Obama '08?

The dark side of Obamamania

The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008

The late political philosopher Michael Oakeshott is not widely known. He should be, because what he said about politics is worth considering as Obamamania sweeps the United States.

Many people seem to see an Obama presidency as the cure for the social and political ills of American society. Journalists covering his campaign describe the adulation of the crowds and supporters as akin to a religious revival.

This is problematic. It casts the politician as a kind of saviour, tainting the candidate with a patina of demagoguery that is unsuitable -- and dangerous -- for democratic politics. No politician can live up to such expectation.

When the post-election realities become evident to the electorate, as they always do, there is inevitably a harsh and bitter reaction from those who are disappointed that the man or woman they voted for didn't live up to their hopes. The consequence of this disappointment is, of course, greater cynicism toward politics and politicians.

Politics is not something from which we should be saved, any more than life is an illness in need of a cure. As Oakeshott put it, politics is not "an encounter of dreams," a "jump to glory," or the means for making people better.

This attitude probably has few adherents nowadays. Many assume the function of government is to serve our wants and desires. Some even think it's the government's obligation to improve our lives, make us healthy.

Oakeshott thought people should behave like adults, take responsibility for their behaviour, and accept the consequences of their actions. Such a disposition places a restraint on attempts to use politics for grand social engineering schemes. Oakeshott certainly wouldn't have thought much of a political program based on slogans as mindless and banal as "change we can believe in."

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=cc8968f7-8622-47fb-8157-927512354100&k=18037

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

The dark side of Obamamania

The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008

...Journalists covering his campaign describe the adulation of the crowds and supporters as akin to a religious revival...

A journalists' job is to write a story and make it as exciting and dramatic as possible. The fact that they build a person up just to tear them later is played out every single day in the press. Entertainment, politics, sports, doesn't matter. What astounds me is how quickly people tend to forget this simple fact.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Many people seem to see an Obama presidency as the cure for the social and political ills of American society. Journalists covering his campaign describe the adulation of the crowds and supporters as akin to a religious revival.

This is problematic. It casts the politician as a kind of saviour, tainting the candidate with a patina of demagoguery that is unsuitable -- and dangerous -- for democratic politics. No politician can live up to such expectation.

Ronald Reagan.

0 Replies

Yup! The Republicans conveniently forget about Saint Ronald or pretend they do. If this is all they got, they are in deep, deep trouble. Of course, they were in deep trouble already. Now Bush is stumping for McCain. This is the end of the Republican Party as we know it.

0 Replies

Reagan, however, ran on three issues and it was on those three issues coupled with a can do message that made Americans proud to be Americans that he prevailed - cut taxes to revitalize the economy, rebuild the military, and oppose Communism. There was little message there that the government would fix all our problems; the message was that the government would get out of the way so we could fix our own problems.

Obama has the same kind of 'feel good/can do' message that makes him so appealing. He, however, strongly suggests that it will be the government who will fix the problems. It remains to be seen if that will play as well in the general election.

Reagan won 44 states in his first term campaign; 49 states in the second with substantial popular vote margins across the board.

It will be interesting to see how Obama compares.

0 Replies

Reagan ran on one dominate theme, I quote for you Foxfyre;

Reagan said, "America's future rests in a thousand dreams inside your hearts
Indeed the theme of Reagan was one of hope and dreams, ideals not at all dissimilar to Obama.
Just perhaps Foxfyre you have confused Reagan with Barry Goldwater.

0 Replies

The difference between Reagan and Obama, which is huge, is Reagan believed in us, the American people to succeed, whereas Obama is a rubber stamp of Democrat party thinking, that the government can solve any problem. 180 degrees out of phase.

Fidel Castro has been trying to solve Cuban's problems for how long now, and I heard yesterday he even nixed his brother's proposal to allow people to grow their own gardens to sell the produce. So much for believing in the people. Good example there at the extreme end of the spectrum.

Its about time for a bunch of people to wake up and do something for themselves, now that would be "change."

