Seizing A Moment
contributed by Charles Lemos
It was interesting to read the comments to my post on how Obama fits the paradigm of Elias Canetti from last week, Crossing the Mara. I took some time in fashioning a coherent reply so I apologize for the lapse of time. I should say first that there were some very good comments. Tim’s, I think, was the best but there were others as well. I also want to thank JPaul for his kind words throughout this debate. The aim was, of course, to foster to discussion among the readership. I am not sure that I accomplished my objective as fully as I would have liked but I do think a more than a few people engaged in fruitful and frank exchanges.
One thing I failed to mention in the piece, which I regret, is that Obama, Clinton and Edwards all started out as reversal crowds. This is the crowd that stormed the Bastille on July 14, 1789. The reversal crowd is one that is looking to reverse a situation. In this case, the aim is to win the Presidency for the Democratic Party, not to storm a prison but the psychology of the crowd is the same according to Canetti. What I think some of you missed by me not stating this explicitly is that only a portion of the Obama crowd is morphing into a baiting crowd. How large I am not sure. But it is large and growing. And Obama, whether consciously or unconsciously, uses the language that one hears in a baiting crowd. That may be unpleasant to state but it is a fact if Canetti is right which I think he is. (You should read what he has to say about Shi’ites remembering he wrote in 1962, not 2002).
Go on Free Republic and read their opinions of Al Gore and global warming or John McCain for that matter. That is a baiting crowd in action. What Lawrence O’Donnell wrote about John Edwards and what Guy Saperstein wrote were two other example of a baiting crowd psychology. And the only way to respond to these attacks is to call them on it. And I did (the links are in the Crossing the Mara piece). Those were attacks carried out by Obama surrogates. That does taint Obama to some degree I am sorry to say. Obama’s emotive rhetoric is pushing ordinary people to do things that they would not otherwise do or say, some of it good and some of it not so good. And I feel obliged to respond to the not so good.
I thought the opening to Senator Obama’s speech was brilliant. He sounded Presidential, however I soured quickly. The “I love you” from a member of the crowd fits my paradigm. He is a larger than life figure who can do no wrong and who they will follow to the ends of the Earth. I admire John Edwards but I do not agree with him on everything either and I am certainly not going to throw my panties at him. Then came the exhortations from Obama that give me so much trouble and confirm my skepticism. You hear Barack Obama; I hear Juan Domingo Peron, Francisco Franco, Rafael Trujillo, or Gustavo Rojas Pinilla (whom I actually heard live as a boy of ten because my grandfather wanted me to hear what should frighten me) among others.
Anyone who thinks that the time is now and only now and that it is us and only us alone represents a danger to the health and liberty of any Republic. The language is strikingly similar to a long line of either would-be dictators or oddly enough Spanish and Russian anarchists from the late 19th and early 20th centuries (I find anarchism quite intriguing, the Spanish variant in particular, because it is so surreal and its language as flowering and euphoric as any). Lenin seized a moment for example. It is not that Obama is likely to be another Vladimir ex parte or in toto or become an anarchist but rather that his language and his followers mirror a fair number of less than savory political figures and their followers. That should give us pause. There is a difference between passion and irrationality.
Indeed, elsewhere on onegoodmove more than one reader has posted warnings similar to mine. I am thankful not to mention relived that others have picked up on it and concur with my assessment. Here is a link to what others are saying on another blog:
It is rare that I am proved right so quickly. Generally my predictions can take years to fully work themselves out. In 1998, it was Hugo Chavez that incurred my wrath and no matter his agenda, he was a tyrant in the making. In 2000, I warned everyone who would listen that Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was code for “unadorned Friedmanism” that aimed to privatize government services such as welfare, education and social security. In 2002, I noted about Iraq that “the United States will “win the war and lose the peace.” And now I am warning you to look carefully at Obama because the language and the appeals he is using is that typical of leaders of mass social movements who paid lip service to democracy but once in office behaved very differently.
His language is remarkably different from any one else in the race and at the very least you should take note of that fact and consider its implications. Take a step back before you step off a cliff. Some of you will come to different conclusions that I and others have and that’s fine but at the very least you as free thinkers who have examined your conscience.
And so I wrote:
“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.”
And so it was. About five minutes into the Super Tuesday speech (Norm posted the speech, look for it in the archives or read the link below) came the exhortations not just to those standing already with him but those of us, like myself, on the sidelines. According to Obama, “this time we have to seize the moment.” His words. Listen to or read the speech. Seize the moment. Anyone who has to seize a moment frightens me. That is an emotive appeal, not a rational one.
Obama asked those of us on the sidelines to come join his growing social mass movement. He pleaded "our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America." Then he adds an appeal to undecided voters who, he says, are "afraid" to join his movement. "I'm here to say tonight to all of those of you who still harbor those doubts: We need you. We need you to stand with us. We need you to work with us. We need you to help us prove that ordinary people can still do . . . extraordinary things in the United States of America," he said. If his success depends on us skeptics coming on board to throw the last stone, he can forget about it. I am not joining. Baiting mobs are ordinary people who do extraordinarily awful things. Reason falls by the wayside, because their decision has ceased to be rational. As for afraid, yes I am. And concerned.
Mass social movements are not uncommon in American history, I touched on two in the other post, Nixon’s Silent Majority and the Reagan Coalition, but there are others. The Free Grange Movements in the 1870s, James Weaver and the Populist Movement in the 1890s, and Huey P. Long in the 1930s represent some from a leftist perspective. Some of these are honest and sincere attempts to redress the wrongs of society, others are not. Perhaps Obama’s movement lies more in the former camp but it is scary nonetheless to outsiders. Safety can only be found inside the mob. Stand outside it and you are called a “bigot” as I was or a “cunt” as Digby has been called (she has suspended commenting on her blog). That is what baiters do, bait.
Here is one example of what one reader has endured:
I’ve been commenting on various blogs for quite a while now, but it wasn’t before I dared to say negative about St. Barack that people responded with nasty, vicious personal attacks. Criticize Hillary and people will disagree but criticize Obama and they will call you names and insult you.
I have been called a cocksucker which is true, a moron which is debatable since I do have three advanced professional degrees and a bigot which is just false and patently offensive. But this is the object of a baiting crowd to goad you into submission or frighten you into compliant silence. In terms of political theory, the Obama crowd is not a democratic crowd but a usurpive one. A seize the moment kind of crowd. It is frankly a Machiavellian approach. By the way, I will note that someone responded to my Alice Palmer post that he did not mind Obama’s excesses because what is required is a “decent ambitious Machiavellian.” Are you kidding me? There is no such beast. The ends do not justify the means. Ever.
I found it amusing that someone labeled me “one of the few commentators in the United States” who is critical of Obama. Perhaps, though Paul Krugman, Taylor Marsh, Jane Hamsher and Martin Lewis are others if you are interested. Krugman is covering the universal health care debate admirably. Martin, who is British-born, approaches the criticism from the same vein as I do, that is, that his language and his supporters are frightening because they match up with the language and actions of some rather unsavory characters from history. It is an observation shared by many overseas. I appreciate being allowed to voice my dissenting opinion and to try to demonstrate it with facts, historical analogies and the writings of men and women who are far more learned than I such as Elias Canetti.
But let me try another approach. We all agree that Obama believes that Reagan was a transformational figure in American politics, right? And that Obama would like to be that sort of transformational figure for the Democrats. Well there is such a thing as a “cult of Reagan.” Being an atheist and a free thinker, I am simply wary of cults or mass movements no matter their intentions or their politics. That comes with the job description of being a free thinker, I am afraid.
Here’s what one former Obama supporter said:
I went visit to Iowa at caucus time. I went to Iowa a confirmed Obama supporter. Then I went to an Obama rally. His speech said nothing of substance, and I was surrounded by people weeping. I asked what they were crying about and would get responses like "He makes me believe!" When asked what they believed, they either couldn't answer or would just quote campaign slogans--hope, change, unity. I left that rally looking for a new candidate.
The next day I went to an Edwards rally. He gave a speech outlining policies and programs, and I had lucid conversations with Edwards supporters about why they supported him--trade policies, concern for the poor, labor issues, health care, etc.
I went to Iowa an Obama supporter. I left Iowa an Edwards supporter. I don't join cults.
I hope you see and heed the warning signs and examine more closely who this individual called Obama is in his totality. Yes, there are some positives about him but please don’t overlook the flaws either. In my mind, the flaws outweigh the positives but others will arrive at a different conclusion. And I will leave this subject with this. Please read the Federalist Papers especially Hamilton Nine and Madison Ten and see what the Founding Fathers had to say about factions and mass movements and why those frightened them. It is the safeguards against domestic factions portions of the Federalist Papers. James Madison is a gift to the world of political liberalism and he is an American of the first magnitude. Celebrate your political heritage by listening to his warnings. Recognize the dangers. They remain apt today.
I do not want to paint all Obama supporters as baiters but some clearly are. I appreciate the fact that many people believe in his bipartisan approach. I do not. I think it is naïve. Here is a good article on why it is delusional to think that bipartisanship works:
I also noted how Obama reminds me of Tony Blair and how that didn’t turn out so well. Well here is a view from Scotland:
Lastly, here are a few posts from various blogs that strike me as fitting as given our discussion.
”What you and the other Democrats have to understand is the avid supporters that Obama has are not die-hard Democrats. Any attempt to derail Obama will cause them to leave and never return. The Obama supporters are progressives, they are not black people who will return to the Democratic party. I will also guarantee that even though blacks will return to the Democratic party, many of them will sit out this election.”
