More on Messianism and Obamania
It’s too bad if I offended people by noting the messianic streak in Obamania, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is there. Consider some of the signs:
* Obama had one of the thinnest resumes of any major Presidential candidate ever, but supporters have convinced themselves that he would not only govern brilliantly, but ”transform America.”
* People who claim to be against hate-mongers have blinded themselves to a record of associations that would have induced them to indignantly repudiate anyone else.
* Supporters have convinced themselves that a politician with a record of cooperating with the Chicago machine is going to clean up Washington.
* Now the gush of ga-ga really floweth over with breathless comments about how Obama’s IQ is the highest of anyone to occupy the White House, etc. etc.
All this suggests a degree of psychological denial that is unusual even in the wacky world of politics.
Finally, Obama himself sometimes has spoken in ways that encourage this sort of excessive hope, and made statements that seem to flirt with messianism. (See the disturbing clips collected for the McCain ad, “The One“.)
With the election of presidential electors now over, like any decent American I wish the victorious candidate success. My point, though, is that if he wants to avoid being victimized by his followers’ existential disappointment later on, he had better dampen the unrealistic level of expectation now.
Rob, the point I understand you to make is that Obamamania has become a cult with the usual glassy-eyed followers. Truth and reason have no place in such an environment. Your comparison to Jonestown was apt in that you captured what the pathway that true believers follow when unchecked by healthy skepticism of their leader. In no way or fashion is Obama caught up in himself like Jimmy Jones. However, both men knew their power to influence people lost in the chantings of faith.
Craig Moore:
The fact that Obama is surrounding himself with Clintonistas and other old Washington hands suggests strongly that you are correct to say, “In no way or fashion is Obama caught up in himself like Jimmy Jones.” Rather, he has a grip on reality. How his followers respond remains to be seen.
You didn’t “offend” anyone, Rob. You made us question your sanity. That’s a vastly different critter, and the sane man (not paranoid) would see that clearly.
1) Your opinion somehow translates to the Strawman you build and defy. Bully for you.
2) More of your opinion expressing judgment towards others. Some of the most hateful people I’ve ever encountered (beyond yourself) I work with. Your expectations of my reactions to them is meaningless, except to your paranoia.
3) *SOME* supporters. Your ability to universalize speaks poorly of you, not us.
4) What’s the matter, Rob? Some people think that Obama is smarter than you? Feeling a little competitive? Your thesis remains idiotic. Obama may be the smartest man to occupy the White House. Do you care to offer counter evidence? I didn’t think so, and yet you claim that a view of his intelligence is somehow indicative of a messianic worship. You’re reaching here, Rob. That’s obvious to all but you. Obama is smart. Please prove he’s not … if you can. But that’s still no evidence, not any, that he is seen as a messianic figure. You’re grasping for anything to support what appears more hollow by the second.
And quite trying to lay the blame on others (his supporters.) They will behave as they will behave. You have just tried to hide your own foolishness behind concern trolling for what you weep on their behalf. Knock it off. You don’t appear honest at this point. You laid out crap, as even Craig Moore can recognize. Don’t compound the error by weakly hiding behind your non-existent concern for others.
Wulfgar, the crap, as you put it, I recognize is coming from your personalized judgements. Try understanding the man’s point first before superimposing your own biases that cause your finger to point. It really is not that hard. You have a wonderful gift for expression. I hope you have the intellectual discernment, and a measure of humility, to match.
Wulfgar- Just wanted to point out, “quit” is not the same as “quite”. Now what were you saying about Mr. Natelson being idiotic?
Wulfgar:
I’m sorry you have to work every day with “some of the most hateful people [you've] ever encountered.” That must be difficult.
Rob
nice of you to wish the new president well in the final paragraph of your missive, mr natelson. the final sentence in which you venture to offer your advice to mr obama would probably carry more weight if you had actually ever won an election – to any public office. my guess is mr obama will seek counsel from more apt sources.
You guys act as if hero worship is some kind of new phenomenon – like it didn’t happen with Bush after 9/11 and has never happened before with any popular figure.
This is simply a tool to denigrate those who have the audacity to support Obama… in order to make them seem blind or stupid. It’s shameful and mindless, and has no place in any rational debate.
Obamabots, your job is done so go back to your regularly scheduled program.
Only the circus ringleader has changed, Bush-Clinton-Bush chapter IV is about to begin.
I have a new term I want to coin: Any criticism of the president, warranted or not, shall henceforth be known as “Obama-bashing”.
Problembear:
Personal attacks only confirm the views of the one attacked.
I’ve read some of the vile things you’ve written about me elsewhere, so you are probably unreachable on this subject, but for the benefit of other regular readers of this site, I should address your comment about not having won an election.
