Obama Christ, Superstar

by publius

Book of John 1:1, 14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us[.]

Ezra Klein:

[Obama] is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.

Eric Martin has hit upon the most persuasive argument against Obama – namely, that there’s just not much substance after you scrape away the pretty words. In light of New Hampshire, I’ve been giving this argument more thought. In particular, the meddlesome Martin has made me skeptical of my own Obama loyalties, which are often similar in spirit to Klein’s. After all, great substantive me would never be taken in by pretty surfaces, right? Perhaps, but the more I think about it, the more it seems that support for Obama has taken on religious dimensions. And that’s not good.

Last night, I caught most of The Last King of Scotland (awesome), beginning with the demagogic speech and rally. I was struck by the similarities to Huey Long, and to All The King’s Men more generally (the book, not the wretched movie). Both works are studies in the art of the charismatic demagogue. And both characters adopt similar rhetorical strategies. They play on resentment (British/big money), but – crucially – they are also both populists. That is, both leaders promise reforms that are desperately needed by their crushingly poor audiences – e.g., schools, hospitals, bridges, etc.

Turning to Obama, I agree that some of his speeches are high on rhetoric but short on delicious policy meat. What then is it about those speeches that so moves us? And by “us,” I mean secular progressives, particularly younger ones. Frankly, I think religion is playing a role. Progressives have a strange relationship with religion. Many are (at least privately) contemptuous of it, but the depths of hostility often betrays a lingering, if subconscious, jealousy of those who believe. Religion, after all, provides a sense of togetherness and a sense of belonging to something higher. In short, a purpose.

These desires themselves, however, are not confined to the religious, but are quite universal. Perhaps they are the evolutionary byproduct of communal living (i.e., evolution rewarded humans who lived communally, and these instincts expanded into more abstract realms). Others might cite the embedded desires as evidence of the divine spark. But regardless, they're there. And just like any evangelical, secular progressives want to fulfill them – not necessarily with God, but with something higher and more noble. They want to fill the void with purpose.

Indeed, many modern movements – from socialism to New Age philosophy (i.e., liberal fascism) – can be seen as attempts to fill the void that the death of God left behind. After all, whatever its practical flaws (and there are many), there is something profoundly religious animating the theory of communism, which is far closer to the tenets of Christianity than capitalism.

Here then is where Obama comes in. Obama seems to be filling a spiritual void that many modern secular progressives (like all humans) tend to develop. Whether the enthusiasm stems from youth’s susceptibility to romantic idealism, or instead from the longing caused by the slow lonely grind of professional life, something is causing these people to see in Obama something more than politics. They’re seeing – and feeling – something higher.

On this note, it’s interesting that Klein would use the particular allusion I quoted above (an allusion to the infamous opening of the Book of John) in describing Obama’s rhetorical power. Quite simply, Klein's language is the language of religion, not politics. And he’s far from alone in using this language. (And I’m not picking on him – I understand the sentiment, as I noted in a previous post).

But that said, it’s the religious dimension that’s giving me the most pause. Frankly, I’m disturbed by the implications if the Obama campaign has indeed become a secular religion to many progressives. (If you disagree with that premise, then obviously you’re going to disagree with the rest of this).

Most disturbingly, it illustrates that secular progressives – you know, cynical rational substantive geniuses that we are – are little different from the crowds cheering on Huey Long. Like them, we are responding to emotional populist appeals – just different types of appeals. They aren’t about schools and bridges, because we don’t lack those – we’ve been lucky on that front. Instead, Obama is offering something we often don’t have, but that we similarly crave and need – a higher purpose, a sense of connectedness and community. In short, Obama is providing a secular religion. More cynically, it’s wine-track demagoguery.

Although I remain an Obama supporter, I do fear that I’m allowing myself to be enchanted in an intellectually juvenile way. Of course, like you I suspect, I think of myself as more sophisticated than the crowds that vacillated mindlessly from Brutus to Marc Antony. But the truth is that I’m not all that different. I too am all too human, and thus susceptible to the same types of appeals, even if they come dressed in different clothes.

None of this is necessarily an argument for abandoning Obama, but it is an argument for snapping out of the spell and concentrating harder on the meat.

Comments

[ral]

hilzoy's answer (and Gary's preceding analysis) looked unsurprising to me.

Maximin, if I may say so, "mind your own business" is not really going to work when you post in a public forum

[Gary Farber]

"Gary, is there a part of 'mind your own business' that
perplexes you?"

Not at all. There's simply no reason for me to follow your commands.

I hope that won't perplex you.

"As for the idea that assumptions are facts,"

Again, incorrect. The facts are the words written by nickzi and Hilzoy, and that my characterization of the exchange has been verified by Hilzoy, and -- I'm going to go out on a simply terrifiying limb here, but I'm simply too brave for words -- I will bet you one shiny nickel that if or when nickzi (whom I don't know from a hole in the cliche) comments on this, nickzi will confirm a lack of concern over the alarming "grudge" your perceive to lie behind Hilzoy's sinister and threatening words.