Any attempt to derail Obama? Is that a crime? Will it be a crime under an Obama administration to voice dissent? So I suppose you think that the rest of us should just fold our tent and let him do as he pleases. That is the corollary to the baiting crowd, they so trust and blindly follow their leader and that will let him do as he pleases because he can do no wrong in their eyes. And is he not running for the nomination of the Democratic Party so should not die-hard Democrats have their own say on whom the nominee of their party is? The logic is astoundingly flaccid. 70% of voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses will support either candidate according to Tuesday’s exit polls. I still think we can beat the GOP with that number which is sure only to grow unless we mortally wound Mrs. Clinton in the primary. Progressives also don’t seize moments, we assume a mantle of trust when it is freely given for as long as it freely given.
Or this:
You will NEVER meet a better person than Barack Obama. What are you thinking???
Frankly, I hope the Alice Palmer case dispels that notion entirely. He’s quite human and rather ambitious, don’t you think?
Or this:
Obama-haters are the real cult.
When you are reduced to schoolyard taunts, you are not exactly proving your case but rather mine.
Or this:
Back on the California primary result, it looks like the so-called "Hispanic" (which mostly consists of the illegals from Mexico with fake documents) have been able to accomplish their goal: to destroy the US from within. I knew along these Hispanic people were up to something evil but wasn't sure until now.
Yup, that’s right. We have been plotting this for years, decades even. Massing at the border, slowing crossing over because we knew that one day we might flex our muscle by bringing down the United States by preventing one African-American from reaching the Presidency. Honestly, that is an Obama supporter who is clearly one delusional sick puppy. Who makes up this mob? Again I return to Canetti and his views on the baiting crowd that looks at situations in very stark terms of good and evil. Hispanics are evil because they are not on board with Obama. The baiting crowd personified.
And people think I am hysterical.
But I will note this aside on Hispanic support for Clinton which ran 2:1 nationwide and 3:1 in California. Obama has it wrong on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. He was against them in Iowa but changed his mind when he got to California. We know pandering when we hear it. Hispanics are poor but not stupid. But Clinton’s approach is far different and to Hispanics it makes sense because it is what they want. They want comprehensive immigration reform. It is a process that goes in this order: green cards first and licenses later. Obama got the order wrong because he did not look into the issue, he pandered. He tells people what they want to hear, ethanol in Des Moines, Jesus in Charleston, guns in Boise, Reagan in Reno, licenses in Los Angeles. At least, recognize the pattern.
I do respect the heartfelt support that others on this blog have submitted. And I think the Caroline Schlossberg-Kennedy endorsement, among others, is note-worthy. But I respectfully disagree with their conclusions. Some of the readership also think that by questioning Obama’s credentials, I am arguing for Clinton. I suppose by default I am and I am surprised to some extent that I have come to lean towards Clinton but that is because Obama is unacceptable to me on moral grounds and on political ones.
I will close with some predictions. Obama will unravel even if he reaches the Presidency because people who approach politics that way he does, always do. To unravel the legacy of Nixon and Reagan, we are just beginning that Herculean task though they themselves unraveled long ago. As to when Obamaism will unravel, I am not certain. With luck, sooner rather than later. The longer it takes for Obama to unravel, the greater damage to the system. This will not end that well, we are past the tipping point. People will be embittered and more, no matter the outcome. And I will note this observation, the long-term interests of the Democratic Party still lie with the John Edwards progressive wing of the Democratic Party that has supported him. Because it is not dependent on John Edwards, rather it is dependent on those of us who share the same moral imperatives. Health care that leaves out 15 million people is not universal nor is it fighting for the welfare of the whole body politic. It casts aside many of the less fortunate and that is hardly moral. The Alice Palmer case already leaves doubt at least in my mind that Obama is willing to cast aside the less fortunate for political expediency. And it leaves a problem sure to grow to a succeeding generation. And that is neither right nor moral.
Yes, I am the ultimate cynic in the Greek sense. But that is the core of Western free-thinking. Being skeptical and informed.
For more on Spanish Anarchism, try these links:
1
2
3
My favorite Spanish Anarchist quote is: “Ours is a beautiful dream that has been more than dreamt, it is a reality that we must capture and caress for who fails to seize his dreams lives his nightmares.” I love the sentiment and the prose but if I hear this quote in an Obama speech, it will probably kill me right then and there.
Comments
The aim was, of course, to foster to discussion among the readership
I appreciate the debate too, but could you please be honest and admit that your aim is to further your support of Hillary Clinton? It's okay to support her, but please at least be honest about your motives.
As for cults, there is cult of Hillary and a cult of Barack.
You seem to be turning this into a contest of who is the more irrational supporter, the Obama supporters or the Clinton supporters.
Again, you have here another rather long post which will take awhile to read and deconstruct.
However, will you at least, in the end, be forthright and say clearly that you are supporting Hillary Clinton? Why are you so remiss to admit this although all of your posts point clearly to your position.
I could be a supporter of either candidate although I voted for Obama and I'm currently leaning towards him. I have not campaigned for either of these candidates, though, and I haven't contributed any money to either of their campaigns.
And you Lemos? Have you contributed any money or campaigned for either one of them?
Politics annoys me because I often have this sneaking suspicion that someone supports a particular candidate because they have invested so much in a particular candidate.
I thought the opening to Senator Obama’s speech was brilliant. He sounded Presidential, however I soured quickly. The “I love you” from a member of the crowd fits my paradigm. He is a larger than life figure who can do no wrong and who they will follow to the ends of the Earth.
And this is Obama's fault how, exactly?
Because he doesn't dial his power to inspire down to imperceptable levels?
Because he manages to rouse and stir the unwashed masses into actually wanting to take part in the democratic process?
Your posts don't read like someone who is a rational, free-thinking, skeptic. Your posts sound like they are written by someone who is afraid of something. And I wish you'd just come out and say what it is already.
This whole argument is meandering, confusing, weak and based on nothing but a bunch of hunches and observations and buying into the idea that because there is passionate supporters behind a candidate there must be a "cult". I remember when I was a young volunteer for Clinton in 92. Same kind of argument then, that the cult was overlooking all the skeletons in his closet and only saw his promise and hope.
Wrong then and wrong now. Give people some credit. Obama is inspiring, yes, but he is also very smart, hard-working, and a proven leader.
I think the first two commenters support Charles' thesis quite nicely, though no doubt they fail to see it.
The whole argument boils down to this: Obama gives great speeches. Therefore I won't vote for him.
i, for one, do not see what all the hubbub is about with the petition challenges. alice palmer made a political calculation but when things did not go her way she acted as though she was entitled to retain her seat and tried to cheat her way onto the ballot. i neither reprove nor applaud obama's political decision to challenge her petitions, or those of the others; this is how the system works. i know it, you know it, and if they didn't know it then, they know it now. move on.
does the incident prove that obama is "quite human and rather ambitious"? i don't know about the prove part, but i'm fine with quite and rather. so we agree on that.
but when you suggest that the american political system could produce a peron, a trujillo, a franco -- and cast obama in that role -- you sound like someone who has drunk the rEVOLution kool aid.
What I think some of you missed by me not stating this explicitly is that only a portion of the Obama crowd is morphing into a baiting crowd
Could you not also make the case that "only a portion of the Hillary crowd is morphing into a baiting crowd?"
You should read what he has to say about Shi’ites remembering he wrote in 1962, not 2002).
lol. So now Obama supporters are not only Wildebeests, they're also akin to Shi'ites? Talk about baiting.. lol
Go on Free Republic and read their opinions of Al Gore and global warming or John McCain for that matter. That is a baiting crowd in action..
So here you are claiming that Obama supporters are global warming deniers? Well, please provide a link to that.
Obama’s emotive rhetoric is pushing ordinary people to do things that they would not otherwise do or say, some of it good and some of it not so good. And I feel obliged to respond to the not so good.
It seems to me that you are projecting. It is you who is using emotive rhetoric and I feel obliged to respond.
The language is strikingly similar to a long line of either would-be dictators
Wow. This is quite an accusation. Obama is akin to some would-be dictator? Really?
Ah, but you qualify this outrageous statement by saying:
It is not that Obama is likely to be another Vladimir ex parte or in toto or become an anarchist but rather that his language and his followers mirror a fair number of less than savory political figures and their followers. That should give us pause. There is a difference between passion and irrationality
damn...
It is rare that I am proved right so quickly. Generally my predictions can take years to fully work themselves out.
Oh, I see. So you're some kind of latter day Nostradamus?
. In 1998, it was Hugo Chavez that incurred my wrath and no matter his agenda, he was a tyrant in the making. In 2000, I warned everyone who would listen that Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was code for “unadorned Friedmanism” that aimed to privatize government services such as welfare, education and social security. In 2002, I noted about Iraq that “the United States will “win the war and lose the peace.” And now I am warning you to look carefully at Obama
So you're comparing Obama to Hugo Chavez and Bush? But wasn't it Obama who "noted" re Iraq that "“the United States will “win the war and lose the peace"
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/BarackObama'sIraq_Speech
And what did Hillary Clinton have to say about this recently in one of the debates?
More negative campaigning from the Clinton camp.
I should add:
Bravo on making use of Fox News' favorite tactic: The weak man argument.
The Obama supporters are progressives, they are not black people who will return to the Democratic party. I will also guarantee that even though blacks will return to the Democratic party, many of them will sit out this election.”
Any attempt to derail Obama? Is that a crime?
Ah, but didn't you yourself say that you would never vote for Obama? Yes, you retracted what you said, so what makes you think that these people won't rethink what they've said. You were an ardent supporter of John Edwards when you made your claim that you'd never vote for Obama. Ardent supporters of any candidate makes all kinds of emotional irrational statements.
Anyone who thinks that the time is now and only now and that it is us and only us alone represents a danger to the health and liberty of any Republic.
(whispers to the other mindlessly obedient Obama minions) The killing of the infidels will have to wait, guys. Put the pitchforks and burning torches down. They're on to us.
Obama-haters are the real cult.
When you are reduced to schoolyard taunts, you are not exactly proving your case but rather mine.
