Why I can not believe in Barack Obama

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

To me, “believe in” is not the same as vote for, root for, or even work for. I will have no trouble voting for Barack Obama. Versus any Republican, he and Hillary are both clearly the lesser of two evils.

In World War II I would have volunteered to package food-shipments to Russia (we provided a lot of the Russian diet during the war) because it was desirable that Russia defeat Germany. But I would not have been one of the Americans who believed in Stalin simply because he happened to be on our side for the moment. I try to separate my beliefs from mere politics.

(On Edit: I am not comparing Obama to Stalin!! I am using America's WWII fondness for Stalin as an example of how people will use suspension of disbelief to butress a practical view... that a world of heroes and villains and saviors is a politically powerful notion, and that we made Stalin a good guy because, "This guy sucks but we need to help him for geo-political reasons" is too complex. But, though too complex to motivate everyone, it's correct, and that means something to ME because of the way I'm put together.)

All of us have, I hope, some core that transcends politics. My core value is objectivity as a goal. Total objectivity is as impossible as total social justice, but it is none-the-less a direction.

I cannot believe in a cult. This is a personal disability… I cannot believe in any religion either. Not that I refuse to, I am actually not able to. Some Obama supporters think that people who haven’t gotten “the BAM” enjoy being cynics. I cannot speak for everyone, but for me it is Hell… but it is not optional.

So whenever someone asks me to suspend everything I know in favor of what salves a psychological need, I head for the exit.

I want to say something about the difference between a political movement and a cult of personality. When Martin Luther King was taken from the world, anyone could say what he stood for, and could see that what he stood for was something independent of MLK, and something no more or less just or desirable for his passing.

If Barack Obama retired from public life tomorrow, what dream would survive? The dream of using manipulative language to fool Republicans into supporting liberal positions? The dream of “newness?” The dream of a larger public role for religion as a means of building demagogic majorities? These are techniques, not goals. (Let alone “dreams”)

There is no “there” there, unless you feel the inspiration. And I do not. No only doesn’t the man inspire me, he dis-inspires me! He robs me of hope. Nothing makes me despair for mankind’s prospects more than a revival meeting. It indicts speaker and audience alike.

Barack Obama is probably a fine man, but his campaign is a step backward for American civilization. It represents nothing except people’s desire for something. And it seems that to defend a personal emotional identification, a DESIRE, that there is no principle that some Obama supporters (only some, of course) will not trample upon.

Case in point: Health insurance mandates.

EVERYTHING that defines the difference between Democrats and Republicans, or more usefully, classical Liberalism from classical Conservatism, it summed up in the mandates issue.

The first time an Obama partisan said. “Hillary has no right to decide what I can afford,” the mask was dropped. No statement better encapsulates the petulant disdain for the public good that defines modern Republicanism.

This is not to say that all Obama supporters think like this. In a two person race there are doubtless many Obama supporters who would prefer someone else, but prefer him to Hillary. I am speaking only of the "true believers" who will say, or even believe, anything that seems to serve the cause.

One can say the Clinton plan or Obama plan is better for practical reasons, but one cannot mount a categorical ethical objection to mandates as a step toward universal health coverage and be a Democrat or progressive of any stripe.

Ayn Randian economic libertarianism is okay as something to talk about, but it is not at home in the Democratic party, and must never be… without the concept of some level of shared sacrifice to achieve minimal goals of social justice, there is nothing left.

There are things to argue about, and then there are core principles. Some people reading this understand exactly what I am saying. Others will never get it.

If a dream demands the abrogation, for tactical convenience, of the entire philosophical basis of liberal democracy, then the only dream is for one person to win. Nothing more.

[Deja Q]

1. Hillary's plan sounds nice... the problem is, if jobs keep going out the door,

who can afford the benefits, much less anything else?

And people are saying skilled jobs are going out the door to countries with ill-prepared people for much lower prices; the latter being the only impetus, apparently. The same countries happening to be happy with Hillary.

( http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11744-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=43908&messageID=812478&start=0 )

Now I have no qualms with the world being elevated and helping others prosper, but something about Hillary remains to be answered. Plans for our working class. Are we not allowed to grow either?

[BlackVelvet04]

26. I posted part of her plan to you the last time you

interrupted a thread with your jobs stuff. You weren't really looking for info though, were you?