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've been actively recruiting my Republican family to vote Obama next week. There's an easy and effective pitch:

Quote:
Do you want to go to your grave, knowing that you could have voted against Hillary Clinton - and didn't?

At first they laugh. Then they say, 'hmm.' I think many of them are going to vote Obama.

Cycloptichorn

I've been doing the same only I've encouraged them to vote for the candidate they think will be the easiest to defeat.........for my Republican family members that's Hillary. They think Obama may be the anti-Christ which makes them feel excited. If he is, and he's elected even though they didn't vote for him, that means they will soon meet Jesus in the air and there will be a clap and a cymbal and a gong and the head angel will have something to do as well. The dead will rise first and they'll all be accompanied by Jesus into Heaven to watch the 1000 year reign of the anti-Christ during the tribulation. It will seem to them to be proof that their beliefs are well founded.

But I didn't have to tell them to vote for Hillary. They've already thought of that themselves as have many of their friends. They want to vote for Huckabee or Ron Paul, but instead they tell me they're voting for Hillary. Who knows what they'll really do. I do know they are very worked up and motivated.

But whatever........whoever wins will win and it does little good, actually I think it does harm for Obama's or Clinton's cause to ridicule the other side. It only increases their determination. I've just sent another contribution to Hillary, as will many others like me in response to her request. I'm motivated to do so because I think she's the best person for the job. However, my motivation is greatly enhanced by unnecessarily rude remarks from avid Obama supporters. Not all Obama supporters have jumped in with both feet to ridicule their former friends. And for that I'm very grateful. Times like these are when you learn who your real friends are. I've been very surprised by the results.

As for voting for Obama.....I've already said I will do that. But in a way, if Obama wins the nomination, it will be good news for me too. I won't have to send any more money. I will become part of the audience who watches. Those who have already raked the bottom of their pockets for Obama can continue to do so. But it won't be up to me to finance it or work for his election. He doesn't need me and my fellow Hillary supporters. That's clear. And it's a relief because I've already spent as much as I can afford during the nomination process.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The difference between Reagan and Obama, which is huge, is Reagan believed in us, the American people to succeed, whereas Obama is a rubber stamp of Democrat party thinking, that the government can solve any problem. 180 degrees out of phase.

This surprises me. Does it strike you that people get expired, volunteer, get involved, work hard, and organize into one of the most effective grassroots movements we've ever seen because they're lazy and want the government to solve their problems for them? That is not at all Obama's message and I'm curious how you got that.

0 Replies

I'm so tired of hearing about Reagan. He was an interesting fellow sure, but American are most concerned about economic right now and do I need to say it?

Reagan is a poor champion to model yourself off of if you are a Republican looking for a vote from a moderate.

It would take a great deal for me to not vote for Obama at this point.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Reagan, however, ran on three issues and it was on those three issues coupled with a can do message that made Americans proud to be Americans that he prevailed - cut taxes to revitalize the economy, rebuild the military, and oppose Communism. There was little message there that the government would fix all our problems; the message was that the government would get out of the way so we could fix our own problems.

Obama has the same kind of 'feel good/can do' message that makes him so appealing. He, however, strongly suggests that it will be the government who will fix the problems. It remains to be seen if that will play as well in the general election.

Reagan won 44 states in his first term campaign; 49 states in the second with substantial popular vote margins across the board.

It will be interesting to see how Obama compares.

Obama has a stronger and more truthful message.

Government, of the people, by the people and for the people.

I could never figure how there are enough stupid voters to elect someone who doesn't believe in government.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Let's face it though, Obama is not working overtime to correct the notion that he is some sort of Expected One. I'm not saying that he is laying claim to such a status or even that he is deliberately trying to lead people to such a conclusion, but he is using allusions to the messiah mythos to create a sense that his candidacy is something very different and very special. "We are the ones we have been waiting for!" If that doesn't smack of prophecy, I don't know what does. The use of "we" versus "I" makes the statement a bit awkward, but imagine if he used "I!" Of course he couldn't, but as the obvious leader of the "movement" (a semi-religious term in itself) he gets the benefit of invoking messianic allusions without seeming like a madman.