Well, you say that Obama supporters are part of a cult, and yet when the same accusation is made towards you, it's a "schoolyard taunt"? Why was it not a "schoolyard taunt" when you said that?
Hispanics are evil because they are not on board with Obama.
Here you are maligning Obama because of the insane rantings of one of his supporters? I could find plenty of insane rantings of Hillary Clinton supporters. So what? And Obama himself is not some kind of anti-immigrant fantatic. Far from that. Here's Obama's policy on immigration:
>
Little Mickey says?
LOL! Yes, they're on to us! Oh no! lol
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html
You know I'm not attached to either of these candidates, there are things that I hate and love about both of them...but no matter which one we decide to go with they need to be able to WIN in the Fall, or it's all for nothing, and according to this article Obama has the best shot at taking home the win! You send the best team to the Super-Bowl, that's all that I'm trying to say.
(whispers to the other mindlessly obedient Obama minions) The killing of the infidels will have to wait, guys. Put the pitchforks and burning torches down. They're on to us.
LOL Brilliant!
Lemos says, ,i>"But I will note this aside on Hispanic support for Clinton which ran 2:1 nationwide and 3:1 in California. Obama has it wrong on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. He was against them in Iowa but changed his mind when he got to California. We know pandering when we hear it. Hispanics are poor but not stupid. But Clinton’s approach is far different and to Hispanics it makes sense because it is what they want. They want comprehensive immigration reform. It is a process that goes in this order: green cards first and licenses later. Obama got the order wrong because he did not look into the issue, he pandered.."
huh? First, Obama does in fact support comprehensive immigration form. And then there's this
Even John Edwards was confused on Hillary Clinton's position on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants:
So... all that to say he's a rabble rouser. He's appealing to emotion more than intellect. And people who appeal to emotion to rouse the rabble (using the 'baiting' method), turn out to be bad people who do bad things.
BTW I will always vote on issues, issue priority, electable, ability to perform in office, and my gut.
I appreciate your post because you make me question my gut, which is really the only thing that is separating the two candidates for me right now.
Frankly, this kind of argument is impossible to respond to. It is as if Lemos is trying out some form of rhetorical mental gymnastics to see where it ends up. I think he is playing a lethal game where his pleasure is to create fear and identify "bad" things. The reward is in solidifying a sense of himself that is insightful and heroic.
Why are we even trying to have a dialogue with this foolishness? It is sloppy reasoning, topped with a big schmear of self importance. Its as if Lemos walked into the middle of a fervent discussion of some subject of which he was unfamiliar. Instead of joining the discussion he remains, like many pundits, outside the circle, criticizing the people in fervent activity, rather than admitting that he feels left out.
I'm sorry but this is just getting tiresome, Charles, you did not respond to any of the charges that Reed77, Isadora, and I all made to the effect that your last argument was based on a lot of hunches that basically didn't added up and failed to relate Obama to the homelessness issue. Granted, you can't respond to every criticism, but most of us has problems with the paucity of evidence about who were on the voting petitions.
Now you offer us, instead of reasons, some more hunches and speculation (as Brian pointed out), this time about crowd psychology? I'm not trying to be rude, but give me a break: arguments do not work by making stuff up to fill in the gaps, speculating without much evidence, and making bold comparisons with Franco and other dictators, without justifying them? (JoAnn, characteristically, has identified several weaknesses in your argument along these lines).
Here is what you would learn as in a first-year freshman logic course. The following inference is invalid: "P1: Grass dies P2: Men die C: T/f men are grass"
Likewise: "P1: Fascist inspire people. P2: Obama inspires people C: T/f Obama is a fascist"
is invalid. Merely because two different things share a property does not make them the same thing: this is exactly what was wrong with your other argument.
I have no earthy clue why you want to hold against someone that he inspires people. I frankly find it sick that when there is finally someone who inspires people with something other than cynicism, it strikes our political culture "vague" and "flowery".
Sorry: I said "Isadora"; I meant 'Isabella"
Of course that is not the argument Charles is making. All he is saying is that those who are choosing Barack on the feel good emotional appeal are supporting him for the wrong reason. Oh and there is a name for what you are doing and it's Straw Man, also taught in any freshman 1st year logic class.
Charles baitmob argument is so general it could apply to both Clinton and Obama. Same with the notion that politicians "size voters to vote on voting day", WOW.
I was hoping for a specific argument that would only be applicable to Obama, instead I found a denial that Clinton is part of a reversal crowd. She isn't republican, right?
Charles estimation of the size of the baiting crowd is also highly suggestive (in a negative way). Why doesn't he want to size the group?
Moreover, Charles continues to cherry-picks a number of Obama quotes and tries, unsubstantially, link these with a HUGE list of possible ANY bad politician from history. Why did Charles choose Blair instead of Kennedy? Joann rightfully mentions this too. Where is Charles basis for such huge claims?
Further Charles talks about vague cliffs and tells us he is afraid of motions.... I think Clinton would start crying for such weird statements. We should be unemotional? I'm looking for solutions here.
A bit further is the mention of Mass social movements and American history, “In terms of political theory, the Obama crowd is not a democratic crowd but a usurpive one.” Wow, both are fantastic great generalizations again.
On a writers style note: I really don't care about your previous unrelated predictions. I don't value them. Neither do I care about your granddad. For all I care, he is a nobody.- Don't Care. Neither do I care if people find you hyserical. - Don't Care. Similarly I care little of your job description either. -Don't Care. Charles mentions he doesn't like cults - I don't care, because they all are.
"But I respectfully disagree with their conclusions. Some of the readership also think that by questioning Obama’s credentials, I am arguing for Clinton." - Charles you have enough degrees to understand this: There are 2 candidates. If you argue against one and favor the other, your are...
In the end the argument Charless closes with vague unsubstantial subjective prediction of "Obama's damage to the system" and a full list of terror statements. LAME.
I hoped for fruitful things. I don't mind Charles ideas, I just cannot connect them with this race or any productive solutions. Sorry.
Agreed, but not in equal measure.
Norm. Here is the relevent quotation.
"Then came the exhortations from Obama that give me so much trouble and confirm my skepticism. You hear Barack Obama; I hear Juan Domingo Peron, Francisco Franco, Rafael Trujillo, or Gustavo Rojas Pinilla...Anyone who thinks that the time is now and only now and that it is us and only us alone represents a danger to the health and liberty of any Republic. The language is strikingly similar to a long line of either would-be dictators or oddly enough Spanish and Russian anarchists from the late 19th and early 20th centuries (I find anarchism quite intriguing, the Spanish variant in particular, because it is so surreal and its language as flowering and euphoric as any). Lenin seized a moment for example."
There it is, but exactly: figures X, Y, and Z share some property with Obama, therefore Obama is just like them.
Attacking a strawman would be to attack an argument Charles didn't really make: so please, either you or Charles can tell me why the quoted passage does not amount to "Hey, do you know what this reminds me of" variety. I am not the only one who finds Charles' argument to be lacking along these lines, so I am perplexed that it is only I who has been singled out for attack. Perhaps I've been a little more blunt than most but I have presented explicit reasons for this on Charles' other post, and cited other responders who have indicated similar flaws with the present post. Granted, this appears to be pointless, as I have yet to hear any reason to counter what Joann, Isabella, and Brian, among others, have all pointed out: that Charles has associated a number of things without much argument or evidence.
This has nothing to do with Obama specifically. You've generously invited other guests to post on Obama, and they did present arguments; granted, ones I disagreed with, but that at least offered and responded with reasons, and they were illuminating to engage with.
I think you have a wonderful blog here, Norm, and you run it in a very fair way, most of the time, by presenting both sides of the argument. Maybe you'll just tell me good riddance, but I am done reading this blog if we're going to degenerate into what Isabella has already identified: "Why are we even trying to have a dialogue with this foolishness? It is sloppy reasoning, topped with a big schmear of self importance."
Criticize Obama all you want: we've had some interesting discussions on this, I think. But these are not arguments, and I refuse to engage any more with someone who is not interested in making one.
Ok, i wasn't going to comment on Lemos' post for two primary reasons: 1) As far as i can tell the basic logic being proposed is "I am going to demonstrate that the supports of Obama follow a mob mentality" and, then when someone purports to support Obama, by either positive counter-examples or challenging the original example, they automagically become part of the mob mentality. This logic is very Fox New/Crossfire - albeit couched in highbrow verbosity. Feigning interest in a substantive conversation while not actually giving a damn is reprehensible. 2) Others have made sensible observations, comments and criticisms which were ignored if valid, or held as examples of irrationality (sometimes deserved) otherwise.
At this point though, I feel like i have add my $.02 - so i can be put into the mob...
Let's just start with the fact that any attempt to portray Obama as more conniving or political then Clinton is ludicrous. As much as I respect Hillary, the Clinton track record when it comes to shady practices is one of the few things that democrats and republics can agree on. Is Obama as bad? Maybe. Worse - no way.
That gets us back to the original premise of the discussion: we are comparing the two democratic candidates. We should be comparing the candidates - not their followers. The fact that Obama has achieved Kennedy/Rock Star status is no doubt something that his campaign managers embraced, however it should not detract from his politics.
Not for some subjectivity: At 1GM, we (almost) all agree that we want a democrat in the white house - so in addition to policy decisions, electability should be of paramount concern.
At this point, the biggest concern about Barack's is what we don't know that could be brought out a la "Swift Boat Vets." We know that Republicans, in general, hate the Clintons. Aside from the actions of the party power structure, Republican Americans will get out of their house (in the snow, rain, etc) to vote against a Clinton. Those same republicans are not necessarily going to get out of their house to vote against Obama. Ironically(?), there are independents (literally not dem or rep) who won't vote at all if Clinton is the name on the Democratic ticket - but will vote for Obama because he/they want out of Iraq. So in sum, Obama would be (IMO) more electable than Clinton - above and beyond policy.