[Colobo]

2. I respect your opinion, but I completely disagree.

Obama represents a new era in America after 8 years of obscurantism.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. My post is personal... I doubt you or I will be deciding anything

If he wins the nomination, then good for him.

I have been saying that for a long time.

But I cannot stand his methods and message... they run counter to my most fundamental notions of what is desirable in political society.

People disagree.

[cloudythescribbler]

3. Yeah, I'm to the left of Kucinich -- but Obama's as good as we can realistically expect in the WH,&

Obama clearly would do better including for Congress etc on the Dem ticket than HRC.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. If he were to pull this thing off, which I doubt, the wheels would start to

come of his wagon after a second look. If you are seeing it, it won't take too long before this whole scam is picked up by the press, fueled by the gop, who are hungry for a controversy. It'll be all about "False Hope" & he'll spend the rest of the campaign explaining himself.

[rodeodance]

12. Toto has been busy it seems but he will pull back the curtain soon--that I believe.

[AX10]

64. So far that has not happened.

[Tennessee Gal]

5. Your last sentence:

"If a dream demands the abrogation, for tactical convenience, of the entire philosophical basis of liberal democracy, then the only dream is for one person to win. Nothing more."

That says a lot.

Democrats need to be careful not to compromise their true fundamental beliefs.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Know what? I largely agree with half of this. The other half is bunk.

Obama's "change" business is hot air. Because it's a political campaign slogan, and those are always hot air. It's no better and no worse--and no more or less substantive--than Clinton's previous "conversation with America." Obama uses hope as a political tool. Clinton uses desire for competence as a political tool. There's no good reason to believe that one would lead to a more-hopeful nation, or that one would be more competent than the either. If you desire objectivity as a goal, then I can see disliking Obama. It is, frankly, difficult to remain objective about him; he plays his audience and the media effortlessly. However, if you desire objectivity as a goal, politics is not a good place for you. There is no candidate who will speak honestly, fairly, and openly.

It would not take Sen. Clinton very far if she were to say, "Well, I voted for the Iraq War because I was planning on eventually running for President, and because I believed this war would be successful. As such, I did not want to be painted as a pacifist and an obstruction to victory, especially since that, along with my support for social programs, would lend support to a potentially-damaging "weak-willed woman" line of attack." It would not take Sen. Obama very far if he were to say, "Realistically, most of what I'm supporting will meet considerable opposition by the Republican party, and as such most of what I or what Sen. Clinton proposes will leave the Senate in an only-barely-satisfactory form." You can hardly blame a candidate for distorting.

Nor, for that matter, can you blame him for the emotional support of his base. As DU shows, there are many who identify similarly with Clinton and Edwards. Edwards, especially, was something of a cult here; one could get a hundred recs with the simplest "I love love love John Edwards" three-line post. People support candidates for a variety of reasons. Clinton instills in her audience a false belief in competence and a false belief in inevitable electoral victory. Obama instills in his audience a false sense of hope and of transcendent change. Edwards instilled in his audience a false sense of solidarity and of impending battle. Few supporters actually sit down and compare the nitty-gritty of policy proposals; knowing this, candidates purposefully do not announce the specifics of their plans.

I honestly can't say whether I like Clinton's health-care plan better than Obama's, because I frankly have no idea what her mechanisms for mandate enforcement will be. I don't know what Obama's plan for prevention of abuse will be. They haven't released them, because they know there is no benefit to it--and because they know that any necessary unpleasantness will be seized and abused (OMG GARNISH WAGES).

And blaming a few Obama supporters for being jackasses? That's low. Clinton has quite a few jackasses on her side, too. You know why? Because people want their candidate to win. And they'll say shit in order to help their candidate. I thought the "OMG CLINTON WANTS TO ROB ME" outcry was ridiculous--just like the "OMG OBAMA LOVES REAGAN" outcry.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. Nobody is fully responsible for their supporters, of course.

My post is a personal outcry, more than an attempt to persuade.

--- BUT ---

Cults are, as a psychological phenomenon, more reliably defined by their supporters, not their leaders.

When I read the texts of Scientology, it sounds no more or less silly than any other religion. I know Scientology is a cult only from observing the behavior of Scientologists.

And I have never seen so much classic cult behavior on the Democratic side. Not ever! There are cultish aspects to every cause, religion, club, sports team fandom, etc.. But this is something different.

