Stupid Cult of Political Personality

Clearly, Dr. B, you don't care about the children.

Don,
Your title is spot-on. I've been getting steadily more creeped-out as time goes on with the deification of Obama. Even if he was a man of some accomplishment it would be creepy, but he's not. Granted, he's a gifted politician (he was successful in Chicago after all). But that just indicates that he's almost certainly totally corrupt. At least two thirds of the posters here at the Cafe are far more qualified to be president than BHO.

What's driving the idolatry of this man? does anybody have a good theory? Is it because he's never done anything, so he can be whatever his worshipful followers want to think he is?

Of course, President Obama will not be smoking when he sets a good example by eating his veggies. I wonder if the man who brought us FDA oversight of the tobacco industry was as informed about the consequences of smoking when he picked up that dirty habit as he was when he began nibbling greens.

yet another Dave -
I think it only looks like idolatry because you're looking at it from the outside in. A lot of people are genuinely very happy that he is president. It's driven some people to say "he's the one!!!!" (ie – the guy we've been needing in this country for a LONG time), but from an outsider that gets twisted into messianism. It's really not. He's gotten a lot of hard knocks so far even from other liberals. It's been almost three decades since we've seen such a groundswell of support for a presidential candidate – and if you're on the otherside of that of course it's going to look more dangerous than it really is.

DK,
Your analysis is strange – how can you miss the obvious so completely? Have you seen the video of various celebrities chanting "Obama, Obama…" or the children singing? Have you seen the responses from Obama followers when he is criticized? Have you seen the "worship the dictator" like posters? The magazine covers? The Amazon Obama Time Capsule project? That doesn't even scratch the surface.

I agree that "a lot of people are genuinely very happy that he is president." Not all of them are worshippers, but many are. Many of his devoted followers have no idea what his positions on any issues are! (Just ask them) Sounds like messianism to me.

Maybe you can't see it because you're on the "inside"

It is almost as bad as the way libertarians treat Hayek and Freedman just like the Soviets did Stalin or the Chinese make a personality cult around Mao.

Daniel Kuehn,

I agree fully that people are a bit too easily influenced by celebrity antics. I'm fairly confident that Russ Roberts would say the same thing. But there are two counterpoints I want to bring up to that.

First, Russ wasn't simply protesting that this sort of personality cult exists, but also the fact that a NYTs columnist was publicly pushing for more of it. Personality cults (like every other unpleasant aspect of human behavior) will continue to be with us, but that doesn't mean it's okay for Dowd encourage it.

Second, there is a qualitative difference between girls trying to dress like Britany Spears and the topic at hand. The former results in nothing more than some goofy looking girls.

I'll grant that some serious liberal critics of Obama exist. But what do you suppose is the ratio of Obama's serious critics vs unquestioning supporters? I don't know of any solid data to cite, but my own observations lead me to believe that the second group outnumbers the first on a massive scale.

A brief example comes to mind. A few months back Obama was asked by an interviewer what he thought of Bush, and Obama gave the boilerplate respose that he always thought that Bush was a "good guy." CNN had a poll asking if you agreed with Obama that Bush was a good guy. Something like sixty four percent said yes. Now, I suspect (but I cannot prove) that if the question simply asked "Do you think Bush was a good guy" the postive response would have been much lower. But when the question was framed as a chance to agree with Obama, there is nearly a two thirds postive response.

If I am right about that, I find the implications rather terrifying.

"are we so childish that our dietary choices are directed by political celebrities?"

Some are, some are not.

Sheep need their shepherd, to lead them to the slaughterhouse.

It is almost as bad as the way libertarians treat Hayek and Freedman just like the Soviets did Stalin or the Chinese make a personality cult around Mao.

That's just dumb. Libertarians would never grant to Hayek or Friedman the power that people gave to Stalin or Mao. Nor do they look to them for fashion, dietary, or lifestyle advice.

Hayek and Friedman have been quoted here on occasion by muirgeo in support of his agenda, and not one person has fallen into line because of the source.

"Sheep need their shepherd, to lead them to the slaughterhouse.
Posted by: Curious | Jun 17, 2009 4:13:04 PM"

A little country wisdom, Curious. Sheep are not led into the pen, or the slaughterhouse, by a shepard, they are led by a goat, known as the "Judas Goat."

Kinda puts the right face on it doesn't it?

Sheep are so stupid that they follow anything, as long as it seems to be going some where.

Barack Obama's life turned around when he took up the Dick Gregory diet — at exactly the time Obama stopped doing cocaine and drinking heavily (see Obama' memoir for an account of his abuse of alcohol).

Gregory developed the diet when he himself went on the wagon, after a period of abusing alcohol.

Obama's diet is a central part of who the man is today.

Methinks,

Re: Obama worship. Were you of, or beyond, the age of awareness during the Kennedy election/administration?

Same sickening crap.

I remember December 1962 lying in the isolation ward of Portsmouth Hospital recovering from Hep A, picked up in Monrovia, Liberia, and the Time magazine I was given had a picture of Jackie sitting on a horse on the cover, and I swear to God it was difficult, without the saddle, to tell which was the horse and which was Jackie….the article it touted was "The ten most beautiful first ladies in the world."

Same sort of breathless idolatry of Jack and Jackie, makes you want to puke.