So now policy: Oback was voted most liberal senator. He voted in favor of banning land mines. She did not. Obama was against the war from the start. She was not. Yes he voted to fund it later - so did she. His stance was, once we were in it, we have to provide for the soldiers. Obama voted to require higher mileage requirements, Clinton voted against it. I happen to agree with Clinton's version of healthcare more than Obama's based on what I know about it. That said, the fact that Clinton is endorsed by Pharma and Insurance does not bode well. So in policy, generally speaking, Obama is more liberal, more anti-war, greener, and not as beholden to corporations as compared to Clinton.
On a related note: Technically not a policy issue, I think that Obama's stance on transparency is a very important point at this juncture. If we, the people, expect our government to repair itself from the damage incurred during the current administration, we should know who is affecting policy. Obama's words (we haven't seen enough voting history) imply that he is more of a federalist than Clinton and that whenever possible the government should stay out of it, but when it needs to be governed the people should know how and why. Obama goes as far as to say that such transparency should be built into the government at very low levels - ie information and data dissemination. Lawrence Lessig endorses Barack using some astute observations about Obama's stance on technology and intellectual property.
Now I feel like my post is almost as long one of Lemos' - I should stop now. but one last note: I work with some former Harvard Law students who were there when Obama was the first black elected to head Harvard's Law Review. Back in 2004 (around the DNC keynote) I had a conversation with one of them who indicated that Obama was the underdog going into the final stages of the HLR election campaign (against a more conservative candidate if i remember correctly), but that he spoke with some the "conservatives" voting and convinced them that he was a better candidate to lead the review despite their ideological disagreements. They were convinced and that's why he won.
That is what this country needs now. I have already gone over electability and policy, which I think both stand in Obama's favor. Yet, as others have expressed, Obama's ability to inspire should not be overlooked. We may all need to sacrifice in the face of larger needs. Obama can reach across idealogical divides and get that kind of consensus, where Hillary can not.
I hope saying that doesn't make me a follower of Hitler or Stalin. Perhaps it makes me naive, but if i get some hope along with policy and electability, I'll take it.
Where exactly does he do that? I think the point is that Barack claims to be something new, not the political animal that Hillary clearly is, and on that score the examples demonstrate that not to be true.
Adam, first things first, to your statement that if you don't like what I post you're done reading this blog, I remind you have never needed my permission. So, it seems the reason you make the threat is to tell me what is okay to post and what is not. If I followed that advice there would be no blog at all because no one agrees with everything I post here.
Your analysis is simplistic. It is unfortunate that you can't allow that though the above share qualities it doesn't follow that they are the same, nor does Charles claim they are. What I think you are failing to do is read the remarks in context. Consider what he writes in context and don't leave out the following:
Norm, Obama is something new. That's an empirical statement. If anything, that would be one of the reasons not to vote for him. He hasn't been around long enough to be beholden to a particular entity and he doesn't take money from lobbyists (under the current definition). I would argue that he isn't the only "new" one out there, Ron Paul is "new" too. Does Obama share commonalities with the "old" - of course, he is still a politician.
He is not the political animal that Hillary clearly is. The examples given do not demonstrate that to be true.
Is he a politican? Absolutely. His endorsement of transparency separates him from back room wheeling and dealing in a way that significantly changes the assertion that he is the political animal that Hillary is. As others (and I) have pointed out, some supporters have painted him to be above the fray of normal politics - but Obama's stance has been to say that "politics as usual" needs to change. That does not mean absence of political maneuvering.
as far as "Where exactly does he [portray Obama as more conniving or political]", it depends on how you look for it. I am willing to concede that Lemos may not use the term "more" or any "greater than" terminology. I am pretty sure I remember a phrase (I will not wade through the texts again) in the initial post saying something along the lines of "equal or worse than Clinton."
However, with all due respect, people have made some compelling cases for Obama which have been answered with further examples of his shortcomings. The implication is that Obama's shortcomings outweigh those of Clinton's. Since the shortcomings illustrated pertain to questionable politics, transitive property implies that Obama's questionable politics outweigh Clinton's questionable politics. that is where the "more" comes from.
That is simply not true. It has been pointed out repeatedly that Hillary's healthcare plan is superior. Is a fact that Hillary voted to limit predatory lenders while Barack voted against it and further gave an absurd excuse for the vote. They have many views in common, but there are significant differences. I'm not ready to crown either candidate, it seems that some of you are.
Norm: I appreciate you efforts to engage with what I said, and to be specific. I want to clarify one thing about my supposed "threat" before trying to show you the same courtesy. You said:
"So, it seems the reason you make the threat is to tell me what is okay to post and what is not. If I followed that advice there would be no blog at all because no one agrees with everything I post here."
This is a complete and total distortion of what I said. I emphasized that 'this is not about Obama but about presenting arguments', and underscored that I was not offended by the fact of disagreement, but how that disagreement is stated, viz. without reasons or much of an argument. I specifically recalled a previous occasion where others disagreed with me on Obama but presented arguments for this, which I dubbed "illuminating." Likewise, I have explicitly expressed gratitude for well-stated disagreement in past comments, even if it didn't ultimately persuade me. And again, I wish to underscore, I am not the only one to feels the way I do about Charles' posts, I only gave formal reasons for rejecting them rather than calling them (or Charles) "irrational," which would not be productive. It is an utter mischaracterization of what I said to pretend that I am unwilling to "tolerate" disagreement, because you're absolutely right, Norm, there would then be no blog, and it really would not be worth reading. So disagree all you want, but present evidence and argument, that was my only request, and both I and others have made the complaint that Charles does not do this, and presented arguments for why we feel this way.
Now, to be fair, you yourself have just tried to show me a qualifying passage, and suggested an argument: that is all I wanted. Whether or not you disagree with me, I am certainly willing to engage with that.
Now, you claim that I am being "simplistic" and then quote a passage without explaining why this qualification helps at all to counter my and others' basic claim, that Charles has appeal to so-called "crowd psychology" is based on merely associative reasoning that does not help to establish that Obama is actually quite like some dictator. To qualify this remark by saying he's not talking about every Obama supporter does not help in the least, nor does it really qualify the basic flaw in argument that others have, to my mind, already identified: that the analogy is strained at best, and at worst, simply un-argued. I would be willing, again, to listen to a reason for what that qualification shows, if it amounts to more than calling me "simplistic" and saying how the "context" helps spell out Charles' claim.
Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps this "contextual" qualification helps unpack Charles argument. Perhaps I am being obtuse, but merely quoted it has not helped me see the problem.
Okay, so my comment doesn't exactly deal with the crux of this post, but I think it's an important point that simply got passed over. Since when is Hugo Chávez a tyrant? You state that he "incurred [your] wrath" in 1998, and you make it clear that you consider yourself to have been proven right in your belief that he was a "tyrant in the making," but I'm unaware of him becoming a tyrant. Perhaps he will in the future, but he's a long way from that yet.
Norm said: "All he is saying is that those who are choosing Barack on the feel good emotional appeal are supporting him for the wrong reason."
Oh sweet, merciful brevity. How I have missed you. Nearly 30 paragraphs, his post was. 30.
Excessively long-winded gasbaggery that generates a flurry of inflamed responses can sometimes indicate one's message board has a troll infestation.
And this is noted only because Charles Lemos seems to be doing here exactly what he accuses Obama of doing to the American public.
Just something to keep in the back of our minds as we narrow down whether or not Obama is the next Hitler.
Carry on.
For all the talk about not having made up your mind for an endorsement, it seems like this blog has readily taken up the task of being an anti-Obama site.
It's not that posting criticism of a candidate is a bad thing. But I didn't expect such a one-sided display.
I could take much of what Mr. Lemos says appropriately if not for the over-the-top assertions of Obama followers being cultists, or comparing Obama to dangerous figures in history. Why don't you just come out and call him Jim Jones already?
Mr. Lemos doesn't accuse ALL followers of being cultists, an important distinction don't you think? Why did you ignore that fact? In his comparison with "dangerous figures in history" he is comparing their rhetoric NOT their policies or actions. Did you fail to see that distinction too?
I find this post a supercilious tirade; absent the pragmatism sorely needed at this juncture. Why isn't Hillary analyzed through the same lens of doubt? Don't the skeletons in Bill Clinton's closet count? (And I'm not talking about Monica.) Really, why don't we pick both of the two remaining candidates apart and shoe-horn McCain into office? Is that the win you want?
Great post, my politics are way left of the HRC and BO. but I find the emotionalism of Obama and his followers frightening. If Clinton and her followers were doing this we would dismiss them as emotional, air-head women. You were brave to make this criticism of Obama as like the Ron Paul followers Obama's group take no prisoners. Oh on the criticism of the post being long and wonkish, pleeeese, isn't that a right wing mime? Give me wonk in my political analysis, I way prefer it to soundbytes and empty hopeful sounding words. I am looking neither for a long lost daddy or the messiah.
Isabella: "I think he is playing a lethal game where his pleasure is to create fear and identify "bad" things. The reward is in solidifying a sense of himself that is insightful and heroic."
I think Lemos is getting under some people's skin a bit too much. I'm not really convinced by his arguments, but I don't think that they're exactly outrageous. And I don't think it makes much difference that he's supporting Hillary (if he is).
"Since when is Hugo Chávez a tyrant?"
Since he instituted a delegative democracy which gives him wide, unchecked powers to amend the constitution and rewrite democratic procedures. Some of his economic reforms might be good, but his record on democracy is bad, and his reliance on flamboyant, posturing anti-Americanism to prop up his legitimacy is a good indication of what kind of figure he is.
I am a bit confused about the timing. Lemos, if you live in San Francisco, wouldn't you have had to cast your primary vote?