It's a damned clever approach and it is working. I don't fault him for using it. Voters should be able to recognize it for what is is --- an appeal to extremely powerful cultural programing. If they don't they kid themselves.

His use of the approach doesn't disqualify him for the office and, arguably, there are several reasons to vote for him that have nothing to do with some sense that he is The Expected One, but it's naieve to think he isn't utilizing the approach.

McCain is also trying to connect with voters at a level of primal cultural themes: The Scarred but Triumphant Warrior. It doesn't play with religious themes, but military ones are almost as powerful.

The foolishness any of us may be guilty of is in denying that these approaches, are being employed, and, at some level, can affect us.

Just as McCain's warrior mythos runs the risk of a "War-monger" backlash, so does Obama's messiah mythos run the risk of an "Anti-Christ" backlash. The difference for Obama supporters is that "War-monger" is a perfectly acceptible epithet while the use of "Anti-Christ" is hideously insane.

The reality is that from the perspectives of both factions, the epithets are really roughly equivalent.

Wasn't it Maria Shriver who first used the line in her endorsement speech at the Oprah/Obama rally in LA?

The line is the last line from a popular Native American writing. It speaks to the very nature of Obama's campaign, of individuals working together to change the country rather than waiting for someone else to make the changes we seek. It is the complete opposite of what some in the media and his opponents have characterized. Here it is:

Quote:
This is The Hour...

"You have been telling the people that this is the Eleventh Hour.
Now you must go back and tell the people that this is the Hour.
And there are things to be considered:

Where are you living?
What are you doing?
What are your relationships? Are you in right relation?
Where is your water? Know your garden.
It is time to speak your Truth.
Create your community. Be good to each other.
And do not look outside yourself for the leader.
This could be a good time!

There is a river flowing now very fast.
It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid.
They will try to hold on to the shore.
They will feel they are being torn apart, and they will suffer greatly.

Know the river has its destination.
The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river
Keep our eyes open and our heads above the water.
See who is in there with you
And celebrate.

At this time in history we are to take nothing personally.
Least of all, ourselves.
For the moment that we do, our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt.

The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves!
Banish the word "struggle" from your attitude and your vocabulary.
All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

The Elders / Oraibi, Arizona / Hopi Nation

Interesting.

Of course Indians in popular American mythology are a mystical people wrapped up in spirituality and prophecy. Borrowing quotes from Indian Elders is right in line with the thematic thrust of the campaign.

Again, I'm not contending that Obama believes he is a messiah or that is seeking to delude people into believing he is. I am contending that he is deliberatly framing his rhetoric within a quasi-mystical theme that evokes a very specific sense within people.

Just as I personally know someone who believes he the Anti-Christ, I also know someone who believes he is "the closest thing the world has seen to the Word of God made flesh."

Both are letting their emotions run a bit wild but I doubt that I know the only two people in America who feel this way about Obama.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

It's been shown that the more informed voters are, the more they favor Obama -- I can get you that info if you'd like (nimh posted it recently on his "polls" thread).

How is "informed" defined? Certainly Obama is attracting the highest percentage of Democrats with college degrees, but having a college degree certainly doesn't qualify one as "informed" or for that matter "educated" except in a census sort of way.

0 Replies

Sounds to me like Republicans are just being pissy because they are used to having a monopoly on leveraging religious emotions.

Cry me a river.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

sozobe wrote:
It's been shown that the more informed voters are, the more they favor Obama -- I can get you that info if you'd like (nimh posted it recently on his "polls" thread).

How is "informed" defined? Certainly Obama is attracting the highest percentage of Democrats with college degrees, but having a college degree certainly doesn't qualify one as "informed" or for that matter "educated" except in a census sort of way.

blasphemer...