Deja Vu all over again?

If Bush or Obama was 30 pounds heavier, its very possible that neither would have been elected President. No non-ectomorph has come close to a major party nomination in years (excepting perhaps that buffoon Huckabee, who didn't get all that close). Rock stars and other major entertainers have been almost uniformly thin over the past several decades.

"No non-ectomorph has come close to a major party nomination in years"

Or just the last 2 presidents.

Clinton was an ectomorph?
Though he hasn't had a party nomination in years. Fair enough fair enough.

"or are the citizens of Virginia being billed for this service?"

It would count as one of the more productive uses of tax dollars.

Jack of Spades -
RE: "Second, there is a qualitative difference between girls trying to dress like Britany Spears and the topic at hand. The former results in nothing more than some goofy looking girls. "

Yes… and the later results in nothing more than people eating healthier

Dowd's suggestion is a little odd, but I really don't see why this is so terrifying. Didn't people praise Bush for being so public with his exercise regime? And why shouldn't they?? Eating healthy and exercising is good. Why shouldn't presidents promote it. They've been doing it at least since Teddy Roosevelt, right? I completely fail to see the scandal.

vidyohs -
RE: "Same sort of breathless idolatry of Jack and Jackie, makes you want to puke."

They were likable people! Obama is a likable person! Nobody is worshiping anyone. Sheesh!

Disingenious Kuehn,

"They were likable people! Obama is a likable person! Nobody is worshiping anyone. Sheesh!
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | Jun 18, 2009 9:16:25 AM"

Ahhh, so sorry, knew them well did you, close personal friends? Hung out with them enough to know they were likeable? Tell us about the time you've spent with the Judas Goat, play some one-on-one hoops then go for beers, did you?

Of course not, you knew of them via media reports, no more than I did; you're obviously young enough and naive enough to mistake the wrapping for the content.

vidyohs -

1. Please stop calling me disingenuous

2. How close do you suppose you have to be to these people to simply say "they're likable"? I'm not saying anything more than that!

DK -

"Yes… and the later results in nothing more than people eating healthier

Dowd's suggestion is a little odd, but I really don't see why this is so terrifying."

I don't think there is anything disturbing about people eating healthier. My occupation obliges me to be somewhat more fit than average, so I can appreciate a shift toward proper diet and exercise. (And it's been a week since I quit smoking. I'm holding up well so far. Wish me luck!)

What I do find disturbing is the idea of a significant portion of the population being so easily influenced by the President. My objection is not to these specific ends, but the general means. The idea of the public taking it's cues from the government makes me very squeamish; if anything it should be the opposite of that.

The same thing comes to mind when I read Mikeikon's comment. I don't think that Obama's diet is setting a "bad example", per se. And I wouldn't have accused him of setting a bad example because of his smoking.

So Daniel, it is true that the end result can be people eating healthier, in this instance. But when a politician has that much influence over the voting public, it's not likely that it's use is going to be limited to diet and exercise.

Robert Heinlein once commented that as societies advance "'civil servant' is semantically equal to 'civil master.'" The US has seen this transition, where "public servant" has transmuted into "leader of the country."

(On a side note, can we try to be a bit more polite to Daniel Kuehn? I agree with very litte of what he says, but he's not flippant or rude. He seems to get an unfair degree of sarcasm directed at him.)

Disingenious Kuehn,

"2. How close do you suppose you have to be to these people to simply say "they're likable"? I'm not saying anything more than that!

Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | Jun 18, 2009 10:29:17 AM"

To say that and be taken with any kind of credibility, you have to know them personally, at least a frequent acquaintance.

Otherwise you have to say "the press makes them seem to be likable", or "my impression from the press is that they seem to be likable", or "from what I know, they might be likable", or even "I have no reason to believe that they aren't likable".

You see DK, all those statements are qualified by an admission that you are making a statement without personal knowledge, which is perfectly acceptable in an intellectual discussion.

To say that Jack and Jackie were likable people implies personal knowledge, when actually as history has revealed neither of them were perticularly likable, they were elitists snobs with very little moral character. I'd say the same seems to be true of the Obamas.

"(On a side note, can we try to be a bit more polite to Daniel Kuehn? I agree with very litte of what he says, but he's not flippant or rude. He seems to get an unfair degree of sarcasm directed at him.)
Posted by: Jack of Spades | Jun 18, 2009 12:17:46 PM"

Why?

Unfair?

"If we protect a man from his folly, we find we have raised a fool." William Penn

DK is a statist, therefore IMHO worthy of rude treatment and sarcasm directed at his disingenious denials.

DK is a socialist, therefore IMHO worthy of rude treatment and worse plus sarcasm directed at his disingenious denials.

DK, until called out by Prof Roberts, entered this Cafe some five or six months ago and began to immediately make it the Cafe Kuehn, always a lengthy challenge to anything posted as a topic, and an answer for everyone on everything, answers which always seemed to end with the state and socialism as the better goal. Therefore, IMHO, worthy of the rude treatment.

I don't know if I agree here… This kind of leadership by example is something I like when regular folk do it and influence their friends to eat better and cook better. Even when the powerful do it, it's all right. I mean, eating food for public viewing is probably one of the less harmful things our leaders can do.