In addition to the policy, electability and "hope" issues I mentioned earlier, I wanted to add that Obama received the endorsements of 4 major gay newspapers as well as received the same score as Clinton from the Human Rights Campaign (89/100) for the latest congress.
I mention this because of all the talk of the first African-American or the first woman president. The implication is that we've come a long way. As far as I am concerned, we have a long way to go with regards to discrimination, and I wonder which candidate would do a better job addressing the issue of LBGT community.
CBS has an interesting write up on the issue. While it's only the tip of the iceberg, and might be superficial - Obama got Rev. Caldwell to acknowledge and change its stance. That slippery slope type of change can only be achieved by embracing the extremes and bringing them to you - not by demanding they join forces with you.
Endorsements can be important if they discuss the reasoning behind the endorsement. As I mentioned before, focus on the candidate not the candidates supporters.
Charles:
You are a clever troll indeed. On your last post you asked for solutions to the disenfranchisement of the homeless. I asked about non-profit mailboxes. The issue was dropped, so we could enjoy some more Obama-bashing instead.
You don't want to discuss the disenfranchisement of the homeless, you want to bicker about Hillary Clinton v. Barack Obama.
Ok, I'll indulge you.
Disclosure: born and raised in Shytown, spent my younger years on the south side as mom fought a few drug addictions. I moved out about the same time Mr. T did. Obama is my "homeboy" for all intents and purposes, but politically I am a Ron Paul supporter now debating between Obama and moving to Peru.
I DEFY you to find ANY instance of Chicago elections LESS corrupt than the Alice Palmer incident. Chicago is the UGLIEST town I've ever seen- worse than Boston, worse than NY. This doesn't make it "right", but its hardly newsworthy is the context of the 2008 election.
FOLLOW THE MONEY:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00000019&Cycle=2008
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00009638&Cycle=2008
Hillary Clinton is a PAC whore, and only a fool or kool-aide drinking supporter would say otherwise.
WACO TEXAS. Google it. Koresh was a nut. That doesn't justify Hillary Clinton sending tanks against American children.
MANDATORY health care? On what authority? Read the constitution folks.
There is a multi-BILLION dollar industry dedicated to the hatred of Hillary Clinton. Assuming 99% of this media is totally false (it is) that still leaves one of the most overtly corrupt politicians in American history.
I could write a 500 page thesis on why Hillary Clinton is a reptilian slimeball with no core agenda besides that of power for the sake of power. Jesus Christ folks- George Bush and Bill Clinton appear on national television holding hands (Katrina) and you expect this man's wife to stand for "change" against the actions of Junior? I thought Ron Paul supporters were naive, but holy shit- this isn't a secret anymore.
I need to go for a walk, but before I do, I lay this gauntlet at the feet of Charles Lemos:
Rather than attacking the candidate who can rally America together, why not a post defending the merits of Hillary Clinton? I know you won't touch the reality of PAC donations or dead children from Waco, so let's see what self-indulgent horse shit you can spin on that topic.
I can summarize my position on Hillary Clinton thusly: if the dems nominate her, they deserve to lose. And after the way they treated Kucinich and Paul, America DESERVES a McCain presidency.
Maybe then, when things really start falling appart, the rest of you will see the writing on the wall.
Until then, I'll be on the beach, praying to a God that I'm pretty sure my grandmother invented.
God bless America.
Congrats to Charles to finding a less offensive yet increasingly irrational and uninspiring way to say, "I don't like Obama, so I am going with Hillary."
If long winded over thought cerebral analogies, petty insults, and vague under researched criticisms were the key to winning elections, Hillary would be heading to the Whitehouse without question.
To bad message, record, and issues keep getting in the way.
Arrrgggh..... to simplify i think you are saying in this post, is that some charismatic candidates can be disasters and really charismatic candidates can be really dangerous. This is absolutely correct. Your theorem then jumps to Obama might be the next evil dictator. Hmmnn Bill Clinton was a charismatic candidate who won as he was good looking, smart, charming and charismatic. He was not any more experienced. So the best analogy is that Obama is one of those candidates like Clinton, like Pierre Trudeau, like Kennedy that for some unclear reason excite the young and very well educated idealistic electorate. It may piss you and even me off but it is true. Yes, some really charming candidates with really flaky and evil ideas can get elected, particularly by an uneducated angry electorate, but there is no evidence that you provide or I see that any "baiting" is coming from Obama or his campaign, nor is he appealing to any uneducated angry mob mentality. Nor is there anything in Obama's history that suggests that he is is any more overly ambitious and psychopathic than any other of them. I mean if we were going for experience where the hell is Joe Biden? Politics as far as I see it, is not often fair. Think how good looking most of the candidates are, how wealthy they all are, is that fair.
So will Obama be some god like president uniting washington to one purpose, ending forever the nastiness of politics, eliminating lobbyists and scandals, of course not. But neither did Trudeau, Clinton or Kennedy. But he will likely get elected.
So go, lay your bets, and pick you super-bowl team.
ps: i see nastiness and crazy cult like behaviour from followers of all candidates and from all parties, i don't know what it is, people get so invested in things they loose all judgement. I think both candidates are great, you are worried that we don't know enough about Obama, i am worried that Hilary won't get elected. Hopefully we are both wrong.
Questions that Charles and those that see Obama's followers as "Cult-Like".
Do you see there being such a thing as a valid and rational "movement"?
Isn't some emotional group dynamic of all movements? Are they by definition Cults?
Charles,
Like many others here, I've read your posts and I find your anti-Obama message to be unconvincing. You worry about Obama's heavy-on-inspirational tenor and you hear Peron, Franco, and Trujillo! But without identifying other characteristics that go into the kind of leader who constructs a cult of personality, your comparisons say more about you than Obama. Has Obama distorted facts (any more than usual in a political campaign) to vilify his opponents? No - amazingly, to my knowledge neither Clinton nor Obama has aired a single negative advertisement directed towards their opponents (or so claimed Paul Begala, a Clintonite, on Super Tuesday.) Is there any sense that Obama's election would signal some kind of extra-legal activities that accompany the establishment of a cult of personality? Only in your mind, I'm afraid. Is Obama wildly nationalistic? Does he scapegoat? It isn't from Obama that I fear control of the media, but from faceless corporate officers. Does Obama exploit religion to amplify his legitimacy or power - or has he made eloquent public statements specifically propounding the opposite? Is there reason to hold Obama as more susceptible to corporate pressure than Clinton - or, for that matter, any Republican? Does Obama exude the kind of anti-intellectualism that typifies dictatorial types of leaders? No, No, and No. You're flailing around with increasingly wild extrapolations and character associations that are not substantiated.
It would be great if the electorate in the US (or anywhere) would carefully weigh the policy recommendations of prospective candidates and dispassionately analyze the candidates' records of accomplishments while soberly considering their prospects for effecting positive changes after taking office. As a biased observer, I'd like to think that if the electorate did that, Reagan would have never been reelected, Dukakis wouldn't have been soundly beaten, and without any doubt whatsoever - George W. Bush would have lost every fucking state in the union in 2004 if not in 2000. But that is not the way elections run and it is not the way people vote. There will always be an emotional investiture of constituents in their candidates (and at least some disillusionment later). As long as Obama isn't too swept up in his followers' enthusiasm, and until you can provide one hell of a lot more evidence that he is a dictator-in-the-making than you have, your alarmist posts will fall flat.
John McCain has said that Bush's tax cuts should be made permanent - this in the face of deficit that threatens to widen as the looming recession keeps on coming despite pitiful monetarist delaying (and worsening) of the days of reckoning. John McCain is happy to keep throwing lives and treasure into maintaining the illusion of a nation, Iraq, that ceased to be any kind of nation some time ago. John McCain abandoned his independence from the theocratic (and dominant) wing of the GOP when he crawled on his belly to Liberty University to kiss Jerry Falwell's ass. John McCain will transform a Supreme Court hanging by it's fingernails into a reactionary disaster. And, amazingly, John McCain is the best the GOP had. The nation badly needs, and the GOP richly deserves, to see an overwhelming victory by the Democratic party in November - and not because the craven Democrats controlling Congress deserve the victory much. If Barack Obama's charisma is what it takes to produce that - and lacking any substantive reason to be worried about him - I'd proudly vote for him.
Time out, time out! Let's all go for a drink! Who's not coming?
'As to when Obamaism will unravel, I am not certain. With luck, sooner rather than later. The longer it takes for Obama to unravel, the greater damage to the system.'
if the 'system' to which you refer is our current state of PAC laden, pro-corporate legislating, for profit joke of a "health-care", military-industrial-hallibuton-blackwater
system...i hope it takes Obama a long time to unravel...thats a system that needs to be taken down...Obama could certainly not make it any worse. For the record I heart candiates in this order 1. Kucinich 2. Edwards 3. Obama 4. Bill Richards 5. Ron Paul 6. Clinton
Zophod said to Charles: Rather than attacking the candidate who can rally America together, why not a post defending the merits of Hillary Clinton?
