CE Week #5: “The perfect storm of Obama”
Kathleen Parker
Orlando Sentinel
February 23, 2008
Much has been made of the religious tenor of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
Reports of women weeping and swooning – even of an audience applauding when The One cleared his proboscis (blew his nose for you mortals) – have become frequent events in the heavenly realm of Obi-Wan Obama.
His rhetoric, meanwhile, drips with hints of resurrection, redemption and second comings. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” he said on Super Tuesday night. And his people were glad.
Actually, they were hysterical, the word that best describes what surrounds this young savior and that may be more apt than we imagine. The word is derived from the Greek hystera, or womb. The ancient Greeks considered hysteria a psychoneurosis peculiar to women caused by disturbances of the uterus. Well, you don’t see any men fainting in Obi’s presence.
Barack Obama has many appealing qualities, not least his own reluctance to be swaddled in purple. Nothing quite says, “I’m only human” like whipping out a hankie and blowing one’s nose in front of 17,000 admirers. The audience’s applause was reportedly awkward, as if the crowd was both approving of anything their savior did, but a little disappointed at this rather ungodly behavior.
So what is the source of this infatuation with Obama? How to explain the hysteria? The religious fervor? The devotion? The weeping and fainting and utter euphoria surrounding a candidate who had the audacity to run for leader of the free world on a platform of mere hope?
If anthropologists made predictions the way meteorologists do, they might have anticipated Obama’s astronomical rise to supernova status in 2008 of the Common Era. Consider the cultural coordinates, and Obama’s intersection with history becomes almost inevitable.
To play weatherman for a moment, he is a perfect storm of the culture of narcissism, the cult of celebrity, and a secular society in which fathers (both the holy and the secular) have been increasingly marginalized from the lives of a generation of young Americans.
All of these trends have been gaining momentum the past few decades. Social critic Christopher Lasch named the culture of narcissism a generation ago and cited addiction to celebrity as one of the disease’s symptoms – all tied to the decline of the family.
That culture has merely become more exaggerated as spiritual alienation and fatherlessness have collided with technology (YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) that enables the self-absorption of the narcissistic personality.
Grown-ups may have a variety of reasons for supporting Obama, but the youth who pack convention halls and stadiums as if for a rock concert constitute a tipping point of another order.
One of Obama’s TV ads, set to rock ‘n’ roll, has a Woodstock feel to it. Text alternating with crowd scenes reads: “We Can Change The World” and “We Can Save The Planet.”
Those are some kind of campaign promises. The kind no mortal could possibly keep, but never mind. Obi-Wan Obama is about hope – and hope, he’ll tell you, knows no limits.
It is thus no surprise that the young are enamored of Obama. He’s a rock star. A telegenic, ultra-bright redeemer fluent in the planetary language of a cosmic generation. The force is with him.
But underpinning that popularity is something that transcends mere policy or politics: a spiritual hunger. Humans seem to have a yearning for the transcendent – hence thousands of years of religion – but we have lately shied away from traditional approaches and old gods.
Thus, in post-Judeo-Christian America, the sports club is the new church. Global warming is the new religion. Vegetarianism is the new sacrament. Hooking up, the new prayer. Talk therapy, the new witnessing. Tattooing and piercing, the new sacred symbols and rituals. And apparently, Barack Obama is the new messiah.
Here’s how a 20-year-old woman in Seattle described that Obama feeling: “When he was talking about hope, it actually almost made me cry. Like it really made sense, like, for the first, like, whoa …”
This New Age glossolalia may be more sonorous than the guttural emanations from the revival tent, but the emotion is the same. It’s all religion by any other name.
Whatever the Church of Obama promises, we should not mistake this movement for a renaissance of reason. It is more like, well, like whoa.
I do agree with Parker that within the Obama campaign there is a sense of a movement going on. With his natural “charm” and speaking abilities, he is quite the motivational speaker. I have only heard his speeches a couple of times, but from what I have heard he really does sound genuine and could make change happen in our country. That is one thing that is appealing to all his supporters, the offer of change. Although I think the “weeping and swooning” of a female audience is a little over the top, well, that is just a quality that sets Obama apart from the other candidates. I think that Obama’s popularity stems from his unique personality. He rarely makes serious digs at other candidates and he has one of those guy-next-door personalities; example, blowing his nose in public, you just would not get that from anyone else. He is also relatable which makes people like him. For the youth, he seems refreshing and new, keeping them interested. If his only flaw is lack of experience, well that should not make much of a difference since, as we learned in class, no other job can prepare you for presidency. With all this, Obama seems to have a good chance of becoming our next president.
Response to Caitlin Sevey-
Inexperience?
