” I don’t dispute that some of us are decent people but not all of us are really decent. Ann Coulter comes to mind. Nor generous, Grover Norquist comes to mind on that count.
But flattery will get you everywhere. It isn’t that other politicians don’t do that as well, it is that Obama does so much of it. And this is main point, it is the extent of it that gives me pause. Here’s the full speech
Then there are qualities of collective effervescence. Collective effervescence (CE) is a perceived energy formed by a gathering of people as might be experienced at a religious event, a sporting event, a riot, a concert (especially a Grateful Dead concert, a rave or gay circuit party), and festivals in general. The principal was first coined by a Frenchman, Emile Durkheim, studying Australian aborigines at the start of the twentieth century. It marks the stark contrast between the mundane in life, generally solitary tasks, and the sacred, generally a collective human experience. To Durkheim all religious experiences is simply a social phenomenon, god and society are one, there is no distinction. If you ever have been to a Pentecostal revival or even if you haven’t, you get the idea. The crowd as one. When an individual chooses to participate in an event of this nature there is always the clearly good and the clearly evil.
In religion it is believers versus non-believers, in sports, I will use the Giants and the Patriots and in a Grateful Dead concert it is the us in the counter-culture versus the them in the mainstream. To get the feeling as a crowd as one there has to be an us versus them dichotomy and painted in very stark terms.
Obama certainly cannot be faulted for the qualities of collective effervescence that his supporters exhibit, they are largely beyond his control now though he did set the stage for it with his rhetoric. But I would hope that the more observant among us recognize that this is clearly a danger to civil society. But don’t take my word for it, read the Federalist Papers in particular Madison Ten. Furthermore beyond the still theoretical danger of a tyranny of mob rule there is a practical compliant that I have. By painting Mrs. Clinton as the clearly evil, Obama’s supporters risk maiming her in the general election should she win the nomination.
Here is one example of an all-too often occurrence, an unwarranted attack by a surrogate. And the pattern keeps on repeating itself. An attack by a surrogate followed by the Obama camp distancing itself meanwhile the damage is being done. It is Nixonian politics. At least with the Clintons, the attacks came from them directly.
It is this new attack and the pattern that it represents that led to writing this column. That and that I spent Saturday re-reading Elias Canetti.
Another social phenomenon at work among Obama supporters is mass hysteria. To begin with there has always been a subset of the American electorate that will not under any conditions vote for Mrs. Clinton and Obama has come to capture much of a subset of that subset, namely Democrats and Independents who loathe the Clintons for one reason or another. But Obama has also stoked those fires. Here is what he said on Friday, the day after the love fest in Los Angeles:
"In terms of electability, I believe that I am attracting new voters and independent voters into the process in a way that Senator Clinton cannot do," Obama told reporters in a hotel ballroom here before flying off to stump in Arizona and New Mexico.
Noting he had captured more independent and less "traditional" votes than Clinton in last month's Nevada caucuses, he said, "I'm confident I'll get her votes if I win the nomination. It's not clear that she would get the votes I'd get if she wins it. And that's a fundamental difference."
That he is attracting new voters and independents voters is patently obvious. It is the “it’s not clear that she would get the votes I’d get if she wins it” that irks me. He is implying that the Clintons are hated and for someone who claims to be above it all, it is disingenuous, another characteristic of those who use the Forer Effect. To me this behavior unbecoming of a Democrat especially one who is making “unity” a centerpiece of his campaign. It is also sowing the seeds of mass hysteria.
His supporters then take to the street corners and the blogs to destroy Mrs. Clinton by painting her as unelectable. Here is their argument
I have to ask have you seen the competition? It’s Senator John McCain who is preaching staying in Iraq for a hundred years and admits to knowing little about economics. Rumor has it that former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee will be the Vice Presidential candidate. I have my doubts on the prospect of such after seeing him on Friday. But even if it is say someone as respected as former New Jersey Governor Tom Keane or current Florida Governor Charlie Crist (the next superstar of the GOP, I might add), I tend to believe that even Dennis Kucinich might stand a chance. Hell even Mike Gravel could poll even. Okay, maybe not but Senator Clinton? Mrs. Clinton does not deserve to be so treated. And without question, John McCain can make a credible argument for his causes and present a formidable challenge in the Fall.
My adherence to civil liberties is not a mere exercise of convenience or lip service. It is born of the experience of my life and of my parents. My father grew up under Fascism so I know what the failure to protect civil liberties means. Civil liberties are wasted on those who take them for granted and who fail to protect them. That is why undoing Bush really matters and making the choice of whom to entrust with the powers of an Executive Branch that suddenly has a lot more power than it once did and I see a candidate who knocked people off the ballot by challenging their signature petitions that raises questions that need to be asked. And when I see a repeated pattern of attacks by surrogates that are then disclaimed by the campaign, that does not engender confidence. Or when media networks are told to change pundits or accused of bias, I am sorry but that is a big red flag. I am not looking for a democratic Nixon but a Democrat.