A lot of people with experience with cultism and religious fanaticism have independently seen the cultish aspects of the Obama candidacy that transcend previous norms of what I'd call "political decency" on the Democratic side. Though Howard Dean attracted some fanatics, I never saw the Howard Dean movement as a cult because it didn't have religious trappings.

I am genuinely uncomfortable with a political campaign training canvassers and phone-bankers to proselytize in terms of their "conversion," defined as the moment they, "came to Obama." I have never seen any political movement where you were encouraged to touch a hand that had touched the candidate... that's creepy.

I am used to cultish behavior from Republicans. From Democrats, it makes me ill.

[LandOLincoln]

29. Good grief--is this true?

"..... a political campaign training canvassers and phone-bankers to proselytize in terms of their "conversion," defined as the moment they, "came to Obama." I have never seen any political movement where you were encouraged to touch a hand that had touched the candidate... that's creepy."


That's beyond creepy. I don't think even the Bushies went that far.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. Word for word...

There are two good articles kicking around DU, one on Obama campaign worker training, and one of the BAM, which is a physical contact with a hand that touched the hand.

Both articles were positive, not hit pieces. The negative interpretation is all mine.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

60. I've been volunteering on the campaign since June and it's bullshit

If I ever got the slightest sense of proselytizing or cult tactics going on I would have been out of there, fast.

The phone banking and canvassing I've been doing is no different from any that I've ever done and the campaign is not different in any significant way. Except that there are a lot more people volunteering.

[katty]

58. well, I observe more of a good looking, 'rock star' image with

Barack. I don't know if I would venture to say the 'surge' for him is becoming a cult. However, I remember when bush came on the scene and they said he was 'charming, persuasive, cocky..' and Gore was a bore, he was too stiff, he wasn't comfortable with speaking to a crowd-he was bashed mercilessly for not being the 'regular, friendly beer-drinking' guy - so, this need for pretty, charming people to be in the WH is such a crock-that strikes me as more cult like. Now, Gore has had the last word - and Americans got stuck with nightmare duo bush/cheney through 2 stolen elections.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

61. Do you have some substantiation of what you are alleging about the Obama campaign?

Did you personally experience those kind of tactics or are you repeating something you heard or read?

[hfojvt]

31. very good post

and I agree with some of the OP too, but it also seems to me the OP has been a Hillary supporter for a while
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/66

[Bucky]

32. How come you haven't set up a DU journal yet?

This post is a keeper. So are several of your others.

Think about it.

[republikkkon]

49. ^ brilliant occam

the most sensible thing i've read on here for a long time

[emilyg]

7. I've missed you.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. Hi EmilyG. I cannot bear the lies, and I cannot bear hating Democrats

And the handful of assholic Hillary supporters wound me even more deeply than the assholic Obama supporters.

Lies and willful ignorance are scary to me. I don't consider these things normal or acceptable.

I am a Democrat because Democrats are supposed to value reason. Liberalism is a fundamentally scientific and skeptical approach to governance.

This place is very bad for me, so I am trying to avoid it.

[rodeodance]

8. thank you for your post. you have articulated well some of my thought.

[Triana]

9. 100% agreed. (n/t)

[rodeodance]

10. Yes, there were far too many threads yesterday similar to this quote and

the supporters who went along with the sentiment. I tried to argue for the 'common good"--but just gave up after a while.


......The first time an Obama partisan said. “Hillary has no right to decide what I can afford,” the mask was dropped. No statement better encapsulates the petulant disdain for the public good that defines modern Republicanism.

[BootinUp]

13. what can I say

you often strike the nail dead on for me.

[adapa]

15. How come there are so few of us non-believers in the world?!

"whenever someone asks me to suspend everything I know in favor of what salves a psychological need, I head for the exit."

I always thought it was just me- that instinctual negative gut reaction to the rapture frenzy. Maybe it's a reaction to my upbringing in the late 60's. Way to many cult's back then, we got so we could spot them a mile away.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. The religious impulse is as innate as sexual identity

Some of us have it, others do not. (Those who have it can express it in a lot of ways, including politically.)

In evolutionary terms, there seems to be a stable mix, just as there is a stable hetero-homo mix of people. A 100% homosexual society would die out quickly, but nothing has driven gay-genes out of the mix entirely, so there must be value to a mixed society.