Have a nice week.

[dkilmer]

"I just wish someone could make the case for me that she's been a leader on feminist issues in her public life."

I'd argue that her entire existence amounts to leadership on feminism.

But there are examples of specific actions on feminism: The Office on Violence Against Women is a major one; the publicity she created at the Fourth World Conference on Women; the Vital Voices Global Partnership. There's more if you'd like me to dig it up.

[hilzoy]

OK: there's no reason anyone needs to obey my commands either, but I will now politely suggest that personal comments having been exchanged, we not exchange any more.

[yoyo]

Perhaps this isn't feminist, but i don't really blame someone for fucking their way into power, over and above the blameworthyness of any sort of power-grabs. I don't like HRC, but staying married to william isn't really something i think should be up for hating-on. personalpoliticalyadayada, but public criticism, outside of celeb"heye-im-here-highly-paid-for-your-amusement"ness,
seems liek such bullshit. relationships are really complicated and outside bullshitting is just that.

[hilzoy]

yoyo: the posting rules forbid profanity. This is partly because of people who want to read this at work, or in some other place that has profanity filters, and partly because, after we adopted the rule for that reason, we discovered that it helps keep things civil.

I realize you probably didn't know this, which is why I'm pointing it out. She said, feeling somewhat awkward. :)

[yoyo]

i did not know blogs had 'rules'

next thing you'll be saying i need to wear a suit to post instead of my boxers

i even read the banning policy here before posting. you guys have multiple rule pages. @#$#@#$#.

[hilzoy]

Yeah, we keep meaning to consolidate them, but we never do... Sorry. (Why? Because most people don't even read one page...)

[Ara]

I think there's something twisted about holding a person's feet to the fire, demanding that they break up their marriage in order to comply with a principle -- basically, either bust up your life or be accused of hypocrisy. I've heard plenty of people say they knew Clinton was a phony feminist when she didn't divorce Bill. I wish I could articulate exactly what is wrong with this. For one, it is pretty clear that "feminism" does not commit you to divorcing a person for philandering, but ignoring that -- there's just something sleazy about trying to use a person's principles in any game of schadenfreude gotcha.

Having said that, the same issue arose with our lovely senator from Idaho. His public principles were one thing. His private behavior was another. This hypocrisy did bother me. Am I a hypocrite? Maybe. The lovely senator adopted policies that were meant to vilify people. Turns out he was vilifying a group that he had some degree of membership in. I'm pretty sure it is a stretch to argue that HRC hurt anybody by staying with Bill. Somehow, that seems to make a difference to me.

Or maybe the differences just that demanding some things is more difficult and demanding others. Demanding that a guy stay away from making sexual advances in public restrooms? Not so difficult in my book. Demanding that a person break up a 25 year marriage? Very difficult. So maybe it is just sensitivity towards how demanding it is reasonable to be.

And having said all that, I would like to say that there's one part of what nickzi said that I agree with. I can excuse HRC for staying with Bill, the perv. But when HRC goes on to vilify and use the press machine against women who get in their political way, I have to say that you really can impeach a person's feminist credentials on something like that.

[sanbikinoraion]

Don't I remember this very blog pushing Obama as a smart and right-thinking candidate who was always pushing interesting and well-thought-out bills?

[yoyo]

I'm still on the "obamma pushes interesting and well-thought-out bills." what of it???????

[Bruce Baugh]

Sanbikinoraion, you may want to check the line beneath each post's title. Several people post at Obsidian Wings, and those who are inclined to vote Democratic this election don't all agree on which candidate is best or even what the major issues regarding each may be. Furthermore, the posters have all changed their minds on various issues over the years. The blog's posters and long-time reader see both these features as actively good things, to be encouraged.

So even if you did see some posts that can be caricatured that way, it doesn't mean you have grounds for an implied charge of hypocrisy or vacillation if other posts say other things.

Hope this helps.

[flyerhawk]

To be very clear I don't like Hillary Clinton. It's not about her choices regarding her marriage. I have no idea what her reasons for staying with Bill are and I don't care. What happens between a man and woman(or a man and a man or a woman and woman) is their issue.

I also don't much care what her gender is. Sure I think it would nice to have a woman President just as I think it would be nice to have a black President. Good message to send to the country and the world. But it's really a secondary point to me.

I don't like Hillary Clinton because she strikes me as willing to do or say anything to achieve her objectives. I don't believe she would ever say or do anything that involves risk. The one thing I really disliked about Bill's time in office was his slavish adherence to polls. Polls are important and a President SHOULD always be taking the country's temperature. But that doesn't mean that his or her policies should shift with every new poll. I believe that Hillary would be even worse on this.