And then at least in California in the 1980s, we had the Bradley Effect where voters told pollsters they would vote for Tom Bradley for Governor and then we ended up with George Deukmejian twice. So an argument can be made that Obama too poses some risks. While I think the country has come far, I also do not know how far it has actually come when we just had nooses in Jena, Louisiana last year. Clearly, there is a subset that will vote against Senator Obama. Nonetheless, I do think both Obama and Clinton can win given the competition and the issues. It is only if we eviscerate one another now than we risk losing the general election.
That Senator Clinton is a formidable opponent in a general election is clearly evidenced by the opinions of most seasoned independent political observers and even the New York Times. Yes there are those who would prefer Obama for valid reasons but there are also many who have no idea who they are buying.
This post is intended to provoke thought and frank discussion. I believe it prudent to ask of Obama and his supporters pertinent questions so as to avoid a disaster down the line. Again I have reservations about Obama and moreover I have serious complaints about his surrogates and his supporters. I also have reservations about Mrs. Clinton. Her supporters however largely seem sane.
For more about Elias Canetti here are a few links:
link
link
I also recommend reading Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” by Charles MacKay. The book dates from 1841 but remains a classic for its description of economic bubbles such as the Tulip Craze in Holland in 1637 and the South Seas Bubble in England from 1711-1720. The Internet Bubble is, of course, a recent event and demonstrates where a herd mentality can lead. We are not wildebeests about to cross the Mara-Mara or are we?
Comments
Dear Bigot,
Did you honestly just compare Obama supporters to a lynch mob and a pack of wildebeest!?!
How about this comparison... Charles Lemos is a lot like a bigoted moron.
The rest of your post is without merit, but it was hard to get passed that first part.
PS:Norm, do you read this crap before the moron posts it?
I don't quite get all of the Obama hate here. "Devils"? Wow. Really?
I'm from Illinois, and have been watching Obama's career for quite some time. He has worked very long and very hard to help people that need it most, and he has been rather specific about most most of his proposals: war, economy, health care, etc.
And beware of your misuse of the term "the Barnum Effect;" it is a specific term referring to a belief that a vague statement REFERS SPECIFICALLY TO YOU, not just that you can identify with it. Feeling hope for genuine change is not being a sucker. To say that he is gaining momentum only because of mob mentality is being patently reductionist. Simply because many people are rallying around a candidate who capable of tapping into crowd sentiment is not in itself reason for suspicion.
Am I wrong, or is Mr. Lemos one of the only commentators in the country who finds that Obama and his supporters are playing a more harmful game of political hardball than the Clintons? These pieces of his are so long that it would take a comment just as long to rebut them. Briefly, though, I don't think Obama can be blamed for the possibility that he attracts the type of crowd that Elias Canetti would find problematic. As for this Obama quote -- "I'm confident I'll get her votes if I win the nomination. It's not clear that she would get the votes I'd get if she wins it. And that's a fundamental difference." -- Mr. Lemos may not like that (I may not, either) but, for very real reasons, it's probably true. Mainly, I just find it curious that after his post about how we've all gotta stop attacking and get behind whoever wins, he chooses to characterize Obama's supporters as including "a larger percentage of devils", while Hillary's "largely seem sane". Ain't that what you'd call an ad hominem attack, Norm? If one wanted to, one could pick and choose and write a similarly scathing critique of the Clinton campaign. Yet we aren't offered that "to provoke thought and frank discussion." Now, if one wants actual reasons to vote for Hillary, I suggest reading Paul Krugman's column today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?th&emc=th Mainly, I think it's a disservice to suggest that Obama just attracts a mob, given the character and integrity of many of the people who've recently endorsed him.
Bill Clinton got lynched. That's rich.
Is there a subject you are interested in that you could write about thoughtfully?
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt after you called me a scientologist and later seemed to apologize, sort of, for it.
Why do you want to start the cycle all over again? Are you just trying to run sane people off from Norm's site with your hateful rhetoric?
And by the way, could you also play amateur psychologists to those who marched with MLK jr or elected FDR or JFK? I'd like to know if they are wildebeest, too, or if you play doctor differently with them than with us...
You claim Obama supporters are full of hysteria, but I haven't seen an example yet of hysteria quite like this post.
