Obama’s Mass Social Movement

From the beginning it has been clear to me that the presidential campaign of Barack Obama was different from those of his rivals, with the possible exception of Congressman Ron Paul. These two were not campaigns but rather mass social movements and I have a distrust of mass social movements. In part it stems from the fact that mass social movements tend to believe that they have all the answers to every question, only our way is the correct way, dissent is not tolerated, and the views of the individual are subsumed in the interests of the whole. Mass social movements of a political character that have a goal of achieving and holding political power are inherently dangerous in my view. They tend to become authoritarian. Chavez in Venezuela and Correa in Ecuador are but two of the latest examples.

It is not that I expect Obama to take the United States down the path of a Venezuela but I do wonder about what free speech and dissent would look like under an Obama Administration. Criticize Obama and see what happens to you. His brownshirts attack and attack. Every time that Ambassador Joe Wilson writes an op-ed and it is published on the Huffington Post go and read the comments. Beyond the quantity of expletives, count the times he is told to shut up. Hardly the atmosphere one wants for true discourse. But Obama’s supporters are not interested in discourse, in having a discussion of issues, a debate on policy alternatives. No their goal is political power come what may. And the recent doctoring of the Mickey Kantor video from 1992 shows the level to which they are willing to descend.

And here’s Mayhill Fowler’s latest piece on the Huffington Post. It is a good piece, not necessarily critical of Obama but you wouldn’t know that if you only read the comments:

Ms. Fowler,

Let’s talk ethics. How would you characterize the ethics of a reporter who attends a closed fundrasier as a guest, and surreptiously tapes a candidate’s remarks — comments which are taken completely out of context and then used to derail that person’s candidacy? To me, it shows a lack of integrity.
I’ll say it again–Why are you still here?

Yes, let’s send an American citizen into exile. Discount what was said but blame the messenger.

You are a duplicitous, lying bitch. You hide behind this pretense of support for Obama when you are obviously a Hillay supporter. Why you are allowed to post as if you were neutral, you are a disgrace.

When in doubt, just resort to personal attacks and avoid commenting on what she actually said. What was I said about brownshirts?

Hasn’t this woman gotten fired yet for her biased views and her ignorance in reporting…I’m sorry…ignorance in being untruthful to the American public? Get rid of Fowler. Clinton needs someone to wash her cars.

So who gets to judge truth? Apparently they do. Hence my worry.

Return to Main

jpmrb
May 5th, 2008 22:52

Something that strikes me these days is that most of the people i know who prefer Clinton to Obama are non-US citizens. Now, it may be rather bad news for Hillary, mind you, but something is going on there, since the reason given often for that choice is not really a “reason”, but a disbelief: “How can anyone fall for that shtick?”
So, how can someone be so inspirational and a symbol of hope to many, and seem a joke and a phony to others?
Now few foreigners have been struck by the Clinton Derangement Syndrome, being outside of the 24h/day grip of the Clinton-hating US media, so Hillary is not handicapped in the same manner to them—but it does not explain the anti-Hillary bile pouring out of many left-of-center blogs and their readers. (Who needs enemies when you have political neighbors like Kos, Arianna Huffington, or Josh Marshall?)
To me, a foreigner, Obama’s “Yes, we can!” sounds like he’s running for CEO of Nike, not President of the US. Many in America call this “cynicism”, others in the rest of the world brand Obama voters “naive”.
But our “instinctive” recoil at anything messianic is of course a culturally-ingrained reflex: nothing Obama says could probably change what i think of him, because it’s not WHAT he says, it’s THE WAY he says it.
But the way he says it, not what he says, is the reason why so many sincere and generous (the attributes of youth!) people flock to him, and it may partly explain the animosity towards those who do not believe it—it’s “born-again” versus “sacrilegious”!
Naturally, all this is just a tiny part of the full picture, as Clinton’s appeal with blue-collar workers in the deep of America show. Obama may be the next US president, and then perhaps a great president.
Everything in my upbringing makes me think he would not. But if Obama ever makes it to the White House, i’d love to be proven wrong!

May 6th, 2008 01:42

I agree with you that being foreign born colours my perception of Obama, he reminds of less than savoury characters from around the world in the language and in the delivery that he uses. It is very unsettling. I recoil at anyone who thinks that “we are the ones that we have been waiting for.” It leaves an impression that only we and we alone can solve the problems we face. And it is even more unsettling when he doesn’t fully describe what he means by “change” and “hope.”

You must be logged in to post a comment.