I believe that she is manipulative and that she is using her gender as a reason to vote for her. I don't care much for that.

[Gary Farber]

"Don't I remember this very blog pushing Obama"

No. The blog is a Typepad service. It has no thoughts, takes no acts, and has no consciousness.

The contributors to this blog, on the other hand, are individuals, of quite disparate views. I'm really quite sure Charles hasn't posted "pushing" Obama, nor Von, nor Sebastian (whom I managed to forget the other day when I was mentioning conservative contributors here: sorry, Sebastian! -- but it's been so long since you've been posting regularly!), and so on.

[hilzoy]

I, whom am neither this blog (thank God, I don't want to be a collection of pixels) nor the author of this post, have in fact described Obama as the author of a number of thoughtful bills. (Most notably, here.) But the other members of this blog are individuals, and can make up their own minds, thank God.

[zmulls]

While this thread is still raging, I'd like to comment on the "Muskie cried" meme

Muskie was upset at the newspaper for printing things about his wife and stormed over to give the editor a piece of his mind. It was very snowy outside.

Now, when you walk from an extremely cold exterior, into a very heated interior, you have an automatic physiological reaction -- your eyes tear up.

Muskie was speaking angrily and "had tears in his eyes" and that got translated as "he cried" -- I think any fair reading of the situation has to conclude that his eyes were watering because he came in from frigid temperature into a heated office.

But the story persists....

[Gary Farber]

"I think any fair reading of the situation has to conclude that his eyes were watering because he came in from frigid temperature into a heated office."

Muskie always insisted it was just melting snowflakes.

Maybe it is, or someday will be possible, to do a retroactive analysis of the video sufficient to reach a definitive conclusion, but my guess is that it's more likely not possible, and thus will be forever indeterminate.

But I do think it's unfair to Muskie to simply pass along what his enemies said, that destroyed his campaign, as unalloyed truth. It's the last triumph of Richard Nixon that liberals thirty years later pass along his dirty campaign trick lies as unvarnished truth.

[Gary Farber]

Googling to see if the Muskie video might be online somewhere, I see digby was as prescient as ever.

Also, equally unsurprisingly, Bob Somerby.

[trilobite]

I don't get the "Monica as victim" concept. Why is the disparity of power & age relevant where, as here, there seems to be absolutely zero evidence that he pressured her to have sex? She wasn't a child, she was a smart, worldly grownup, albeit pretty young.

Is the theory that a workplace relationship is inherently coercive? I have a hard time with absolutes about relationships, all of which tend to have nuances not obvious to anybody except the participants. Here, I could far more easily make a story about Monica as a power-groupie determined to seduce a lonely older man, regardless of what it might cost him.

I'm not saying Bill is the victim -- he was a grown up too, with lots more experience, and he showed lousy judgment. He set himself up. But I don't see how you can look at what happened and say that he abused her.

And as to costs, well, they both got traduced in the press, so honors about even there. But he, not she, got the criminal indictment (which is what an impeachment is), the nationally televised trial, the upheaval of his career, etc. She, not he, got a better job out of it, a book contract, etc.

[Steve]

This is the song that Obama reminds me of.

http://www.hamienet.com/midi7595_Superstar.html

Barack Obama, Superstar!

Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about?

Barack Obama, Superstar,

Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about?

Barack Obama, Superstar

Who are you, what kind of change are you talking about?

Adoph Hitler could really rally those masses, and Olde Joe Stalin could make them walk barefoot through broken glasses, And Ho Chin Minn, he could bring the crowd in, and that Po Pot he know how his words could make them hot...

Now do you believe?

Now Marshall Applewhite made them think that they were going to go to Heaven on a comet, and David Koresh he sent his faithful on a path to Armageddon. And of course we all know about olde Jim Jones. His people did what he told em and that Kool-aid got overflowin...

Now do you believe? (the mesmerized crowd shouts back Yes we Believe) Now do you believe?(louder) Yes, we believe! Hallelujah now get that sister some water (the front row of women then faints).

Barack Obama, Superstar,

Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about?

Barack Obama, Superstar

Who are you, what kind of change are you talking about?

Now do you see yourself as as Che's Second comin... Or maybe you set yourself up on a path even higher. Perhaps you do see yourself as the new Messiah, start a new religion with you as its idol.

Do you believe?

Cults of personalities well they very rarely end well and with yours it could set the earth a trembling... For when you come unglued as all cult leaders in the end do, you could push that nuclear button and set the earth afire..

Barack Obama, Superstar,

Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about?

Barack Obama, Superstar!

Who are you, what kind of change are you talking about?

Barack Obama, Superstar!

Turing America into one big Manson Family

Barack Obama, Superstar!

Turning America into one big Manson Family