What a load of elitist bull. If you are trying to make a point to people, dont use barely Google-able "effects" to describe more easily explainable phenomena. Your efforts to support your claims in an Appeal to Authority are logical fallacies and fall far short of making a convincing argument.
Some Obama supporters hate Clinton, most don't. Some Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton in a general election, most will. I have not heard people describe Clinton as "clearly evil" as you claim they do, there is just a legitimate difference of opinion as to which candidate can effectively usher in the change we all desire. You using a dirty, broad brush to paint all Obama supporters. Why dont you re-evaluate which argument, your's or Obama's, would actually do more long-term harm to the party candidate's chances in November.
Norm -- sorry. I mentioned that Krugman column before I saw the pieces you posted in the Sunday links.
I found certain parts of this interesting and certain parts to be stretching the facts a bit, but as a frequenter of "jam band" concerts (the modern version of the Grateful Dead) I have to voice my opposition to the idea that the allure of those concerts is "us vs. them." I've been a part of many us vs. them groups, and the rush from going to a concert is different. It's far more about enjoying yourself and getting into it and having a "spiritual" experience, if you will, than it is about anything to do with being different from another group.
YOUR QUOTE: "As a someone who was born overseas, it bemuses me to see the movement that is Obama and compare it to the founder of the Falange in Spain, Jose Primo de Rivera. The similarities are striking. Young, articulate, ambitious, good-looking, vague promises yet a clearly defined goal (power) and unfortunately the willingness to do or say anything in the name of political expediency such as tell the Reno Gazette-Journal that Ronald Reagan was a demi-God and the GOP "the party of ideas" (the former is an exaggeration; the latter a fact a direct quote)..."
MY REACTION: Mr. Lemos, you claim Obama's movement is about power. Maybe you do not understand the Obama candidacy, so maybe you are cynical. Just admit you do not understand it and move on, but don't confuse Senator Obama and THE CLINTONS. The Clintons' only desire is power. I always thought it was universally understood, a common ground for both sides of the argument - I thought everyone agreed the Clintons will do anything for power. But just in case you haven't seen or heard this over the past 15 years, I'll provide a couple links. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lifeandstyle/women/relationships/article3185449.ece
You claim Senator Obama's remarks to the Reno newspaper were politically expedient. I think it's time all the members of the far Left just get over it. Senator Obama merely spoke a hard truth. Democrats had a chance in 1976 to elect a true Leader from the Left. Instead you nominated Jimmy Carter. So in 1980 the people elected Ronald Reagan, and his movement DID change the trajectory of American politics. SENATOR OBAMA NEVER SAID THIS WAS "GOOD" - he never anointed Reagan as you claim. Get over it Mr. Lemos.
Think about all the policy institutes and think-tanks that came to such prominence during the Reagan Revolution. That's what Obama means when he says the Republicans were the party of ideas. And notice, again, Senator Obama NEVER SAID the ideas were any good.
Obviously the spectre of Reagan still rubs some of the Far Left the wrong way, but Obama has the potential to establish a similar majority - but this time we'll be talking about Obama Republicans, not Reagan Democrats. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
And if you want to claim that Reagan did not create a new majority that fundamentally changed the trajectory of American politics, I merely ask you to look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Of course that is not what he says at all, and for you to make the claim is decidedly uncharitable.
No, as in any metaphor he claimed there were those elements present in some of Obama's supporters. For example my son has a friend that says that if Obama is not the candidate he will not vote at all. You'd think even the most ardent Obama supporter would recognize that Hillary would be a huge improvement over any republican candidate. I think Charles is referring to supporters such as my son's friend.
Reed77: Cool it a bit. Norm is an editor, but he's trying to encourage more participation from his readers, a la Kos. Not every posted is endorsed.
Lemos: I think you're very hastily reading pathology into very mundane, everyday features of politics. The criticisms, sans the psychobabble, are very similar to conservative criticisms of expanding the franchise. E.g.: we can't bring new people into the political sphere, they're the irrational mob, whereas we're the moderate statesmanlike middle. In spite of aristocratic worries, the genius of modern democracy is that it has institutions and mechanisms for translating the chaotic, sometimes breathtakingly mindless mass politics of the 21st century into reasonably decent policies (especially compared with the authoritarian alternatives).
Hillary Clinton deserves the respect of liberals for getting more core Demcratic voters. But her voters are also disproportionately disconnected, the traditional Dem groups that don't pay much attention to politics and vote by relying heavily on cues like party name recognition, union support, etc. Obama leads among many well informed liberal constituencies such as MoveOn members and the highly educated. These are generalizations but they're mainly accurate. This is your drooling mob?
Sociology of social movement and crowd behavior has come a long way since the 19th century. The "irrational crowd" is a bit passe sociologically speaking.
