No Saviors

Many really see him as a Messiah.

There is a frightening wall mural on the outside of a building near Ohio State campus that portrays the silhouette of Obama with hand pointed to heaven, standing before a crowd of black and white hands raised in worship to him. Gives me the chills every time I see it. I should get a picture of it.

The problem with ascribing messianic status to a mere human is that -- well, they're merely human. I don't seem to remember the historical precedents of that ever working out.

The archetype is that of the priest-king.

And once the priest-king's divinity is exposed as false, there is only one thing to do.

"Primitive peoples... believe that their safety and even that of the world is bound up with the life of one of these god-men... Naturally, therefore, they take the utmost care of his life... But no amount of care and precaution will prevent the man-god from growing old and feeble... There is only one way of averting these dangers. The man-god must be killed."

-- The Golden Bough, Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941),

Cult of personality is a step toward dictatorship. I don't remember it ever being the bad in the U.S. in the past 40 years at least. Not sure about FDR. Coupled with rapidly expanding government, it's downright terrifying.

We are becoming more like Russia, North Korea and Egypt. Great.

Could it happen here? The rise of a messianic (fascist) leader? I'd like to think that most of the rhetoric is just hyperbole, but I know enough of history to know that it very well could happen. The United States of America is a collection of human beings, and collections of human beings are prone to fascist behavior on occasion. So I wonder what I will do if and when it does. Lay low, I suppose. Try to survive.

This is the sort of thing that won't ever go away. Doesn't matter if they're a politician in a democracy or not, there will always be idolatry.

As my father has said, even if Cuba becomes free, there will always be a minority (hopefully not majority) of devoted Fidelistas. Fidel never ran for office his whole life; even just after overthrowing Batista when he almost certainly would have won an open and fair election.

Hero-worship is here to stay; and it isn't something particular to Democracy.

The Democratic tendency to make gods of successful politicians makes it all the more necessary to oppose them vigorously.





...and nothing to say of the Republican tendency to consider the following as near-orthodoxy:


1: The proverbial "Wall Street" is to be defended from all threats at any cost - even if they need to perform "friendly fire" upon parts of "Main Street" that resist.


2: Look like you're supporting the country, but permitting immigration law abuse and bad trade laws to undermine it.


3: Labor unions as the manifestation of absolute evil, without regard to size or function.


4a: To punish states who do not completely favor businesses, such as those in the Rust Belt until they are compliant


4b: To kill off the UAW even if it results in a oligopoly of Far Eastern automotive manufacturers.


4c: Never mind the reduction of choice, they'll be forced to choose between extremely small or extremely expensive anyway!

Hero-worship is here to stay; and it isn't something particular to Democracy.





See Reagan on one good example of that for the Republicans.

should have (but, alas, has not) progressed beyond.

I suggest "wish we had", but this behavior is a manifestation of human tribal instincts, which we cannot not conquer till we recognize it as such.

Animals by default, choice, borne of awareness, can make us more.

sethstorm, the quote is from Menchen, your critique won't reach him now. And I suspect he meant "Democratic" in a less partisan way than you took it.

But isn't it not somewhat comforting that this basically puts much of the left's demand side stimulation and criticism of free markets to a test? The right's theory of nation building was put to a test on a grand scale and it failed miserably and was rejected pretty strongly by the public. If markets prevail, then we won't be stimulated out of a stagnant economy and in four or eight years more market oriented candidates can hopefully prevail. It certainly does suck that this test is being conducted on real people (our own selves being the suckiest subjects to have it tested on) but if you remain optimistic then in the long run human ingenuity can overcome some stumbles (it has before, look at the 70s).

One important thing free market advocates can do right now is hunker down and collect the rhetoric of those who claim this is the result of free markets run amok and this administration will bring about "change" so that when it does not work we can contrast it with their earlier statements. This way when it does fail we will have an alternate framework with which to explain it and the words of the prior opponents won't just be swept under the rug.