I would dearly love to see him try - just to laugh at how much shorter it would be in comparison to his other posts. ha ha ha
I've seen many of Obama's speeches (not in person unfortunately) and there is a tendancy to disregard substance for style. Many of his speeches are beginning to sound familliar. But when I watch Clinton I still do not get the feeling I did when I saw Obama first speak. And that is to be inspired. But I do worry that it might just be empty rhetoric. Coincidentally today I was thinking about the reasons I liked Obama. Then I realized the similarities he has with Blair. A gifted politician I admired once. But then I realized the difference is that when it mattered most Obama was willing to speak truth to power and was willing to go against to speak against a wrong war. It takes considerable moral courage as Lessig has said and foresight. But then my worry is whether he will still display the same fortitude and foresight for key decisions in the future. Then again all politicians disappoint I can only hope he does better than that minimum standard. Another aspect I'm worried about is despite surrounding himself with good advisors will he buy into his hype and think he knows best like a certain current President. I need to know that he can admit that he's wrong and is willing to reverse an ill advised decision. Finally I have to say I think there is a concerted attempt to paint Obama supporters as fanatics and participants of a mob culture hell bent on suppresing dissent. Yes, I've seen few but to say its more than a handful is exaggerated. But this is only from experience trawling the comments pages on Huff Post and DKOS. Though there is a crowd baiting the supporters from each side to make nasty comments about each other. I hope the majority of Obama supporters are like this though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM
And Andrew Sullivan makes the unemotional case for Obama here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/thedailydish/2008/02/the-unemotional.html
Can you embed links into comments if so how?
dende blogger, Chávez's record on democracy is perfectly fine, in fact better than most of the rest of South America. He's been elected repeatedly by wide margins in internationally monitored elections. That's more than we can say for the States. Our guy didn't win his first term (and probably not the second, either), and you're not about to see the U.S. agree to have its elections monitored by international groups. And as for his "unchecked powers to amend the constitution," didn't you hear about the referendum they recently had over there? Chávez had some changes he wanted to make to the constitution, so he put it to a popular vote, which is apparently the way he's supposed to do that. It was extremely close, but his changes were voted down. His tyrannical, anti-democratic response was to accept the will of the people right away, without disputing the result, close as it was. In short, his power to amend the constitution was checked by the will of the people, and he accepted it. That seems to be a pretty good example of democracy in action. So where's this tyranny I hear people talking about?
Thanks to Norm for posting this, and Charles for writing it. You've addressed many of the aspects of this Obama-adoration that have bothered me, in an interesting way. I'll peruse your links as well. I supported Edwards and haven't been real excited about either of the other two since he dropped out-- but Obama's Super Tuesday speech bugged me in a way I wasn't able to quite identify, and this has helped a lot. Thanks!
can i just ask why the attack is on the supporters of the candidate and not on the candidate himself? "obama is larger than life", "he makes great speaches" - maybe a more concrete reason?? it is as if hilary's crowd is that much more rational.
and comparing obama's presentation style to lenin??? are you serious?!!!! i've heard some of the lenin's speeches on russian TV and obama has nothing on lenin. lenin went on with 'damn the tzar and the bourgeoisie - behold the working men!' which was followed by a witch-hunt against the controllers of the means of production. the only similarity between lenin and obama is that both state that the real power is in the working masses - the 'WE can make the difference' approach. other than the feeling of unification, there is absolutely nothing similar. and i highly doubt the notion that obama will turn into a socialist nut-job and enslave the common men (is that the implication of juxtaposing obama to spanish and russian anarchists?)
come on, get real!
I've been reading Charles Lemos' posts and their responses since their beginning in January, and I am more and more discouraged as they continue. While much lip service has been paid to the benefit of engaging an important issue, I have yet to see any meaningful discussion of issues of substance, and I believe the root of the problem is the postings made by Charles himself. It is a testament to the readership, not to Charles, that the discussion has salvaged some important points from these posts. The content of his remarks have the common thread of making appeals to the 1GM readership’s rational, freethinking, and progressive leanings vis-à-vis criticisms of Barack Obama. These criticisms take the form of long, verbose essays that fall well short of the mark of convincing a skeptic of the validity of their premises, much less of their conclusions. The major problem as I see it is that Charles either fails to convincingly convey his otherwise valid arguments or has no valid arguments to convey.
In either case, it is incumbent upon Charles to do the heavy lifting of disseminating his ideas himself. A few suggestions to Charles based on my experience in convincing readers of my point of view:
Normally, I wouldn’t consider making such suggestions in any normal political forum, but this place is different. Norm has forged here at 1GM a remarkable community of freethinkers with similar interests in science, skepticism, and rational discourse. It is with this in mind that I ask you to follow the spirit of 1GM as I see it and pay respect to rational discussion. Your appearance here has been rather controversial to many readers. I think it is fair to say that there are many among Norm’s regulars other than myself that consider your posts to be disingenuous at best and perhaps even sophistic. Your facile arguments show many of the hallmarks of the concern troll and are thinly argued and dressed up with pretentious language and superfluous allusions disguised as erudition. Please get down to brass tacks and make a concise, coherent, rational argument.
Adam, here it is, one last try. This is my take on what he is saying. All charismatic leaders have the ability to sway people based on emotional appeal. Throughout history there have been leaders that have used that ability, some who turned out to be benevolent and others who were malevolent. The problem with both is that the appeals rely mostly on emotion. It is reasonable in such cases to be extra careful in deciding to follow them. It may well turn out that Obamma would make a great president, or perhaps not, but the reason to vote for him should not be because he makes you feel good, but that you judge him on the arguments he makes and his record. So when Charles uses an example like Francisco Franco he is NOT saying that Barack would be another Franco only that their use of speech is similar, and for that reason you should be on guard and use your reason, not your heart in deciding if he would be a good president. How anyone reads this post and concludes that Charles is saying Obama is a Franco is in my opionion is at best misreading what he has written, and some are simply being dishonest. Most of those misreading his point are doing so because they are reacting emotionally and not rationally. The segments I quoted demonstrate that Charles acknowledges that Obamma has some good ideas. It is his opinion that they are not good enough to choose him over Hillary Clinton even with all her warts, and warts she certainly has. It is also clear that he would prefer Obamma to John McCain. Go back and read the comments that Obamma supporter have left here and on other blogs. They are inspired by him, but they don't often give specific reasons. This is certainly not all Obamma supporters, a point Charles also makes, but there are many who match that description. If you are an Obamma supporter you do him a disservice by chanting the feel good tripe. Give specific reasons for your support, if you want others to listen to you. I see far too many of the mindless one-liners the Ron Paul supporters use to support their candidate, coming from Obamma supporters.
Norm, do you seriously believe that a key distinction drawn in Charles' essay is that he doesn't accuse ALL followers of being cultists? I think if you believe this is an important caveat of Charles’ essay, you’ve argued both you and Charles into a corner. On the one hand, you’re in the unenviable position of arguing the justifications of voters, not the positions of the candidates. This position as a justification for not supporting Obama is even less tenable than a star struck Obama supporter citing only “hope” as a reason for supporting him. On the other hand, if Charles’ point is that only some of Obama’s followers are “cultists”, then who cares? Every major politician in this race (charismatic or otherwise) has plenty of “cult-like” followers who don’t know shit from Shinola in terms of policy. Why single out Obama for censure on this ground?
Additionally, if Charles is making a comparison based on movements employing rhetoric that appeals to emotion, why does he make his most forceful comparisons to despots and authoritarians like Lenin and Franco? Why does he entirely neglect comparisons to other masters of rhetoric of similar stature like JFK and MLK Jr.? The answer is clear. Charles does not care for Obama, at least in the context of voting in the Democratic primary. As a result, he emphasizes only the unflattering juxtapositions, entirely ignoring the most flattering ones, even though in terms of emotionally appealing to supporters both classes are fair comparisons to make. This is intellectually dishonest, and it is beneath you to carry Charles’ water, at least on this issue. Almost every argument Charles makes is in a similar vein and he has written so much that it is tedious to rebut it all. Charles himself takes a very similar rhetorical approach to the intelligent design proponents and global warming deniers; namely use the sheer volume of protests to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the minds of people by preying on their sense of fair play and a balanced hearing of the arguments. However, Charles’ arguments aren’t fair or balanced.
There are fair and rational arguments to be made both in favor of Hillary Clinton as well as against Barack Obama. Alas, Charles has opted to go the sensational route (at least sensational for 1GM readers) and neglects these less flashy but more substantive arguments. Just to get the ball rolling in an obvious direction, one could argue the affirmative in the resolution: “Resolved: Mandates for buying subsidized insurance is a more progressive solution for universal healthcare than such a policy without mandates.” This may be boring to some, but it is actually much more relevant than the non-arguments put forth by Charles.
One thing we can all agree on (at least i think…) is that Charles' posts are doing marvels for Norm's site traffic!
Like everybody that down in the comments, i have been following the give-and-take between the parties, and my inclination is to side with Charles. What i find interesting is why it is so. Charles is not culturally a "total" American, meaning he's obviously been (and still is) "drinking at many troughs", and i see myself in a similar position (French, lived all over the world, now 10 years now in Japan). This recoil in front of the Obama phenomena is not so much about ideas or objectives as it is about their expression.
i do not want to presume of Charles' deepest thoughts, i only speak for myself, but my reticence towards Obama dates from his "Audacity of Hope" 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention. But it was at the very same second that millions of people felt the trueness of this words and that the Obama movement was born! What gives?
Reading Charles and most people on this board, at first i see deeply different opinions. Then, on second thoughts, i see more of differences in sensibilities. (Of course, these differences are so important that we end up screaming at each other in Norm's pages.) When i heard Obama in 2004, my blasé cynical European lights went flashing like crazy in a second, because outside of America, this kind of messianic speech may spell "Fake!", or worse, "Danger!". (In France, if anybody were giving that kind of political speech, people would be throwing tomatoes!!!—Ooops, not helping my cause here! :-)
Like Charles reminds us, we have the lessons of our respective Histories to explain it, but neither Obama nor his audience carries the same baggage we have, and indeed his speech inspired and raised hope. In Europe, inspiration and hope would be big no-nos in matters political if clothed in pulpit rhetoric, when in the US, they are winners.
Perhaps these previous observations do not contribute much here. What i mean is that our cultural differences may colour many of our disagreements. Having lost a long time ago our political virginities, a lot of us —à la Charles—tend to focus on the dangers we perceive in your unbridled enthusiasm, because we saw in our pasts too many slick operators riding it to destruction, and we fear Obama may be very slick indeed.
We have different eyes. You may be gullible, we may be just too "désabusés" to get it. If so, get it for us, don't screw it up, and prove us wrong!