The thing that Obama critics don't seem to get, especially those who favor the pedestrian politics of either material interests or cultural resentment, is that the country is heading toward a crisis of ungovernability. HRC can help fix that by getting things done, but she has about 40% of the country permanently against her (which translates to about half of senators). Bush was worse than that for most of his tenure, but fortunately for him his agenda was mostly within his foreign policy powers, so it didn't have to get through Congress. Obama and McCain are the public's way of telling the old guard of both parties that the standard m.o. has to change. This is not the same thing as Romney's canned, empty, campaign against "Washington". The hope is vague because no one has quite figured out how to do it yet. But they want someone who is going to try.
One thing that sociology taught me, is that sociology is Terrible at predicting the future. I think all of this analysis will be helpful after the elections, it counts for absolute bupkis before the election.
and the obama quote:
is absolutely valid for Obama to say. This isn't him sewing the seeds of mass hysteria, he's just voicing what has been said since the day hillary announced her run. This idea is not original to Obama. The word "Dynasty" has been bandied about since before Obama announced he would even run. I agree that such fears are irrational, that doesn't mean that people hate the fact that a bush/clinton has been in the white house their entire life (since 1981). Add the frosting to that cake that B.Clinton did more to damage the Democratic party to the ethical conservatives and independants (those who hate the sex). That kind of an impediment to the progressive agenda cannot be overlooked. Hillary clinton is the devil incarnate for sooo many people, it cannot be ignored.
when I think of Hilary Obama I tend to think not so much about their individual policy differences as i do about the generational differences between them and the people who will stand behind them. Hilary more or less represents the old guard and her solutions will probably reflect this because she will have to rally the support to her if she is to get anything done politically. the same is true for Obama, but as a young politician he potentially represents a real change in style and thinking that has not happened within the democratic party in a long time. Every party redefined itself in a generation. the republicans redefined themselves under Regan in the 80s and now desperately cling to those past ideas and ideals. the democrats hav not the same since the time of FDR, and it shows. Now I dont know for sure whether Obama represents genuine change and new ideas as he claims to, but I do know that Hillary represents more of the same. That more than any reason is why i lean more towards voting for Obama tomorrow than for Clinton.
And keep in mind, regardless of which of them is nominated, if he or she becomes president, the policies so nicely spelled out during the campaign will be shredded and replaced with new ones that reflect the reality of american politics. So for example when you compare the Hilary health care plan with Obamas I always ask, are each of them being hopeful in what they say, honest? Is this a pie in the sky plan? because when it comes to implementing real change the plans spelled out wont be the ones actually delivered. I think a lot of people are going to be very disappointed regardless of who wins...american politics moves slowly. Change in america is an iceberg when it comes to policy.
Norm,
This is a thought-provoking piece. Its complexity requires additional analysis on my part; but the author, Mr. Lemos, must be doing something right to elicit all these knee-jerk reactions from your readers!
I would encourage Sen. Obama's supporters to consider Mr. Lemos' remarks in the Nietzschean context of "That which does not kill me only makes me stronger."
Namaste, Joel
So, no but yes? Look, you want to say there are some crazy Obama supporters? Fine. All candidates have them.
But Lynchings are real things, white mobs used to haul black men out and tie them to trees. To equate the supporters of a candidate that could be the first black president with those white mobs is beyond accidental racial insensitivity. Combined with Chuck's rehash of the Jesse Jackson nonsense, a distasteful pattern is arising.
I am an Obama supporter, It is not a rushed decision. I saw Obama in person for the first time in 2006 and met John Edwards for the first time in 2002. I considered them both in this election. I have followed them both,I looked at records and positions and made a smart informed decision. I don't claim to be "right" but am pretty damn sensible, and clearly better informed them Mr. Lemos.
There are plenty of good and factual reasons to support Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clustb84811.html
I have no problem being challenged on real issues, but these posts of innuendo and hypocritical attacks are just offensive.
"Evil","devils","Fraud", Lynch Mob", are not words intended to provoke discussion, they are hateful insults, intended to belittle and enrage those that chuck doesn't agree with. you should be embarrassed to have this garbage on your website.
Here's where you're wrong, Mr. Lemos. You didn't here this from me, but Obama is in fact planning to win the election for the president and subsequently seize the presidential control over the military in a coup d'etat (actually, because he already will already be in control of the military, this will, of course, be a symbolic gesture of just what this man will do to those who stand in his way).
I've been to campaign headquarters and seen the maps marked-up with the routes he and the hunters of Southern Illinois will take to seize control of the building equipped with his staff. Of course, anyone will tell the fallacy inherent in that plan: People can effectively still vote for Clinton. But, as you noted, Obama completely and utterly shut off any possible way for the Mass Media to criticize the Democratic Candidate. Ergo, people will have no choice, because they, as you put it, are baited into voting for him.
