Count me as one of those who finds the President as celebrity a creepy phenomenon. I get that feeling when I read about “women falling for Obama” as well as when I see this on PJM:
Correspondent Brad Rourke reports that a friend texted him from her polling place saying: “Long lines, people comparing it to flu shot lines. ‘I’ve never stood so far back [in line] is the buzz.’”At another polling place this morning, he reports a young woman voting for the first time coming out with “a big grin on her face, skipping and chanting ‘Barack, Barack, Barack’ under her breath. When she got in her car, she whooped and screamed, ‘I just voted!”
I don’t know about you, but my observation in life has been that when you fall in love your judgment is, shall we say, skewed.
UPDATE: As the great Smokey Robinson once said, “More Love” as Nancita leans toward Obama. What are her fantasies. Again, as Smokey said, “More love, more joy/ Than age or time could ever destroy...” (BTW, I doubt I’d ever vote for Obama, but I’d sure consider Smokey.)
From the article linked by Insty, we have Sharrod Brown talking about the bill introduced by Durbin and co-sponsored by Brown and Obama:
Tell me why this legislation doesn’t smell fascist. Because it sure does to me.
Aye, emotion often clouds judgment. I went to exactly one GWB rally here in ’04 and I saw some serious emotion there… though instead of love it was more… worship almost. I thought I’d walked into a Dominionist Church rather tha a political rally.
In the long term, I wonder if the voting public is not only the definition of democracy, but also its biggest threat.
Chuck,
I’m not sure that it’s fascist, though it certainly seems Statist. Remember, fascism says that nothing exists outside of the State, the corporations are controlled by the state, the individual is controlled by the state, everything is bundled with the State. This means that production, choice of materials, quotas etc are all set by the state. Obama’s Patriot Corporation Act fits much more closely with the term Statist, which indicates state intervention in corporate, economic or personal issues. Statism, in theory, could eventually lead to a Fascist state, but there’s a huge difference between the two.
This is the first time I’ve heard of the Patriot Corporation Act. It sounds a little like the Detroitization of America. What’s next, a Patriot Consumer Act, for “patriotic” americans to shun global products?
Um, Roger, how can a president avoid being a celebrity?
It’s really no more odd than women yelling on the streets of Manhattan ..
Ricky Martin .. I want to have your baby
ìThe suffering, receptive, performing part was now
his, the will that he had before imposed on others was shut out, he acted in obedience to a voiceless common will which was in the air. But he made it perfectly clear that it all came to the same thing. The capacity for self-surrender, he said, for becoming a tool, for the most unconditional and utter self-abnegation, was but the reverse side of that other power to will and to command. Commanding and obeying formed together one single principle, one
indissoluble unity; he who knew how to obey knew also how to command, and conversely; the one idea was comprehended in the other, as people and leader were comprehended in one another.î
The quote is from Thomas Mann, writing in 1930 about you-know-who. But doesn’t it remind you just a bit of Barack with his “It’s not about me, it’s about YOU”?
Obama – the new Sinatra.
Who would have guessed that Hillary would be refused the presidency not because of having lost the general election but because of being beaten in the primary, so she doesn’t even run?
And by a black man, a member of the race that the Clintons have very cynically exploited (in my view) over the years.
Justice?
There is something creepy about this whole scenario. I know presidents are celebrities, but this is just bizarre. The guy is running for President, not the Sexiest Man Alive.
It reminds me of the musical Tommy and Princess Di and Camelot and Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday Mr. President and other blasts from the pasts and in general weirdness.
I am hoping it passes.
dclydew…”fascism says that nothing exists outside of the State, the corporations are controlled by the state, the individual is controlled by the state, everything is bundled with the State. This means that production, choice of materials, quotas etc are all set by the state”…my understanding is that the actual Nazi regime in Germany did not typically control the details of production, choice of materials, etc, in the way that a Marxist regime would have done. They imposed demands about prices, working conditions, maximum profits, racial/religious requirements for hiring and firing, etc, and maintained the right to intervene at any time in any way they wanted, but found it more useful to let the owners/executives “run” the businesses than to try to do it themselves.
Speaking of Nazis, consider this from Friedrich Reck-Malleczewen, who lived under the Third Reich:
“…in Berchtesgaden, recently, crazed women swallowed the gravel on which our handsome gypsy of a leader had set his foot..”
(This is from his “Diary of a Man in Despair,” in a passage in which he explores parallels between the Hitler regime and the Muenster city-state set up by Anabaptist heretics in the 16th century)
I’m by no means suggesting that Obama is like Hitler, or that his supporters are Nazis. But this degree of focus on emotion, rather than on explication of policy, is worrisome.
Note that Barak’s wife Michelle, in helping him prep for a debate, advised him: “Feel–don’t think.”
Obama as Rosebud.
The commander that will have many woman going commando
Coming soon to a polling place near you.
His wife is very well educated, with a very expensive Ivy League education. There is nothing wrong with that, but the Obamas are not poor people, not by a long shot. Obama can criticize rich Republicans and George Bush and Exxon oil all he wants, this guy is not one of the downtrodden poor. Not by a longshot.
Call it women’s intuition, but I think there is something hinky about the whole thing.
“This is the first time I’ve heard of the Patriot Corporation Act. It sounds a little like the Detroitization of America. What’s next, a Patriot Consumer Act, for “patriotic” americans to shun global products?”
Yes, if Sharrod Brown has his way; he’s like a quiet Kucinich, if that’s not too much of an oxymoron, and his election to the Senate was one of the worst results of the last election.
“In the long term, I wonder if the voting public is not only the definition of democracy, but also its biggest threat.”