Norm: Please accept my apologies for going a little too far earlier; let me also express gratitude for your actually engaging with the specific content of my claims, and trying to clarify where, by your lights, I went wrong. Let me clarify my own part:
I did not mean to imply, at all, that I did not appreciate this blog, or that I in any way was bristled by your commenting in your own voice--which, while disagree, I actually appreciated (I often wonder what you think of our back-and-forths on here).
The problem is, it seems to me, that you yourself present very watered down versions of Charles' claims, and it is YOU, not him, defending them. You ask a question like: Obama may have presented himself as above mere politicking, but if he did smear so and so--say, Palmer--then this message is false. Ought we to hold him to some standard higher than Hillary? Now, I, personally, think not, but this is a good question, and I've enjoyed hearing the exchange on this issue. But Charles embeds questions like this within some extravagant, and--I'm sorry--just pretty crazy conspiracy theory about resemblances between Obama and fascists like Franco, and other dictators. At first, we on this blog objected as reasonably as we could on the Palmer issue, presenting argument and evidence as much as we could--that is the standard on this blog, and that is why, I think, we love it this blog so much, that it is not like other blogs--or so I think--that no one can get away with just making shit up without an argument, that argument and evidence are the standard to which every claim ought to be held. But rather than responding to the objections on the wild, crazy Palmer theory--leaving me out of it, by, say, Reed, Joanna, Isabella, and interested, among many others--Charles just changed the topic, and presented yet another crazy conspiracy theory. How is that fair? Why comment on bizarre, unsupported, and just wild accusations if, when people formulate reasonable objections, they are simply ignored, and never addressed? That is why some of us, I take it, are simply offended, and are asking WTF--not because someone disagreed with us. I am not the only one to find this style of engagement both distinctive and distinctively offensive--all one need do is read through the other comments.
Now, granted, you can't respond to every commenter--including me-- and that is certainly not what I am asking--but to post some wild conspiracy theory about Obama putatively "disenfranchising" the homeless, then get demolished by arguments that this is not true, and then just make up yet another conspiracy theory, within 24 hours, and without addressing at all the stuff anyone said to the previous crazy theory, is just offensive.
Now, Obama has black hair, so did Franco. Obama walks on two legs, and so did Franco. Obama makes people emotional, and so did Franco, apparently. From the standpoint of logic, these are not distinguishable claims, without some robust evidence explaining what valid conclusions one might draw from some bare similarity. And I have not yet heard what makes that similarity one that ought to make us seriously worry that Obama is anything like a potential dictator.
Now, norm, you present a watered down version of this claim: that the similarity is grounds for caution. Fine, that may be a well formulated question. But obviously, if one compares Obama to a fascist dictator, one is advising just a little bit more than mere "caution," or posing a mere question.
So, for examples, you say, Norm, that: "It may well turn out that Obamma would make a great president, or perhaps not, but the reason to vote for him should not be because he makes you feel good, but that you judge him on the arguments he makes and his record. So when Charles uses an example like Francisco Franco he is NOT saying that Barack would be another Franco only that their use of speech is similar, and for that reason you should be on guard and use your reason, not your heart in deciding if he would be a good president."
I have not seen anyone present any evidence, that Obama appeals ONLY to emotion, or that this is the ONLY good reason why anyone ought, or would, vote for him. But suppose, for a moment, that this were actually true: how does that justify, at all, a comparison with fascist dictators? They used their control over the crowd to initiate such policies, as, say, genocide, wars of aggression, assassination, corporatism, etc. What evidence is there that Obama--supposing that his only appeal is emotional, which I reject--would use his putative 'emotional appeal' to do this? No one has explained that yet, and surely, one does not need to appeal, and make analogies, to fascist dictators to make the merely anodyne claim that we ought not be mislead by our emotions.
You also say: "How anyone reads this post and concludes that Charles is saying Obama is a Franco is in my opionion is at best misreading what he has written, and some are simply being dishonest."
Actually, if you read the comments, MOST of the commenters have read him this way.
Here are the questions, as I take them: (1.) Why ought we to hold Obama to a different standard than Hillary? How is Hillary different in terms of politicking and emotional appeal? So far as I can see, only on the assumption that Obama supporters claim him to be utterly blameless, does that question have any bite. And so far as I know, no one has ever claimed that. (2.) Associating the fact that people get emotionally excited about Obama, and that some have gotten excited about dictators, does not amount to evidence that he is like a dictator because--again--that is associative reasoning.
I crossed the line saying I just won't visit this blog anymore, and Norm, I owe you an apology for that: this is a wonderful blog, and I love that people are required to offer arguments and evidence, and that is why I--and I suspect--many others come here too. But what I will not do, and what I encourage others not to do, is respond to wild, ill-reasoned charges, about anyone--be it Obama, Hillary, or anyone else--that, when people object with arguments, are simply ignored, except by a change of topic to yet another, different, and equally wild conspiracy theory.
I think this is at the heart of the objections to the piece and a fair question. It is obvious that most of the Obama supporters consider the comparison unfair, though they seem to think that Charles equates Obama with the examples he cites in all respects and not just the use of emotional speech, a decidedly uncharitable view. Simply saying don't be misled by your emotions doesn't in my opinion make the point strongly enough. I understand that many consider using the examples that Charles used as going too far, and since they seem unable to rise above a mostly emotional response it is obviously true for them. I think pointing to the extremes helps to make the point and I wonder if the examples rather than Franco et al, had been of other charismatic figures in history who had done mostly good if the response would be the same. If for example you used Jesus as a cautionary tale pointing to all the good he did and then recalling that he convinced his disciples to abandon their families and follow him, would that be unfair. We can certainly disagree about how to make the point without ascribing sinister motives to one another or can we?
Here is quick question for Charles, based on LwPhd's post: Since what is contention is your comparing Obama to people like Franco on the basis of "emotional appeal," why would it not be legitimate to substitute, say, Dr. Martin Luther King rather than Franco into the analogy, or JFK? Since putatively, all the argument amounts to is that we ought not be misled by emotion, I can see no reason for substituting positive liberating figures for fascist ones into the argument.
Sure, we should be wary of choosing candidates on only emotional appeal, very careful to base things on "feelings" and charm. But the original post basically says without any real evidence to support it, that Charles Lemos feels uncomfortable with Obama and his language. I have to agree with Adam on this one. The post seems mainly about Charles "feelings" not any facts, and that he has been right before about his "feelings".
My "impression" of Obama's speeches is that he sounds just like all ministers I heard as a kid in the various liberal Protestant churches I grew up with. Now some of you may find that really scary. But I suspect that appeals to a lot of the electorate.
Norm said: >Mr. Lemos doesn't accuse ALL followers of being cultists, an important distinction don't you think? Why did you ignore that fact? In his comparison with "dangerous figures in history" he is comparing their rhetoric NOT their policies or actions. Did you fail to see that distinction too?
Norm, rather then responding to my petty post, there are some much greater points being raised here but are being ignored...
Anyways, why isn't the great Lemos defending his points here instead of you? I'm starting to think Charles Lemos is just an alter-ego....
You can't honestly believe that not calling "all of his supporters" cultists is a great distinction. If you do, you need to read your own blog posts more carefully. The point of this post, and many other "Lemos" posts is clear. Obama is a shallow cult figure who appeals to emotion and has no substance. Therefore he is like Franco and we must be scared of him.
It's over-the-top and downright silly. I'm surprised that you're allowing (or posting) such one-sided "assassin" blogging to appear on your post. I thought this was a blog about skeptical and progressive thinking and not rallying to hate a candidate you don't like.
"They have many views in common, but there are significant differences. I'm not ready to crown either candidate, it seems that some of you are."
Yeah what can we say Norm, it's been a long ass year. :P ...However the Candidates I would prefer to have voted for dropped out of the race and so I am stuck with two Candidates that I both like and dislike in many ways(sometimes for different reasons), so Sense I can't have John Edwards, or Kucinich I will settle for the sure winner Obama. We can debate whether Hillary Clinton might be more qualified than him till the cows come home, but if she can't grant us a win then all of this debate, and discussion, and analyses will have been for nothing. They are both Mediocre Candidates in my opinion, but McCain is a down right horrible alternative and we need to go with the Candidate that can take him out. There are no emotions involved in this view, I think it's a pretty rational one, oh and you Hillary shouldn't take it personal either. It's simply business. ;)
I don't think either candidate is a sure winner, that said I've seen polls showing both Obama and Hillary beating John McCain though at this point in time Obama is doing better. The key is at this point in time.
As Thers on FireDogLake writes, the really important thing is, you all need to admit that your favorite candidate sucks:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/09/late-night-your-favorite-candidate-sucks/
It's for the Good of the Party.
:-)
LOL! You surely are not helping your cause. As this video demonstrates, the French should have been throwing tomatoes at this messianic speech by petit Nicolas. Apparently the French weren't "désabusés" enough to get it. ;)
The Messiah Cometh!
"It’s the glazy-eyed thing that bothers me. I went to visit friends in Iowa at caucus time. I went to Iowa a confirmed Obama supporter. Then I went to an Obama rally. His speech said nothing of substance, and I was surrounded by people weeping. I asked what they were crying about and would get responses like 'He makes me believe!' When asked what they believed, they either couldn’t answer or would just quote campaign slogans—hope, change, etc. I left that rally looking for a new candidate."
"He reminds me a bit of George W. Bush, too. Not in his intellect or his policies or even his basic decency, all of which I’m willing to bet are far and away better than the current President. He reminds me of W because he invites people to project onto him what they want to see and so they don’t see him clearly. Or maybe they do. Who can be sure because we don’t really know him. We only know the package presented to us."
