I've got a friend over in Australia who is getting his a post graduate degree studying a variety of material involving the Third Reich. His studies have led him to be grossly and inherently distrustful of leaders with an charisma (and the utter disappointment that has been Kevin Rudd has not helped this perception). As a result, we've had a number of spirited-yet-civil discussions about both Barack Obama and John McCain. I think I've convinced him why McCain isn't the foreign policy wonk my friend thought he was . . . but it's been extremely difficult to break my friend's view of Obama as a messianic figure.
What follows is the latest of these conversations. I'm posting this because this conversation could easily be taking place with an American conservative, and so I find our debates to be extremely good practice at sharpening my rhetoric vis a vis "Obama is not evil".
Also . . . any comments or advice you might give as to how to move the conversation forward I would be happy to listen to. I'd like all of us to maybe learn from this.
Friend:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_obama.html
The first picture is fantastic, as is the analysis
(The link paints Obama as a messianic, post-masculine leader who owes a debt to the Oprah-fication of our culture - feel free to read it.)
Me:
Hah, well it would be if I actually knew anyone that was like that. Seattle's definitely got the "Obamania", given how much we support him, but it's much more a cool confidence that this is the guy that we need to dig us out of the hole we find ourselves in, and much less frenetic, empty worship. It's still cute that people like to depict it that way, though. Strengths are weaknesses, after all!
Although, on re-reading, he is right about one thing: Obama can't do it on his own. It takes the American people to stop tolerating imperialism for the sake of our perceived quality of life. It takes us to realize that we need to stop being selfish if we want to have any hope of maintaining that quality of life for any decent period of time.
Which reminds me, I very much want to read "The Limits of Power" by Andrew Bacevich. I can't find it anywhere, though - sold out!
Friend:
The swooning crowds, the salvationist rhetoric, the successful use of Oprah-speak. It's all there. I am just glad a writer has explained so much of it. It has been like an itch I can't scratch.
In regards to second post, your country needs a certain amount of resources, and if they evaporate so does your quality of life. Electing Obama will not make you any less dependent, or change the huge numbers of miltiary bases throughout the world. He is a candidate that offers to assuage the sin of economic impact and imperialism. I doubt he can roll back the military industrial complex, or make inroads to save the environment. Not without serious consequences. Don't trust messiah figures Dustin, it never works out well. Visionaries are not pragmatic people, they are masters at saying what the public want to hear.
What is this book of which you speak?
Me:
Also, I'm not sure I get his point. Is he saying that, since it's enormously difficult where Obama - and everyone that supports him, mind you - would like this nation to achieve . . . we shouldn't try?
I guess I'm just having a clash of ideologies with the man. I'm not willing to stand by and accept that this is the best that we can do. It isn't. We've done better before. We can do better again. And there are countries like Sweden and Norway that have achieved societies that, while not perfect, are shining examples of a happy, healthy nation.
I mean, I agree that we have to be realistic about politics and the American system. It's not realistic to say that we can build a shining utopia in 400 years of Obama rule, never mind 4. But it is NOT unrealistic to say that the current state of the system sucks, big time. Most of the reason it sucks is because many of the checks and balances that were instituted by our forefathers have been steadily chipped away at. The American people's voice has been drowned out so long, many have simply stopped speaking. We have tired from the effort. Research how many people bother to show up and vote, that'll show you how cynical the American public is, and a cynical public certainly can't work together cohesively. They become bitter and enraged. People grow myopic and stop caring about something they perceive can't be changed anyway and focus on getting the best they can for themselves. And happiness is such a precious resource here, we hoard anything that we perceive can make us happy, to hell with everyone else. To hell with what's fair.
So if all he manages to do is re-erect those checks-and-balances, to show the American people that the government actually cares about her citizens, that using their voice to tell government what they want is not a wasted effort, that's an enormous victory.
It's like he himself says in almost every stump speech "This union will never be perfect. But it can always be perfect." Yeah, maybe we'll never get there. But to not try to get there makes that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
--
"Don't trust messiah figures Dustin, it never works out well."
As I've said, neither I nor anyone that I know who supports him - and that is a great number of the people that I know - regard him as messianic. We understand that he's human and that, in some aspects, he will falter. At first, we simply relished the hope. We're like a man who has been in the desert for many days; water is a savior at first. After the romance passes, the water is no less necessary.
We are not under some spell. We have reached this choice rationally, because we agree that the America he envisions is something worth fighting for. For authors to continue with such blanket statements is intellectually dishonest and reveals a certain contempt. Such holier-than-thou, ad hominem attacks are not appropriate for civil discourse, in my humble opinion.
Friend:
Yes, and he is selling the dream of something better. I am hearing he has raised the position of a washington insider and supported the drilling of oil on the alaskan coast. Am I wrong? How is this something different to believe in?
Yes, he does offer water to the starving, but that relgious style and symbolism is why I term him messianic. It is also why I agree with the claim he is a male matriarch figure, a man who says he will provide for the family of America. All very disturbing this gender-bending. The piece may take the stance of superiority, but it has a lot of useful things to say. I can only end with a poignant latin statement Hans reminded me of, mundus vult decipi.
Obama understands it.
Me:
"I am hearing he has raised the position of a washington insider and supported the drilling of oil on the alaskan coast. Am I wrong?"
In a word: yes. He fundamentally opposes offshore drilling. A group of 10 Senators from both parties put together a compromise plan - to end the month of solid gridlock on the issue - that involved limited offshore drilling on the shores of New Jersey and Florida if those particular states gave permission, but included the largest progressive energy reforms Congress has ever put to paper. Obama has publicly said that the offshore drilling is stupid (not his words of course, but the sentiment is correct), but if that's what it takes to jump start green energy in America and begin the end of our dependence on foreign oil, so be it. Let the Republicans have their offshore drilling and prove it to be the hoax that it is. That's their problem.
As far as the "Washington Insider" . . . are you referring to his running mate, Joe Biden? Otherwise, I know not to whom you refer.
"Yes, he does offer water to the starving, but that relgious style and symbolism is why I term him messianic." I apologize for the noncivil discourse here . . . but for chrissake, he spent the last 25+ years in black gospel church. It just kind of comes with the territory, dude. You're reading far too much into it.
Also . . . I see a bit of an irony here. Yes, we Obama supporters are obviously impressed with the presentation of his message, but it's the substance of it that we enjoy because, well . . . it's what those of us who gravitate towards progressive politics have been waiting to hear someone say with conviction for 8+ years. It is you (collectively, not necessarily you, yourself), you who are so intrinsically suspicious of charismatic leaders, who seem to be a lot more hung up on this "Obama as the messiah" thing than anyone else, regardless of political affiliation. The man speaks well; the man has good, powerful, radical ideas. This does not make him evil, a fraud, or a saboteur.
Honestly, the only people in American politics who I hear still saying such things are John McCain and his surrogates. So seriously, just drop it. It's a debate that has little merit, in my opinion.