The Politics of Crowds
Many people argue that one of Barack Obama’s main strengths is that he is able to inspire millions to become passionate about politics. As evidence, these individuals often point to the huge crowds Obama attracts for a rally.
Unlike most, I am not positively impressed by such crowds, however. The more people show up at Obama’s rallies, the more women faint because they see him live, the more I’m starting to rebel.
The reason for the above is that whenever people expect so much from a mere politician, I’m becoming cynical and uncomfortable. There is no chance whatsoever of this man doing something that warrants the big crowds and the deep belief in his abilities.
There is something inherently immoderate and unconservative about the big crowds he attracts, and the passion his followers display. It is a massive ideological movement, close to a religion, that Obama has created and fostered.
Fouad Ajami, a man born in the Middle East, shares this concern, but from a slightly different perspective: from someone who saw such ‘movements’ in real life, and what they do to entire countries. His judgment: the Obama movement is remarkably similar to such personality cults in the Middle East and Latin America.
Ajami’s column reinforces my own feelings about this ‘movement.’ To me, it is not ‘inspiring’ in any way. Instead, it is frightening. And yes, I would have said that if Obama was a conservative as well.
He is just a celebrity….
He is fatuous, misleading, dishonest, secretive an shady. But he’s young, hip, funny, “with it”, “get’s it”, attractive, new, different, and has loads of dough (hoarded through broken promises) to finance the “Obama world tour ‘08″, to spread the “gospel of what you want to hear” So that makes it all Ok I guess.
I should be fair and say that he does have a “presidential presense” and is a great speaker. But that doesn’t do much in my opinion.
sorry, I should have said that he is not all the negative things I wrote above, but he displays these charateristics for what I hear / see if him as a candidate.
That sounds about right to me. Although I’m one of those cynical people who would say that every single major politician is like that (the negatives, that is), albeit quite some of them to a lesser degree perhaps.
Jay_C;
Given enough time it looks like you’ll feel he’s “clearly the best candidate and the only one who can make the changes we need”
As time has gone on in this campaign I keep returning to the movie “Being There” (1979, directed by Hal Ashby and starring Peter Sellers). A nice review by Roger Ebert is here:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970525/REVIEWS08/401010303/1023
Here’s an excerpt from the review:” Sensible public speech in our time is limited by (1) the need to stay within the confines of the 10-second TV sound bite; (2) the desire to avoid being pinned down to specific claims or promises; and (3) the abbreviated attention span of the audience, which, like Chance, likes to watch but always has a channel-changer poised.
If Chance’s little slogans reveal how superficial public utterance can be, his reception reveals still more. Because he is WASP, middle-aged, well-groomed, dressed in tailored suits, and speaks like an educated man, he is automatically presumed to be a person of substance.”
Now if I change a few words here and given the context of the past 5 years (i.e. disliked “white-bred Republican president getting us into war and recession), how does this sound:
“Because he is not your typical white, male, middle-aged candidate, and because he is well-groomed, speaks like an educated man, and speaks of change and a ‘new way’ he is automatically presumed to be a person of substance.”
Watch the movie