To the bloggers:

Could you please open comments on the older posts. I would like to post a favorable comments on Don's response to Thomas Sowell's argument on gay marriage.

"1: The proverbial "Wall Street" is to be defended from all threats at any cost - even if they need to perform "friendly fire" upon parts of "Main Street" that resist."

I've never seen much if any defense of Republicans on this blog. So what's your point?

Besides, rescuing Wall Street appears to me to be a true bi-partisan effort.

So we can assume now that you're as opposed to Democrats as you are Republicans?

"4b: To kill off the UAW even if it results in a oligopoly of Far Eastern automotive manufacturers."

Yea, because the UAW, you know, has been so beneficial to the automotive industry in this country.

The New Yorker cover reminds me that the skies have opened, the light has come down, and celestial choirs are now singing and everyone now knows we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect!

More seriously, the four years of the Obama administration may prove interesting for those he's made "less cynical" about politics.

In his 2004 DNC convention keynote Obama rhetorically remarked "Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?" - and that was largely the theme of his 2008 campaign.

It will be telling to watch the reaction of his "pro-hope", "anti-cynicism" supporters as the challenges we face - from the economy to Iran - don't suddenly dissipate under the leadership of "President Hope and Change."

The "politics of cynicism" are justified by the facts. As Don puts it, there are "no saviors". A lot of Obama supporters very well may become quite disillusioned.

The best antidote to Obama's personality cult will be his tenure in office. Even if he turns out to be the best president in history (anywhere! not just the US!), he will inevitably do things that a large number of the 300+ million Americans will dislike. And if he turns out to be a disaster, well, all the more so.

Okay, I take the point of the post and agree with it. But it seems like you might be missing the intent of the cover (which I haven't actually seen yet). One of the things that makes the NYer so good is their penchant for irony. Think of the cover depicting Obama in the White House giving the terrorist fist jab to Michelle. The point--which, at least for public purposes, seemed to be lost on Obama himself--wasn't to wonder whether Obama might actually be an America-hating islamic radical, it was to poke fun at the people who actually thought he was. The point was to expose the lunacy of allegations that he was. Might the cover you're writing about also be tongue in cheek, pointing to how ridiculous these godlike comparisons are? In which case, it's not so much the cover that's terrifying, but the sentiment it's mirroring.

Well, the Haiku thread has malfunctioned.

What way got us where

A free market it is not


See progressive state

David, take a look at the actual cover image and decide for yourself.

You can see it here: New Yorker

But isn't it not somewhat comforting that this basically puts much of the left's demand side stimulation and criticism of free markets to a test? The right's theory of nation building was put to a test on a grand scale and it failed miserably and was rejected pretty strongly by the public.

I'm hopeful but not optimistic. The usual state response to its failures is to either say they weren't allowed to go far enough or to say that things would have been even worse but for their actions. Or both. The public usually buys it. I suspect that the government will do a better sales job with respect to the economy because it is far more tightly tethered to the political class' ability to wield power than Iraqi democracy is.

To kill off the UAW even if it results in a oligopoly of Far Eastern automotive manufacturers.

By "kill off" you mean stop supporting it with taxpayer dollars. The parasitic UAW has killed its host and is now demanding we transfuse from the healthy but unwilling.

To punish states who do not completely favor businesses, such as those in the Rust Belt until they are compliant

Punish you how? By not buying the crappy products you produced anymore? The Rust Belt was killed off by its own parasitic practices. It sucked the blood of all the hosts (businesses) and now is now trying to find another host. They'll keep doing that until the entire country is sucked dry.

They are hoping that in Obama they have their saviour. I will admit that I liked Reagan (as politicians go, he was okay) but that was because he wasn't The One and I wasn't looking for salvation. Didn't he sign those import quotas to help out the car makers?

wasn't to wonder whether Obama might actually be an America-hating islamic radical, it was to poke fun at the people who actually thought he was. The point was to expose the lunacy of allegations that he was.