Another possible fallacy some sharp young voter may spot in this plan is whether or not Obama really is capable of offing the head of his own military with the aid of simple hunters. Well, they need a history lesson. During his supreme rise to power, Primo de Rivera in fact used a band of Basque hunters to lay waste to the whole Spanish Army. Further comparisons of the Spanish dictator and Obama include that neither had any military experience, and they liked mayonnaise on their hamburgers—if that doesn't put a shiver down your spine, then I don't know what will.
Reed77 wrote:
That's what I've been sitting here trying to figure out how to say, in a nutshell.
You should be embarrassed by this, Norm. Please let Charles find his own blog.
Charles, i don't how you can expect "reasonable discussion" with this piece, after inferring Obama supporters are lacking in intellect and somewhat insane.
Just today, the list of Obama endorsements grew by leaps: Big Endorsements come out for Barack Obama
That's Maria Shriver, Garrison Keilor, and Paul Volcker (former Federal Reserve Chairman) today alone.
A little while ago, former Green Party TX gubernatorial candidate Rahul Mahajan urged supporters to back Obama over Edwards (as did Kucinich, remember?), saying in part that Obama offered a true chance for progressive values, while Edwards was still too invested in Corporate interests - and reminding that last cycle, Edwards was the most conservative of the Democratic field. How short our memory is, isn't? Next cycle, Edwards might go whichever way the polls pull.
I have to agree that the phrases you use here are more detrimental than they are helpful. Perhaps drafting and rewriting these extra-long pieces would do you some good and actually get more readership.
It's also disengenous to compare Obama's campaign to Reagan's or Nixon's -- better comparisons are Bobby Kenedy and JFK.
I'm not yet swayed away form third party politics myself, since I live in Texas, but there's a great Tom Tomorrow cartoon that applies to articles such as this: With us or Against Us
In addition to my earlier comment
I would just note that I have also considered Hillary Clinton and have attended her events. I would also say there are plenty of good reasons to support her. Did not intend to leave her out.
Sorry The Magnolia Electric Co, but Regan was in office in 1981. George H.W. Bush the first Bush served from 1989 to 1993, so your about 8 years off.
Hmmm... this unbelievably long-winded and muddled attempt at masking distain in the form of psychological analysis actually made me loath Obama supporters less. I've many friends who are all good folks and well educated who support Obama for what after hours of friendly debate I can only attribute to the promise of Change™.
My reason for not trusting their "educated and informed" views is due to the fact that many of them are folks who seem to support all fashionably "alternative" fads. The type of folks who actually believe Kanye West's new album with Daft Punk is actually revolutionary because every music Mag tells them it is even though decades of Hip-Hop proves it is not. Now they all believe Obama is the candidate of change (despite ample proof he is not) because all the news magazines tell them he is. Even at Obama rallies, which I've had the misfortune of attending and watching people cheer at the simple sight of him on a TV as if Thom Yorke had just autographed their forehead and chant rally cries that seemed more fitting for a World Cup soccer match, the only real defining explanation anyone has given me is he gives them hope and he'll bring change. Yet, when I bring up his policy proposals and past votes (or lack of votes) it suddenly turns into a game of "Well, I don't agree with everything he says or does." Sounds a lot like Christians trying to justify the Old Testament.
Yet, after reading this post I now feel like I am in the company of "devils" for being an Obama-supporter hater. And it makes me even sadder that I don't still have John Edwards to hope for. After 2004's fiasco of nominating Kerry it looks like the Democratic Party is wimping out and going for the safe vote again. The centrists who all the apathetic uniformed are supposed to swing toward according to mystical political analysts who continue to ignore the previous elections.
Why anyone still believes the right-wing will embrace the idea of a bipartisan approach is beyond me. Were these people not around in 1992-2000? Do the really think the vile GOP machine was built by Karl Rove? Do they really think aiming for the center we can pull them to the left instead of the obvious reality that the opposite will continue to happen. If your car suddenly turns right toward a cliff do you simply straighten it out or do you correct it back to the left first before straightening it out?
Both Hillary and Obama are a disaster for the left. I will sadly be forced to vote for them in the general election due to the literal death sentence that is another Republican president. I owe that privilege to all you Obama and Hillary Supporters. Thank you for helping sell off another four years to the right.
Stupid Git,
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Most_liberal.html
What say you?
tlfleming,
"Sorry The Magnolia Electric Co, but Regan was in office in 1981. George H.W. Bush the first Bush served from 1989 to 1993, so your about 8 years off."