"We’ve gone from 'Leader' and 'Decider' to Messiah. Creeeeepy."
http://www.correntewire.com/obamawantsconversion_testimony
had no time to read all this for the last week because I was working for Obama leading up to the WA state caucus.
in our county Obama won 81% over Clinton. 20,000 people packed into Seattle's Key Arena with thousands left outside.
Norm's last point is the one a lot more people are paying attention to: Obama is a better match to McCain. The 'pubs already have their machine tuned for a fight with Hillary. Wouldn't it be fun if we derailed the whole thing?
I for one don't ignore this "fact", but back up the accusation that anyone is cult like? If its not me, if its not the informed supporters then who is it? Primaries continue to be close in many states.Many are troubled by Hillary's style of politics, some of the policies of the first clinton administration and particuarly her stance on the war, above and beyond her initial vote.
All this talk of mindless followers i bitter garbage, especially form those that supported Edwards while in complete denial of his record. Obama is taking higher educated voters by significant margins, a groups less susceptible to religion and fear and that have been the against the war from the beginning.
What would you have supporters do at rallies, chant policy papers rather then, "Yes we Can."?
Do me a favor, put up the two speeches from last night and count the policy statements, I bet they are about equal, a I would also bet the generalities are.
All this nonesense is conjecture, where is there any really evidence that people are supporting obama without knowledge of his positions, where is the evidence that his positions are less well defined, where is the evidence that his speeches include less statements of policy.
Dig it up and post it, rather then long insulting diatribes based on unproven assumptions.
A good point, but it isn't evidence that he isn't also attracting a greater number of 'feel good' supporters than other candidates. I think it's clear that there are supporters of all candidates who base their support on empty rhetoric as opposed to policy differences. The question is are there more that fit that definition in the Obama camp than the Hillary camp. Counting policy statements in one speech considering that one was 20 minutes the other 10 doesn't seem like a good way to get at the truth. On defining his policy I think most agree that Obama has lagged both behind Edwards and Clinton. The evidence that there are more Obama supporters in the 'feel good' camp is anecdotal at this point, but I think it is a reasonable assumption.
First things first. I've just looked at this thread again and I want to extend my warm thanks to Norm for maintaining this blog and fostering this community. It is one of the sites I pull up every day. Thanks!
Now to the main attraction. Just a quick addendum to Charles' essay again that addresses his concern that Obama appeals mainly to emotion. Implicit in this concern is that he doesn't appeal to policy. A recent post at xpostfactoid addresses this concern directly. Money quote:
For those here worried that Obama is nothing more than rhetoric and slick oratory with emotional supporters, it seems some of your concerns are common and an increasingly worrying concern for other observers. Even though I could get my fill of policy from judicious use of 'teh Google', it is nice to see a concerted effort by Obama to be responsive to people with concerns that his rhetoric outstrips his policy. Does this serve to mollify any of the Obama skeptics, or is it too late?
I'm weary of the personal attacks and I am hungry for a more substantial debate on the real differences between the two candidates.
I have been doing an exhausive search attempting to compare policy differences between Hillary and Barack and there just isn't much of a difference. The primary difference seems to be their take on health care. But looking back on Obama's record as Illinois senator, he did a good job with health care.
Bills Sponsored:
"I for one don't ignore this 'fact', but back up the accusation that anyone is cult like?"
Well, I got banned from the Mike Malloy message board, which is moderated by an Obamabot, for criticizing Obama. Of course, I was called "a racist," even though I never once mentioned anyone's ethnicity or race, simply for pointing out Obama's obvious lack of substance, and, predictably, I was denied an opportunity to defend myself.
I don't know whether this example qualifies as "cult behavior," but I have zero interest in the prospect of four plus years of being called a racist by Obama supporters every time I criticize the president for selling me out to the wingnut right in the interest of "unity."
It does for me, and in any event I would actively support Obama as the democratic candidate regardless of the misgivings expressed here. Barack is right about one thing if he is the eventual nominee he will get Hillary supporters. It would nice for him to publicly state that he would work to get his supporters behind Hillary if she is the nominee.
United Pony said:
What you said here made me very curious to read the discusssion that you spoke of so I went to the Mike Malloy board (I had never heard of this place until now) and from a quick search I pull up this thread which seems to be a rather well balanced thread which is critical of Obama and supports John Edwards. One poster, "The Right is Wrong", who is clearly a regular with 4437 posts is an ardent supporter of Edwards and critical of Obama.
I also saw a thread from "Bush is a Sociopath" with 5320 posts, who is clearly an Obama supporter.
But I couldn't a find a single thread with any controversial discussion of Obama. Care to provide a link to back up what you claim?
Reasonable how? Why does emotion mean lack of thought, they can coexist.
Evidence of the Cult of Obama is very anecdotal, while there is also anecdotal evidence of "feel good" or at least issueless Clinton voters. Watch the news and see them interview some middle age woman talking about how great it would be to have a Woman president and that's why they are supporting CLinton. Not to mention the countless Blue collar workers that are voting for the family that pushed NAFTA through. How many Anti War voters are supporting a woman that never called for withdrawl from Iraq until she entered the presidential race?
It seems Obama supporters are younger, more educated, higher income and therefore more likely on the internet and posting comments and some subset are not fully briefed on his policies, but that is far from evidence of cult like behavior, especially from a site that wants the public to take criticism of religion seriously.
Lets be honest here, one of the main reasons many support Obama is a disaffection with "Clintonian" politics and much of Obama's "feel good" language is really him committing to conduct himself in a different way.
Pointing out that many Obama supporters decided to support Obama without reading his policy papers isn't a real strike against Obama or his supporters. Knowing what you don't want is important in elections. Most People never read a policy paper and most people are ignorant of much of their candidates' record. Look at you guys and Edwards.
Having an opponent kicked off the ballot or being loosely associated with some scummy Democratic Donor are small potatoes in the world of politics and if that is all that can be dug up on Obama, the Clinton just looks dirtier by comparison.
PS: late Breaking Policy Papers are a sign of trying to get late breaking Press and Momentum, Early Papers were Edwards attempt to hold onto a lead in Iowa and Clintons attempt to hold onto a national lead.
If it's anecdotal, how could it be a reasonable assumption?
What is at stake in saying that Obama's supporters--or some of them--go in for the emotional satisfaction rather than policy? What does this reflect about the candidate?
"Simply saying don't be misled by your emotions doesn't in my opinion make the point strongly enough. I understand that many consider using the examples that Charles used as going too far, and since they seem unable to rise above a mostly emotional response it is obviously true for them. I think pointing to the extremes helps to make the point and I wonder if the examples rather than Franco et al, had been of other charismatic figures in history who had done mostly good if the response would be the same...We can certainly disagree about how to make the point without ascribing sinister motives to one another or can we?"
Who attributed sinister motives to Charles? (I and others have called the comparison either prima facie unfair, unmotivated, and a little wacky, or greatly in need of clarification).
So: how does one make the point not to be mislead by one's emotions strongly enough, without lapsing into extremes? First, I disagree that appealing to extremes typically helps clarify what is at stake, because it usually invites--perhaps unintended--a whole host of other, irrelevant comparisons (such as those that have mostly sidetracked us, here). Second, it is misleading: what is distinctive of fascists is not their appeal to emotion but their policies. So, even if we took for granted that the extremes can be clarificatory in some cases, I deny that a fascist is the appropriate "extreme" in this instance, of excessive emotional appeal. The extreme fascists typically represent are such things as corporatism, violence against their own people, and wars of aggression.
Supposing appeal to an extreme case can be helpful, here is an alternative suggestion of a better "extreme": one of the most common stereotypes of a person who sacrifices reason to feeling is a lover, not a fascist--as Plato depicts the prototype, the erotic lover engages in all manner of behaviors that seem bizarre and irrational to others, characteristically sacrifice all interests to the beloved, and rational deliberation and appeals to self-interest have no pull on them. (This is less an empirical claim than one about cultural representation).
Could we use this metaphor? Surely: it strikes me as a good representation of someone dominated by passion at the expense of reason (at least temporarily). The only problem is: nothing sinister or diabolical about Obama, or his supporters, follows from it at all, so far as I can see, whereas lots of sinister stuff seems to follow if we use the analogy of a fascist dictator, whatever the avowed and explicit intention behind the comparison may be.
Norm,
Is there a chance you feel uneasy about a large group of Senator Obama's supporters because you are an atheist?
I ask because it seems you use words like "cult" when describing Senator Obama's supporters. And Senator Obama is overtly religious. Does that bother you? I think it's a fair question, and I'd like to know your thoughts.
I think the term was cult-like, and it was used only to describe some of Obama's supporters. I'm always bothered by overt displays of religion in politics. I believe strongly in the separation of Church and State. Let the inspiration come from the ideas not from a pandering association with religion.
The first comment proves the baiting thesis:
"... please be honest..."
I've experienced exactly the same thing myself; the idea that nobody honest can support Hillary.
Of course, I too have been called a liar, ignorant, a shill.... Baiting is exactly the word. And yes, this will end badly. it always does.
I don't think we've encountered each other before, so I'll leave this link for my take on the analytical context.
Norm,
Thanks for addressing my comment. I'd like to continue on this topic for just a bit.
So, expanding on your response, do you think Senator Obama is pandering to religious people?
You said in another post that your recent focus on Senator Obama is due to:
Do you also think that your (and Mr. Lemos' for that matter) reaction to Senator Obama and/or his supporters has just as much to do with religion as it does the above stated reasons?
Thanks, I thought I was going nuts thinking these thoughts. His followers have such venom now, when elected, Obama and his machine will do everything in their power to keep the aura. Since it will be impossible to deliver on the promises, all the political energy will be spend sustaining the fantasy. In the meantime the Democratic Party agenda, health care, economic and environmental reform, ending the occupation will just fall of the radar, cause ecstasy will take the place of running a government.
that could be interesting, though.
Post a comment