A society of genetic non-believers will be wiped out in short order, being woefully short of military-minded zealots.

A society with no genetic non-believers will chase dogma right over a cliff.

So I view myself as similar to gay, in that I was born with a brain organized in a minority way. It's not my choice, but it has value.

[Occam Bandage]

33. Kurt, I respect your posts, but I think you're talking out your ass here.

There is absolutely no genetic correlation with religiosity. The rate of religiosity varies widely across cultures, and you know that--in certain pockets, you'll get nearly 100% belief rates; in other areas, you'll get few believers if any. So, too, does the type of belief; fundamentalism and apostasy rise and fall due to outside pressures.

Pseudoreligious magical thinking is omnipresent in children, across cultures and without exception; it's likely a necessary part of cognitive development. It is omnipresent in many societies. There is not, as far as I am aware, any evidence of a stable mix between believers and non-believers--nor is there any evidence that religious tribal societies "chase dogma off a cliff" (in fact, given the omnipresence of religion and superstition in tribal societies, belief may even be necessary to hold together such a society).

Religious tendencies are innate, yes. But I see no evidence of the religio-genetic fatalism you suggest.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. I believe you're conflating adherence and inner-experience

(As with most things, this is what I think, not what I know to be true derived from the work of others. It is not offered to be accepted as writ.)

Would you speak of my musical fatalism? My mother and I can carry a tune. My father and sisters could not. Capacity for religious experience seems like as neurological a phenomenon than musicality, which nobody (sensible) would care to deny is largely innate.

The number of self-identified believers is always going to be culturally determined. We have reason to believe that Mother Teressa did not feel God's presence for the last 40-50 years of her life, but few methodologies would identify her as spiritually deficient.

And of course small children are more "religious." I am referring to non-believers who are of an age where the category means anything.

It is essential that infants personify the world. We are born with the expectation of meeting objects (people) that have minds. (Severe autistics apparently less so) Infants are little animists. It seems to be something we tend to outgrow, though in differing degrees.

The nature of religious/mystical experience, even outside formal religious context, is similar the world around. The idea that there is not any individual-level pre-disposition to religious experience seems counter to every other thing I know about people.

I see religious experience as being about as cultural as sex... the fact that something innate differs in expression between cultures is unsurprising, and does not speak to the unrelated fact that people have innate sexual drives and proclivities.

All cultures have more and less religious people... surely Shamans are more mystically inclined than average.

And ancient human society tended to have a two-headed authority structure, dividing religious authority and a paternal (and often hereditary) secular authority. Imagine a society where everyone was equally religious... can everyone give their lives to the church, or becoming wandering holy men? I see little future for a society of 100% hallucinating mystics, or for a society with no spiritual element.

We know that there are sweet-spots for distribution of aggression, and of charity. We can deduce social sweet-spots for sexual identity/orientation because otherwise such variation would be most susceptible of all traits to winnow away.

In that light, the idea that societies thrive on a mix of mystics and realists seems a scientifically un-extraordinary hypothesis.

And, whether or not the arrangement is ideal, we have the fact of skeptics and believers. There are clear correlations of innovation and secularism, and of religiosity and stability. All societies have innovators and traditionalists.

By the way, the idea of more and less stable proportions doesn't mean those proportions are independent of environment. Brazilian tribesmen are vastly more violent than New Yorkers, and probably with good reason. Aggression isn't equally adaptive in those two environments. So demonstrating cultural differences in individual religiosity would not negate the hypothesis that religiosity and non-belief are largely innate, any more than the skin color of African plainsmen would demonstrate that skin color is cultural.

If capacity/susceptibility for/to religious experience has a lower correlation between separated identical twins than other traits like sexual identity or general intelligence I would be quite surprised. Given the high correlation of political outlook between separated twins, it would be odd to think that religious experience is more culture-driven than political outlook!

[Recursion]

41. Off-topic: there's some interesting research...

...in the evolutionary "rationale" for homosexuality. The original model was basically "well, it's evolutionarily negative, but not so much that it's going to get wiped out." But there are some new systems models that suggest that having a portion of the population not expending their energy on reproduction is a net good for the population -- there are suggestions from surviving "primitive" cultures (though I find nothing "primitive" at all about having the skills to survive in the jungle with few tools for millenia) that the early shamans were homosexual. This was the aspect of culture that eventually gave birth to art and science, so it's kind of cool, and fits in with the not-entirely-baseless stereotype that LGBT people seem to have a greater representation in the artistic community today than heterosexuals (though that clearly is also the result of many particulars of our culture).