First, I am not a politician and do not aspire to be. I’m an academic (bibliography at: http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm) During the period 1992-2002, I got involved in Montana electoral politics because I thought it my civic duty to share what I knew to turn around the chronically-depressed Montana economy. Accordingly, I led or got involved in a statewide legal petition campaign, two referenda, and a voter initiative, and we were successful in all four – three by wide margins – all the while taking an enormous amount of personal abuse from mudslingers like Problembear. I have run for office only twice – once to make a “statement” against a very popular incumbent governor whose policies I thought were harmful (same reason Chet Blaylock ran against him) and the second time more viably. We didn’t win the second time, but my running mate and I did placed second in a field of five – outpolling the Democratic nominee , who spent about six times as much money. I think those showings were pretty good for an amateur who was fairly new to the state and who had the daily press against him. The latter election was eight years ago, and I have returned to my academic work and never run for anything again.
But the more important point here is that the truth of an idea does not lie in whether a particular candidate is elected in a particular election. Through our electoral activity, my allies and I were able to advance a positive agenda that resulted in important changes in the law, which I think have helped spur Montana’s relative prosperity in recent years. In other words, most people – including, I think, our present governor – realize now that much of what we were saying was true, and they pretty much take it for granted.
One difficulty I have with modern politics is that the atmosphere has been so coarsened that sincere people of good reputation and ability don’t want to sully their hands with it. Unfortunately, though, it is up to those who believe in good values to defend those values even in the face of irrelevant and demeaning personal attacks, and I shall continue to do so.
Sincerely,
Rob Natelson
[...] 18, 2008 Rob Natelson has lined up with others to take a shot at Obama supporters who are investing messianic qualities in the new president. There’s [...]
I just don’t get a grown man changing his name from “Barry” to “Barack”. What does it say about his willingness to costume who he really is? What else about him is just show for the electorate?
Rob, thank you for stepping into the ring and putting up with chatter from the cheap seats.
Steve T, any discussion of our political institutions and the knowledge of the electorate should include the facts. As to Obama believers see: howobamagotelected.com
>>>Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet…..
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)<<<
Craig, that poll is a sham push poll and as unscientific as a fox news text vote
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/zogby-engages-in-apparent-push-polling.html
Remember, these polling organizations are mostly businesses for hire and work to delight their customer. Political polls are used to deceive, encourage or discourage the sheep. With the crafty bombardment of organized polling elections can be stolen.
Ban polls to the dustbin of political manipulation. Election day is the true poll and is the only one that matters.
anon, regarding the poll, here is a link to a transcript where Zeigler was interviewed: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,453929,00.html
Worth reading.
Craig-
That’s not a civics knowledge quiz… that’s a quiz of right wing talking points (otherwise known as a “push poll”). And even if it were somehow a legitimate knowledge test, wouldn’t you have to show that there’s some proof that McCain supporters are smarter in order to make an actual argument?
You guys need to start backing some of this talk up. It’s getting kind of silly.
“HANNITY: I’ve identified this as Obamania syndrome, and the media, I think, are the biggest culprits. Journalism died. And I suggest, for better — you know, from what I’ve seen of this documentary, it’s pretty frightening, I’ve got to tell you, John. Thanks.”
Journalism has been dead for years. Just look at out own local paper.
Steve T, no reference to McCain is necessary to see that Obama’s glassy-eyed supporters voted on emotion rather than with a critical eye.
One of those euphoric Obama supporters readjusting his vision is Mark Cuban: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-cuban/president-elect-obamas-fi_b_143645.html
Craig-
If no reference to McCain (or another candidates) supporters is given, than you have no argument. You prove nothing.
I’m sure the good Professor will put up a post that actually makes a more coherent argument.
I just knew these Republicans would not be good losers. Now they’re projecting. After years of cult of the leader, with the imminently inadequate Bush as the man of the hour, they are now looking at the enthusiasm that Obama has engendered and saying that it is unnatural – that Obama followers are “glassy eyed”. Give me a break. People finally saw through you and your Bush and your manipulation of wedge issues to distract (stupid?) voters from your real agenda, and got tired of it. It took a major recession, but what the hell. Events finally played out in our favor.
And yes, it was a push poll.
Obama is not very impressive when it comes to decisions. The man can’t move ahead and build a staff without rising the dead for some help, but he is the new Messiah.. sure he is.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11295.html
More of that promised change .. ROTHLMAO
John Zogby, a Democrat, has responded to the criticism of his poll: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642#Anchor-37902
He writes:
>>>”We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn’t. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that’s exactly what we did. We don’t have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion.” – John Zogby<<<
[...] seen of the Ziegler-commissioned Zogby poll of Obama voters that has so many of our friends on the right in a genuine tizzy. Apart from the exclusion of McCain supporters and whether the poll’s [...]