Uhh, Bush 1 was Reagan's VP. So there was a Bush "in the White House"(in the executive) from 1981 onward.
"Why anyone still believes the right-wing will embrace the idea of a bipartisan approach is beyond me."
Actually Obama has not proposed begging the Republicans to accept his plan. He has proposed attracting new voters to the process who will tip the balance in favor of a basically liberal agenda. If he fails at that plan, I don't know what Edwards or Hillary would do better. Blackmail GOP senators? Make stirring stump speeches which cause Republicans to quake and fear so that they support a uni-partisan agenda? People talk as if Obama has made plans to give up a lot whereas Edwards and HRC would "fight for us", as if getting health care to pass the senate were a matter of attitude or legislative maneuvering. Obama's talk of unity is as much a tactic as it is a theme, as some have pointed out. Obama has been an elected official for years now. He knows that you have to fight at some point. But it's better to do it from a position of strength.
"Both Hillary and Obama are a disaster for the left...I owe that privilege to all you Obama and Hillary Supporters."
You're living in a bizarro world. HRC and Obama are the ideological equivalent of LBJ and Bobby Kennedy. This is the most serious liberal opportunity in a generation. Edwards probably would have been fine, too, but to paint him as this vastly superior choice is nonsense. He had a great chance to fight this "struggle of his life" in the Senate and he voted for the war, the Patriot Act, and the bankruptcy bill he now hates. His non-liberal record is the reason he lost the nomination, not the mindless hordes of Hillary and Obama. It's called retrospective voting, and it has a lot more to do with the way elections turn out than stump speeches do.
Edwards for President Ignore the last 10 years I am a Liberal now!
Dende Blogger said: His non-liberal record is the reason he lost the nomination, not the mindless hordes of Hillary and Obama
Yes, that is what caused me to question his sincerity, although I still liked him as a candidate because all of the candidates resort to political expediency. I was initially supporting Edwards, but as it became clear that his poll numbers kept decreasing instead of increasing, I realized that I'd have to decide between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Because Obama gave that excellent anti-war speech and because he's more likely to beat John McCain, I'm supporting him. All this talk about change is rather silly and has no effect on my vote.
It's true that's he's voted to fund the war along with Hillary Clinton, but they were both afraid of being accused of "not supporting the troops".
Again, a few excerpts from Obama's speech:
Norm said:
Ahem (cough cough) ..yes, well some people tend to be rather emotional about who they're voting for.
Why Not Edwards?
Yes, I know he regrets saying this, but he did say this afterall. Perhaps if Obama dropped out of the race as Edwards did, your son's friend would also change his mind.
I'm sorry Charles, but I question your sincerity here. You have been very critical of Obama, and yet not so critical of Hillary Clinton. It seems to me that you are, in fact, supporting HIllary Clinton. Nothing wrong with that, of course..
You mean, such things as:
As if the Clinton campaign is not considering crowd psychology. As if Bill Clinton did not understand this.
That's general enough and could apply to anyone.
This describes just about every politician who wants to actually win a presidential election
This pretty much describes everyone...
Again, that pretty much describes all people and all of the candidates.
But then, Charles, you respond to this with this comment:
Again, a rather generalized claim that can neither be refuted nor proved.
I still maintain you're a crypto-Clintonista, and if you can't keep it short, keep it to yourself. I don't have time to read this dreck.
What strikes me more than anything now, though, is that all across the liberal/progressive blogs, Democrats are at each other's throats, and this is not good. :(
Although, it is good that we're all discussing the issues. And it is the issues (health care, the war in Iraq, electability etc) which is most important.
It does concern me, though, that when Democrats work so hard towards finding dirt on their own candidates, they're doing the work of the Republicans when the general election comes around.
So complex!
Charles, you're teasing them. (Shooting fish in a barrel?) As a proof-is-in-the-pudding example, Reed77 wins the grand prize: he jump-starts the comments by illustrating everything your article is about—in order to denounce it, mind you!. It's like screaming "I'm not screaming!". You write that some people become unhinged in crowd situations... and he(she?) loses it and turns abusive—as many following comments are. But this is exactly what Charles is talking about, dammit! No doubt Reed77 is a great person, caring and intelligent, this blog attracts many i think, but your not-on-the-line opinion turns him(her) into a momentary raving abuser (Hey Norman, why just not ban the guy from here, some wrote). We are all emotional, and we have our preferences. The article was about the dangers of going over-the-top with them into massive hysteria, and Bingo!... massive hysteria ensues! There is a Chinese proverb that says: "When the finger points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger". i am not calling the angry commentators here "idiots" (that would be looking at the finger too), but keep looking hard everybody. There are a lot of riches in Charles' post. Untwist your knickers, print the whole thing, and save it. Then, vote your heart, without hate. Charles, thank you so much for your analysis. And Norm, thanks for the space you offer Charles! :-)
I'm with jpaul and JoAnn, I really don't come here to read about people calling each other names. Reed77, I think you're out of line. If you're going to call someone a "bigot" or a racist you better have more than just a poorly used metaphor or false comparison. I don't care who started it.