0 Replies

On spending, McCain is as much critic of the GOP's irresponsible spending as anybody, but he proposes to rein it in by spending less and has pledged to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and has pledged no new taxes and has pledged to end earmarks in all spending budgets.

The Dems apparently plan to rein it in by spending more. The following was posted in the USA Today in the last day or two. I got it out of my e-mail so don't have a link, but I do remember the article:

Clinton (to date)

* Health care overhaul ($110 billion annually)

* Energy proposals ($150 billion over 10 years)

* New "GI Bill" education and housing assistance to veterans ($5 billion annually)

* Universal pre-K education program ($7 billion annually)

* Economic stimulus, including housing and heating assistance ($110 billion, presumably one-time)

Obama (to date)

* Health care overhaul (up to $65 billion annually)

* Additional health care spending ($40 billion annually)

* "Making Work Pay" refundable tax credit to offset Social Security tax ($62 billion annually)

* $4,000 tuition tax credit ($6 billion annually)

* K-12 education spending ($18 billion annually)

* Doubling budget for basic science ($6 billion annually)

Sources: Candidates' websites, National Taxpayers Union, USA TODAY research.

Obama at least plans to pay for this by ending the Iraq war and rescinding the Bush tax cuts. Considering that those tax cuts substantially increased revenues and the cash benefits of ending the war (as well as the timeline) are pretty squishy, all of this has some eyebrows raised. About the only place the money can come from is by raiding the defense budget and decimating the military.......again.

Neither Obama or Clinton are suggesting that government do less anywhere.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I've been actively recruiting my Republican family to vote Obama next week. There's an easy and effective pitch:

Quote:
Do you want to go to your grave, knowing that you could have voted against Hillary Clinton - and didn't?

At first they laugh. Then they say, 'hmm.' I think many of them are going to vote Obama.

Cycloptichorn

I've been doing the same only I've encouraged them to vote for the candidate they think will be the easiest to defeat.........for my Republican family members that's Hillary. They think Obama may be the anti-Christ which makes them feel excited. If he is, and he's elected even though they didn't vote for him, that means they will soon meet Jesus in the air and there will be a clap and a cymbal and a gong and the head angel will have something to do as well. The dead will rise first and they'll all be accompanied by Jesus into Heaven to watch the 1000 year reign of the anti-Christ during the tribulation. It will seem to them to be proof that their beliefs are well founded.

But I didn't have to tell them to vote for Hillary. They've already thought of that themselves as have many of their friends. They want to vote for Huckabee or Ron Paul, but instead they tell me they're voting for Hillary. Who knows what they'll really do. I do know they are very worked up and motivated.

But whatever........whoever wins will win and it does little good, actually I think it does harm for Obama's or Clinton's cause to ridicule the other side. It only increases their determination. I've just sent another contribution to Hillary, as will many others like me in response to her request. I'm motivated to do so because I think she's the best person for the job. However, my motivation is greatly enhanced by unnecessarily rude remarks from avid Obama supporters. Not all Obama supporters have jumped in with both feet to ridicule their former friends. And for that I'm very grateful. Times like these are when you learn who your real friends are. I've been very surprised by the results.

As for voting for Obama.....I've already said I will do that. But in a way, if Obama wins the nomination, it will be good news for me too. I won't have to send any more money. I will become part of the audience who watches. Those who have already raked the bottom of their pockets for Obama can continue to do so. But it won't be up to me to finance it or work for his election. He doesn't need me and my fellow Hillary supporters. That's clear. And it's a relief because I've already spent as much as I can afford during the nomination process.

Well, my family lives in Texas; and are that rare breed of non-religious Republican. So I don't think they are too worried about the anti-christ Laughing

The average Obama contributor has given around 109 dollars. My guess is that there's a lot, lot more stretch left in the pockets of the million who have given to him. I know that I sure have a lot left to go.