Do you ever have a waking moment when you don’t think that you’re better than everybody else? Free elections: Love it or shove it!!
I could be wrong, but the swooning will subside (but not end). Will it subside after Nov 2008 or before is yet to be seen. I think before. It is quite possible the many of the swooners will wake up Labor Day and realize that they had a crazy summer romance but don’t want to move in together. Or as Dean Wormer said, “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”
“Count me as one of those who finds the President as celebrity a creepy phenomenon.”
Ditto. There should be a clear distinction between a celebrity – one who’s fame is strictly due to the public’s appetite for his or her presence – and a public figure, a person who’s value is tied to the reasons that person is in the public eye (i.e. politicians, because they’re elected… or on the bad side of the ledger, criminals, because they’re apprehended) and not simply by dint of personality or any other characterization forced upon them by the audience.
A President should be a public figure first and foremost, and any celebrity status should be incidental to that.
When people treat politicos as celebrities, all of a sudden, the focus isn’t on what the politician has to deliver, it’s on what emotions or qualities the fawning admirer projects onto the politician. That immediately changes the equation from what the person would deliver once in office to how disappointed the fawning admirer gets once he/she doesn’t get everything they want. In short, this whole “politician as celeb” phenomenon is narcisstic on the part of the fawners. And also takes the public service out of public service by making personality rather than policy or ability the important thing. And that’s bad.
So, what makes this all creepy? Well, the projection. Am I stating the obvious when I say that this all seems like a desperate attempt to recreate the Camelot days of Kennedy? Again, projection; is Obama really the second coming of Kennedy, all nicely wrapped up in a palatably marketable package for broad appeal? Or is he his own self? It’s hard to tell, given both the noise of the supporters, and the packaging by the handlers within the political machine. You just can’t help but wonder if what you know about the man is really “about the man”.
Oddly enough, the person most hurt by such projection is Obama himself: Does he campaign and act the way he wants to, or is does he now feel obligated to play this role for his supporters? Probably the latter, and that’s all the more disappointing. At that point, it doesn’t even make him a manufactured candidate, it makes him a mere image shot onto the screen, a one dimensional being. And that’s ultimately the most harmful to him because, regardless of whether I’d vote for him or not (the answer is “No”), I’d still rather think he’s his own person with his own abilities and ideas on how to do things that springs from principles rather than his obligations to his admirers.
I guess that’s why so many politicians try to be bland and safe: That makes them blank screens for their supporters to project on, and saves them the work of being substantial. Note that I’m now no longer just talking about Obama; I’m broadening to just about any politician, regardless of party. Who really works by principle in Washington anymore? That’s who’ll likely get my vote.
photoncourier,
my understanding is that the actual Nazi regime in Germany did not typically control the details of production, choice of materials, etc, in the way that a Marxist regime would have done. They imposed demands about prices, working conditions, maximum profits, racial/religious requirements for hiring and firing, etc, and maintained the right to intervene at any time in any way they wanted, but found it more useful to let the owners/executives “run” the businesses than to try to do it themselves.
I would agree with that, which is why they were Nazis (aka bastardized third cousins twice removed). For fascism, we look to Italy and Benito. Nazism holds as most important a, race oriented, rather than State oriented society. Nazism sought to overthrow the class based system in Germany and focus on the race, rather than the class of the individual. Fascism, on the other hand, focused only on the State and maintained the class based system as most useful to the state. There are absolute similarities in the nature of both political philosophies, but neither are all that close to the description of Obama’s ‘plan’ (LOL, Obama’s ‘plan’; it sounds like just more BS for the stump to me)
Anyway, in Nazi or Fascist states, the State maintains complete control over everything. Even if, as with Germany, they allow the corporations to make some determinations, they still wield final authority. Obama is talking about providing tax and contract advantages for companies that are willing to do what the State thinks they should do, but isn’t forcing them to. So the State is trying to influence the private sector to make decisions that the market wouldn’t necessarily cause them to make. That, is essence fits with Statism, rather than Fascism and Nazism.
The biggest difference is that a Statist can believe in freedom of the individual and freedom of choice and equality for all… but they have the horrific view that the State actually has really great ideas and is a fantastic tool for ‘helping people’. A Nazi or Fascist has telltale signs, which betray any talk of freedom or equality… the Statist doesn’t.
We’re looking at a practical application of Celine’s Third Law. “A Honest Politican is a Calamity”.
Celine argues that a dishonest politician is interested only in lining his own pockets, while an honest politician actually thinks he can help society through political action (aka passing laws). Laws, by their nature reduce freedom and grow in complexity, size and sheer volume. Thus you have a society of people who do not have the time, patience or perhaps education to understand all of the laws and thus may go through the day breaking several of them unwittingly.
Celine states that it is only through honest politicians trying to help the world that true tyranny can come about. All other forms of tyranny can be spotted except a tyranny of excessive legislation.
So I think it’s important not to confuse statism, socialism and Communism (which can be implemented by good people with good intentions) and Nazism or Fascism etc. It’s sort of like the current drug war. The US places marijuana in the same category as cocaine, heroin etc. Yet, the effects, long-term/short-term and addictive properties of marijuana are not in any way similar to the others. Once people try pot and realize its not a terrible thing, then they are less likely to listen to warnings about other drugs, which are much more harmful. If we call everything Fascism, and people decide its not so bad… then when real fascism shows up, they’ll be far less likely to be concerned.
In other words, let’s not cry ‘Wolf’
You’re not the only one who finds it creepy.
Professor Blossor started an “tongue in cheek” blog called IsObama the messiah”