In regards to the article, it's interesting that just above this post is a video clip from Real Time with a pollster. Polls are worthless for many reasons, not the least of which is that they don't adaquately express or represent an individual politician's stance on an issue(s). If we are going to discuss which candidate is a better choice to lead this country, do we really need to care how fervently or ignorantly a body of people may support them?
I have taken a few minutes to find some intersting sites policy comparisons between the candidates:
General (Clinton): http://www.presidential-candidates.org/profile-presidential-candidate-Hillary-Clinton.php
General (Obama): http://www.presidential-candidates.org/profile-presidential-candidate-Barack-Obama.php
Foreign Policy (Both): http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9921.cfm
Health Care (Both): http://www.health08.org/sidebyside.cfm
I would appreciate other policy comparisons that people may find that are presented as unbiased as possible.
"What strikes me more than anything now, though, is that all across the liberal/progressive blogs, Democrats are at each other's throats, and this is not good. :("
You should hear what the right-wing media is saying about McCain. There is zero effort in many quarters to make peace, even though he will surely be the nominee. Some neo-cons are beginning to realize that's he's their best, last hope for war on Iran, and some pro-lifers are waking up to reality, but the rest are really wary. The GOP race is a fratricidal war of all against all. Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani all have a chunk of supporters who will probably vote Dem or stay home, so sore they are that their guy lost. McCain has this odd power to attract people who don't agree with him (he easily won anti-war voters in NH), and repel people who do. Huckabee angrily said that he won't be "outsourced" by Romney. The NY Knicks have an easier time getting along with each other.
Lemos aside, the fighting between Hillary and Obama is like a pillow fight compared to that. Bill Bradley was more ruthless and harsh against Gore. And any Democrat who's upset about mandates or Bill Clinton or whatever will easily rally behind HRC or Obama once the GOP attack machine gets warmed up.
Okay, I gotta say, when Reed77 said: ..."Did you honestly just compare Obama supporters to a lynch mob and a pack of wildebeest!?!"
...I laughed. Oh, mercy me, did I laugh. That is one freakin' fantastic sentence! ha ha ha
I'm an Obama supporter, but I'll echo what jpaul wrote. There's some interesting stuff in this post. And -wildebeest notwithstanding- the tone felt a little softer, so I didn't feel immediately on the defense. So, well done, there.
But Hillary supporters are more sane than Obama's? Spare me. The several Hillary supporters I know (all female) are voting for her because she's a woman.
Tell me how basing one's support of a candidate on the basis of sharing the same genitalia is demonstrative of sanity.
And that crap she's trying to pull with the delegates from Florida and Michigan is absolute bullshit.
Brett,
Thank you for actually offering me some substantial info on Obama. You are seriously the first person to do so and I truly appreciate it. I'll explore their research more later on when I've got more time.
DMorey,
Thanks to you too as well for those great links. It's so good to hear actual policy discussed instead of their platitudes and personalities.
Charles,
As one who occasionally gets out of hand, my advice to you is that you when write things like this, put them aside for a day, and then subject them to some self-criticism. I’m not enthusiastically supporting either Obama or Clinton, so I hope you’ll take these criticisms as they are intended – constructively. Let’s take some of your more provocative statements:
“…While neither group is composed of saints, the Obama crowd has a larger percentage of devils” Can you really substantiate this claim? I’ve been reading rabidly anti-Clinton stuff for many years and I don’t think Obama or even his supporters have been particularly hard on her in comparison.
“The baiting crowd also fits the psychology of a lynch mob. And if you think no one has been lynched during the course of this campaign ask Bill Clinton what happened to him the week before South Carolina.” Bill Clinton took some heat – hardly the worst he has been subjected to in his career. The Arkansas project, Ken Starr, and real-life right wing conspiracy were the lynch mob – Obama’s people are flower children by comparison. The Clintons are attempting to use Bill’s (relatively) successful presidency as a launching pad for Hillary’s run – did you expect her opponents to roll over?