As I've said before - if Obama wasn't in the election this year, I would be a Hillary supporter.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Reagan, however, ran on three issues and it was on those three issues coupled with a can do message that made Americans proud to be Americans that he prevailed - cut taxes to revitalize the economy, rebuild the military, and oppose Communism. There was little message there that the government would fix all our problems; the message was that the government would get out of the way so we could fix our own problems.

Obama has the same kind of 'feel good/can do' message that makes him so appealing. He, however, strongly suggests that it will be the government who will fix the problems. It remains to be seen if that will play as well in the general election.

Reagan won 44 states in his first term campaign; 49 states in the second with substantial popular vote margins across the board.

It will be interesting to see how Obama compares.

Obama has a stronger and more truthful message.

Government, of the people, by the people and for the people.

I could never figure how there are enough stupid voters to elect someone who doesn't believe in government.

Who said they don't believe in government? Did somebody say that?
McCain sure hasn't. I haven't. I don't recall anybody on this thread saying anything like that.

The idea of using less energy does not equate to disconnecting all the energy to your house or business. It is not a statement denigrating energy.

The idea of eating less or differently does not suggest somebody should starve. It is not a statement banning or denying anybody food.

The idea of saving on fuel is not a mandate to park all the cars. Nor is it a suggestion to junk anything on wheels.

The fact that the government doesn't do something does not mean that the something should not be done. It can as just as easily acknowledge that a government program is not the most effective or efficient method of accomplishing a goal. It is not the same thing as saying that there is no role for government.

In many things, Conservatives believe the less government the better.

In many things, Liberals want government to do it.

And therein is the difference.

0 Replies

Quote:

In many things, Conservatives believe the less government the better.

In many things, Liberals want government to do it.

In many things conservatives say they want less government and proceed to give us bigger government.
In many things liberals want the government to do it because they enjoy the services of police and firemen and teachers and drinkable water and paved roads and public health.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

sozobe wrote:
It's been shown that the more informed voters are, the more they favor Obama -- I can get you that info if you'd like (nimh posted it recently on his "polls" thread).

How is "informed" defined? Certainly Obama is attracting the highest percentage of Democrats with college degrees, but having a college degree certainly doesn't qualify one as "informed" or for that matter "educated" except in a census sort of way.

Polls usually suggest that the closer attention people pay to the campaign, the more they favour Obama, or at least that's been my impression. Some polls ask this directly (variations of "How close attention are you paying to the election campaign?," but then grammatically correct); others ask things like, how many ads have you seen, or they ask about how much direct interaction theyve had with the campaigns (eg, read a leaflet, been called, answered a poll, been canvassed, etc); exit polls will ask things like how important the TV debates have been in the voter's decision, etc. On those counts, Obama tends to do better the more attention the voter paid to the campaign, debates etc.

Of course these kind of indices tend to overlap with the education question; higher educated people tend, overall, to also be high-information voters. But it's not entirely a 1:1 relationship, and the "increased information = increased support for Obama" theory would explain how he's almost always benefited from a surge in support when the campaign intensified as the election got closer. More specifically, it would explain how Obama's numbers have consistently shown an education gap, but one that, especially in the later primaries, has tended to narrow towards the end as the campaign heats up. Eg, a month in advance he already does well among higher-education voters, who on average tend to follow the news more closely, but does badly among low-education voters; but as the election comes closer and the campaign heats up, the extra support he picks up comes more and more from lower-education voters as well.

To be sure the education gap has usually shown up right up into the exit polls, but it does seem to often narrow as the campaign heats up and reaches low-education voters too; and the later we are in the campaign season, the smaller the "education gap" in his support in the actual vote appears to be getting.

Again, these are just my impressions - I've jotted down numbers from individual polls and especially exit polls now and again in the Polls etc thread, but you'd need to do a fully-blown systematic research of the polls and exit polls results to verify them of course. Regarding indications that the education gap in Obama's support seems to become smaller the later in the election season it is, however, I did have a more comprehensive overview up in the Polls thread after the Potomac Primary.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know