I took that cover to mean that any objection to Obama was automatically taken by the left to mean that people were calling him an America-hating Islamic radical. I certainly had a few of those experiences when criticizing Obama. Probably would have had more had my husband not been so dang black with an Arab name himself and standing right beside me saying the same thing I was. The PC really got ridiculous here in the North East.

While Mencken is long gone, the statements are directed to what conditions exist today.

I've never seen much if any defense of Republicans on this blog. So what's your point?





My point is what defense exists elsewhere.

Yea, because the UAW, you know, has been so beneficial to the automotive industry in this country.





Given what they've had to face, they aren't expected to give up easily. Both sides seem to be militant in their own way - one using the legal system to kill unions, the other one using the legal system to preserve themselves.

Besides, rescuing Wall Street appears to me to be a true bi-partisan effort.

So we can assume now that you're as opposed to Democrats as you are Republicans?




There are beliefs of both major parties that I oppose.


With Democrats it is with the unnatural defense of environmentalism and over-regulation of legal substances. Even if it goes into the absurd or cuts into the very businesses that may want to be saved, they will support those causes. Those two are the ones that I cannot ignore and/or approve. They interfere with some of the businesses they want to save.

With Republicans, it is their failure to be able to sell their ideas regarding business to a population that has been at odds with them. People see the bailout of major parts of Wall Street, yet see a certain irony that they dig their heels and resist when it comes to all matters Detroit. There seems to be an interest to have them fail or at have something that does the job of busting the UAW.

Outside of the union issue, they seem to betray the country by defending the practice of offshoring (versus working with what we already have). Also, failed trade policies exist in the sense that they might "help", but the help is made scarce to those displaced. It doesn't matter if the means of escape are all but blocked otherwise, government to them seems to be incapable of any solution(even if they had the ability to tap the benefits of scale).

Make your own conclusions, but I have contempt for major issues in both major parties. I'd rather look at it as issues versus just major political parties.

H.L. Mencken's statement:

"The Democratic tendency to make gods of successful politicians makes it all the more necessary to oppose them vigorously"

IS "sage", just as Don says. Blogs work for and against this tendency, but my guess it that blogs will undercut more than support. Does anyone have any evidence suggesting my guess is correct or incorrect?

I wished Obama a successful presidency, and I was torn asunder by a couple of your commenters. I didn't understand the hostility, just as I agree with you that idol worship stinks. I had a political science professor, around the time Reagan was elected prez the 1st time, who explained Hitlerism by saying that people wanted a big father to look after them. Then, he spoke glowingly about how the coming Reagan administration was going to be a new era of great things - a shining beacon on the hill, I guess. That's why I wanted Hillary for president. We might as well have a Big Mother in the Whitehouse for a change. That was just a joke.

What makes a successful presidency?

History tends to look glowingly upon the war makers.

"History tends to look glowingly upon the war makers."

Well no; history looks glowingly only on winners not simply "makers" of wars (e.g., Ronald Reagan didn't "make" the cold war, but he made an important contribution to ending it in our favor).

Hitler, on the other hand, certainly was a key "maker" of WWII, and we know how history regards him.

Understanding Obama's victory is easily understood by the wisdom in this Mencken quote:

“No one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” H. L. Mencken

It is part of the Marxist doctrine that get people to accept communism the first have to be dumbed down, made fearful, and kept divided,

Socialist dominated union controlling the public school system accomplished the first long ago.

Socialist dominated media accomplished the second long ago.

Socialist in Congress accomplished the last long ago.

And, now comes the moment of their victory. Kruschev's thundering boast in the U.N. as he pounded his shoe on his podium has come true. "They have buried us."

Randy the option is not keep a low profile, now is the time more than ever to push back in every way you can.

Well no; history looks glowingly only on winners...

I had the U.S. and U.S. presidents in mind.