Change? D you really think that Obama is going to be able to instigate change in America? We all know that in the Modern Era, there is no thing as a honey moon period. The most popular a President will ever be is on Inauguration Day, January 20. There must be some common sense in our minds. A fiery, young Senator from Illinois is stepping up to the plate against a Congress—even though they are of the same party—of old pasty white-faced men who have been there from the beginning. What is this hope that Obama talks about? I think he will have quite a reality check if he steps into the White House January 21, 2009. Most presidents think they have a mandate, from the people, to carry out their views. Sort of like, “the people hath spoken!” type quality in Presidents that is not true. Bill Clinton strolled in office believing that the people voted him, so now he can do whatever he wants, well Congress had a lot to say about that… Honestly I’m very skeptical about this ““We can change the World” and “We can Save the Planet”” idea. Ultimately Obama will change the world, but that’s kind of a no-brainer… Be very careful about simply overthrowing his inexperience, because even though we, being young, may have some very revolutionary ideas, experience usually fairs better in the long run.
Danny Porter
Response to Danny:
Where do you get your crazy ideas? What do you know about how experience “fairs better in the long run?” Where are your examples of this? All I know is that there have been plenty of Presidents who haven’t been “experienced” in Congress yet seemed to do fairly well as Presidents. There are some obvious examples of how inexperience has not been helpful, like our current President who was only a governor of Texas and for only 5 years. Personally I think a few years in the Senate shows a lot more experience than many years as a governor. Obama also has some experience as a state senator not just a national senator so he probably knows the workings of states and how things get done at home. As for the honeymoon period, I still believe there is a honeymoon period. And if Obama’s entire campaign is for change and he wins BIG in the general election. Congress will be willing to work with him during the honeymoon period at LEAST. As for Bill Clinton, it was assumed that the people really did not want him that much since they put a lot of the opposition party in Congress. Your comment about Congress being “old pasty white-faced men who have been there from the beginning,” is just wrong. With the elections coming up and the way things are looking, Congress won’t be a bunch of men who have been there from the beginning it will be different men who are mostly Democrats. Who will most likely want to work with Obama to create the change he is seeking. I don’t understand young Republicans who don’t want to make the world a better place to live in. That’s pretty much what Democrat means to me. And most of the candidates seem to think that too.
John, inexperience has been devastating to the Presidency, not just “less helpful”. Sure, there were some good Presidents who didn’t have a lot of political experience, but does it mean we should take a gamble on inexperienced candidates because “we have a really good feeling about this one, you guys”? No! It means we choose the most experienced candidate for the job. And what do you mean “where has experience fared better in the long run”? Are you smoking crack? It’s experience! It doesn’t need approval because it’s a fact. Take Ron Paul for instance. He has delivered over 400 children during his career as an OBGYN. Would I trust him as President? No. Would I let him deliver my wife’s child? Yes. Because he has *experience*.
Comparing the responsibilities of being Governor and being Senator would be comparing apples to oranges. Being Governor means technically ruling over your own state, in the sense that the USA is a collection of sovereign states. In the Senate, you are one of 100 people who try to decide (with the President’s approval) the laws governing the federation of these sovereign states. There, I just compared apples to oranges. Happy?
I don’t understand *people* who don’t want to make the world a better place, regardless of political affiliation. You’re saying the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats actually give a frick about the people? I might be interpreting it wrong, but if not, then… Well, shove off.
Danny, I think understand what you are saying (“old pasty white-faced men”?), but where exactly have our recent presidents full of “experience” gotten us? Please name an experienced president, who has honestly in most everyone’s eyes, steered our country in the right direction; not saying that is necessarily what Obama would do if president. What I am getting at here is obviously candidates with presidential experience are very rare at hand and maybe that is not the only quality to be looking at. What our country needs right now is some new ideas and different priorities. If we could elect a leader not looking for power, but to lead and represent our country in a more accurate, foreign policy-friendly way that would be great. It’s not only experience that makes a president though. I think you also need common sense and a sense of well-being for the country you are to lead. Many time presidents come into office thinking only of how they can tell people what to do and the authority to invade. I agree, experience is a great element in a president, and the most necessary too, but I do get tired of hearing the argument of inexperience get thrown around all the time just because it’s the one main thing people can criticize Obama about.
I’m just pragmatic, that’s all
Response to John:
Okay John, so you bring up the idea that I have no examples of presidents that have “fared better in the long run.” I apologize, but here you go: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, J. Q. Adams, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, etc. No examples? Let’s look at the inexperienced Presidents: Nixon…, Johnson…, Carter…, Ford…, Bush Sr.…, George W. Bush…. I don’t know, we seem to incorporate a variety of different inexperienced Presidents in the past half century—I wouldn’t exactly say our country has fared for the better due to the inexperience of presidents.
Not a bunch of old pasty white men. Even if a high majority of Republican seats are up for grabs, I doubt very many will be “lost” and given to the Democratic Party. We learned this past unit that the #1 indicator of reelection possibilities is incumbency. I’m just going out on limb here, but I doubt that many, maybe 3 or 4, if at all will lose their seats in the Senate and in the House. But then of course I may be wrong—which wouldn’t be astounding to anyone—and the Democrats might sweep all the Republican incumbents and there might be a super majority in the Senate, therefore instituting cloture and Republicans losing all filibuster capabilities. I don’t know, I believe that experience has a lot to do with this election, but I won’t be surprised if the country goes the way of inexperience just to find something new. I’m just pragmatic, that’s all.
Danny Porter