[mrreowwr_kittty]

16. Mandating private insurance is NOT a step to universal coverage

Insurance companies are involved in both Clinton's and Obama's plans. Both of which suck BTW. The well-funded insurance lobby is simply not going to help plan its own demise, no matter how much people want it to be so. And there will not be a government plan available to all that competes with private insurers, as many have argued. Again, the insurance lobby is not going help usher in its own obsolescence. When Hillary Clinton's plan gets through Congress (many there are in the pocket of ins. cos. and big pharma) the mandates will stay but the government program will be for the poor and the "uninsurable" only. Everyone else will be required to buy private insurance.

I'm no Randian free-marketer by any stretch. I have no problem paying my fair share for a functioning society. But these healthcare mandates don't sit well with me. As another DUer put it: "I do not prefer mandates for a flawed for-profit system that would make the government the bill collector for private stockholders"

I don't buy private insurance for police and fire protection so why should the government mandate that I do so for healthcare? If they want to take money from me, fine. Put it toward a true single payer system and cut out the bloated 3rd party parasite. An industry predicated on gambling on risk, denying the very services it promises to it's customers, and skimming at least 30% off the top is not deserving of a massive government-mandated windfall.

[adapa]

17. been there done that, remember the 90's? Time to try the next full coverage option

[cd3dem]

19. my thinking exactly

is there some character difference that makes some people more drawn to this type of dream campaign?... it makes me think of the TV evangelicals who get the down trodden to follow them...

what really bothers me is that if you criticize him... you are attacked by the media and everyone in between... what are we to do when the swift boaters come after him in the generals?

[adapa]

20. Honestly my only ray of hope lays with McCain-hate to say it but he isn't a right wing nut job

[RT_Fanatic]

53. Come again?

John McCain? You mean the "we should stay in Iraq for 100 years" John McCain? The John McCain who gave Bush a big sweaty hug as thanks for Karl Rove destroying McCain's nomination hopes? THAT John McCain? Wow. That IS SCARY!

[DURHAM D]

21. Thanks for putting my frustration and confusion into words.

I no longer feel alone.

I can breathe.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. frustration and confusion...

Stay confused, bro'

It's better than being CERTAIN

[BootinUp]

39. lol nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. PS (post edit period)

I should not have said "classical Liberalism from classical Conservatism"

The mandates issue is not something I can comfortably speak of in terms of "Classical Liberalism"

I should have said *modern* liberalism and conservatism, not classical. I was thinking in terms of essential, and instead of 'classic', classical popped out.

Classical Conservatism is really just Monarchism, and is hard to think of in terms of individual economic rights in a monarchist frame, and classical liberalism was so suspicious of government (meaning the KING) taking people's money for any purpose that they hadn't gotten anywhere near our modern understanding of the common good.

[andyrowe]

25. The hope has been boiled out of you.

The Chorus of Optimists will sing a song to you.

[BlackVelvet04]

30. No, the hope has been tempered with reality....

singing songs, chanting cutie chants and getting chills when someone speaks is not change, it's a very age old phenomena indulged in by the naive and easily led.

[BlackVelvet04]

27. Thank you for articulating so well.....

When Martin Luther King was taken from the world, anyone could say what he stood for, and could see that what he stood for was something independent of MLK, and something no more or less just or desirable for his passing.

If Barack Obama retired from public life tomorrow, what dream would survive? The dream of using manipulative language to fool Republicans into supporting liberal positions? The dream of “newness?” The dream of a larger public role for religion as a means of building demagogic majorities? These are techniques, not goals. (Let alone “dreams”)

[Iceburg]

28. K&R

[Kermitt Gribble]

34. K&R!

Thank you for this post. Your words sum up my feelings exactly.

[jacksonian]

35. so very, very true

I worry about him. Right now I do not understand his thinking behind all this, why fall into these traps so easily?

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

38. Hillary 08!

[ProgressIn2008]

40. "Whenever someone asks me to suspend everything I know

in favor of what salves a psychological need." <-- Exactly. I've been wondering why I can't take part. I just... can't. I suppose some of us are just not wired that way.