“Young, articulate, ambitious, good-looking, vague promises yet a clearly defined goal (power) and unfortunately the willingness to do or say anything in the name of political expediency…”
Did you cut and paste this from a 1960 campaign critique of Jack Kennedy? Do anything? Say anything? The specific criticisms of what he has done or said hardly rise to a sinister level. I’ve criticized Obama for his vagueness too, but you’ve already provided the explanation for that on this blog: anyone with a voting record or with a highly specific platform risks being picked apart by their opponents because the media merely reports the blood sport these days. The media is disinterested in whether there are objective facts by which the validity of competing claims and counterclaims should be measured. Until that changes, we’re probably doomed to vagueness.
“He is the Barnum Effect candidate… Obama also bears being tagged with the Forer Effect… Collective effervescence (CE)… Another social phenomenon at work among Obama supporters is mass hysteria…”
String enough broad generalized criticisms together like this and you dilute your case, Charles. Dial it back, fella – neither Obama or his supporters have behaved all that crazily. Obama has been short on specifics and long on charisma and charm – that is a valid critique, in my opinion. But look what happens to candidates who bore our professional chatterers in the media – Anyone seen Joe Biden? – Chris Dodd? Perhaps (and unfortunately) Obama is being smart by being vague.
“His supporters then take to the street corners and the blogs to destroy Mrs. Clinton by painting her as unelectable.” Long before I knew anyone other than Hillary was running (we’ve known she was running for years, right?), I’ve been saying the same thing. Deservedly or not, she elicits hatred on the right and less than wild enthusiasm on the left. I think she has always been the candidate the GOP wanted to run against in ’08 because they think she’ll bring out the vote for them. Obama’s people are saying nothing different – if that is trying to “destroy” her – well, political campaigns for president have one winner and many losers, if you want to refer to the also-rans as “destroyed” go ahead, but to me you seem to be getting a bit hyperbolic.
“My father grew up under Fascism so I know what the failure to protect civil liberties means. Civil liberties are wasted on those who take them for granted and who fail to protect them. That is why undoing Bush really matters and making the choice of whom to entrust with the powers of an Executive Branch that suddenly has a lot more power than it once did…” I’m with you 100% here Charles, but honestly neither Clinton or Obama have been willing to stand up in the Senate as Bush has repeatedly abused his powers. Both Clinton and Obama skipped the Mukasey confirmation vote. Neither Clinton or Obama has made the kind of stand for the rule of law that Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold have made. Everyone in the senate (apart from Russ Feingold of Wisconsin) voted "for" for the PATRIOT Act. And while Obama uttered some reservations about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, he went along with Clinton in voting for it. Neither of these candidates has much basis to criticize the other on the basis of their record in opposing the unchecked expansion of presidential power.
Charles:
In short, I think you’ve wildly overstated your case against Obama and his supporters – try keeping you assessments in perspective.
norm. as an obama supporter who has done his homework on all the candidates. elias offends me. the truth is if you want to support an argument without hard data you resort to his flimsy circumstantial arguments.
i'm surprised Elias didn't invoke Hitler in his comments because it would have been a bit more honest with his portrayals (although Clinton definitely has Nixon-ite tendencies).
Nixonite...sounds like Superbama's kryptonite in this very atypical election year. I'll be shocked if Obama beats the DNC machine and gets the nod. really. yeah, my hope isn't blind.
I completely agree with JoAnn's assessment of Lemos' lame psychoanalysis of Obama supporters. However, I disagree with the idea that we shouldn't be involved in a rhetorical debate—even when it gets dirty. I think it's really good in fact that we're vetting the candidate. It doesn't matter how many bad rhetorical arguments the Lemos of the party lob at us, we need a discussion, even this one.
You're right Marco. Rhetorical debate is good. I'm looking for all I can to help me decide who to support. And you're right that it's best to consider all of the negatives now and deal with them.
However, considering Obama supporters as wildebeests gleefully jumping into the Mara-Mara (lol) didn't help me much.
That said, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the responses over a cup of coffee this morning.
And LIttle Mickey had me laughing to myself over the Wildebeest thing.
And Dende Blogger's comment was reassuring. :)
TO those offended by my post that started these comments I apologize. I can't deny there was some excessive emotion in my insults.
I in no way back away from the idea that Charles remarks have been clearly racially insensitive and at times plenty offensive.
Comparing a group of supporters whom are in large part black to a lynch mob is a lot like comparing Jews to Nazis. You just don't do it. If this remark stood alone I might think it an error, but it doesn't stand alone.
As for the Mob mentality, it is without merit. Those writing on such phenomenon are talking about people interacting in close personal proximity. People spread across the country don't experience the same effect. Perhaps it is a reality at obama events, but most people decide to support obama before they attend a rally.
You can criticism the masses for being too willing to accept messages thrown at them, but the same is true of all political supporters, If Obama wins it will be in large part because he threw out a better message. can't stop The Barnum effect is at pl