Me, I care about surviving without health care... and I suspect I will soon be doing that. The BAM? I couldn't care less.

[LoverOfLiberty]

42. Obama's campaign

has become a cult of personality. It certainly won't lead him to the White House.

[DemGa]

52. I think it can lead him to the WH

It just depends on when the wave of infatuation crashes.

[BigBearJohn]

43. Wow! Where have you been all my life? You are one smart person.

Thanks for sharing this. You verbalized
something I felt inside, but had no words
to express. Thanks again.

[AGirl]

44. Thank you. You nailed it. :)

[xchrom]

45. recommend

[ruggerson]

46. Don't leave again whatever the fuck you do

:)

[Mojorabbit]

47. I am not crazy about

either of them and I think their platforms are very similar. That being said, the ability to move the population to get behind the policies you want to advance is an important thing and here is where Obama has the advantage. It is not a trivial thing.

[Usrename]

48. Your comments about the mandates don't make any sense to me.

What if the government mandated that you must purchase some other product, like electricity for instance, from someone in the private sector? What would your argument be then. Wouldn't we all benefit in the same theoretical way? Would you support such mandates by arguing against those who oppose such measure by using the same Ann Randian economic libertarianism insults? Just wondering.

I don't think the public gains anything at all by such mandates, but it sure seems like it could be a boon to the insurance industry, virtually eliminating any real risk for their investors while at the same time ensuring huge profit margins. Now what was the whole purpose of insurance in the first place, something about risk management? How does that all work again when the purchase is mandated?

Single payer competing with the private sector is the only way this will ever work to the people's advantage, and almost everyone knows it.

[libbygurl]

50. Thank you. nt

[liberalhistorian]

51. Well, I don't believe a word Ms. Republican-lite Clinton says

at all, and I intend to work hard for Obama. You believe in who you want and I'll do the same, it's the American way.

[Armstead]

54. INteresting post

I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it. But I appreciate the thoughtfulness of it.

I'm not sure where I would stand in terms of this. I tend to be like you in some respects -- I'd call myself a fanatical non-fanatic.

I have a set of core principles that overrides any candidate or even party. I apply that as a yardstick, and in practical terms decide who might best represent my own values and beliefs, in both an idealistic and practical sense.

(I also have to admit though, for the same reason, if Paul Wellstone were still alive and running, or if Bernie Sanders were to run, I'd probably become an unbridled fanatic. But not because of some vague message. Instead it would be that almost everything those guys have said or done resonates with my own core beliefs and views both in specific and broad terms.)

I have the same worries you do about Obama and the basis of his support. The old question comes to mind "Where's the Beef?"

But I do think his optimism and the hope he inspires is a good and necessary ingredient that at least moves us closer to meaningful change.

The Clinton approach to me is actually pessimistic. It is based on the notion that we can't really get what we want, so we might as well buckle under and "manage" the mess -- and perhaps profit from buckling under.

As for mandates, I strongly disagree with you. The only way mandates would be justified IMO is if they were part of a true universal coverage system run by the government, such as Kucinich has proposed. I'm not being libertarian about that. But I donlt feel we need a Nanny State program that doesn;t actually deliver.

[Oskie]

55. get rid of mandates...yeah

like that pesky car insurance...after all people will gladly volunteer to get car insurance. Or FICA...why mandate that? People will volunteer to support Social Security and Medicare. And lets not require taxes. People will always volunteer to pay taxes. Or go to school. Kids don't need to be required to go to school. They go because it's the right thing to do. Yeah! What a lovely world.

[paulk]

56. well said and you've articulated many of the things I've felt

about Obama's campaign...

especially this line -

"So whenever someone asks me to suspend everything I know in favor of what salves a psychological need, I head for the exit."

Arianna Huffington has a piece over at her site where she says "our search for a great president is also a search for our better selves." Which is for her Obama. I have to say that statements like that not only leave me cold, they scare the hell out of me. This is the basis of too much of Obama's support, IMO, and I am very uncomfortable with that line of thinking.

When I am "searching for my better self", a politician is the last person I would turn to. For that I turn to my religious beliefs, which I keep very seperate from the political arena.

[RedShoesBlueState]

57. Obama: The SOUND of water in a desert, but is there really water?

Thanks you for stating this so eloquently.
I have had this growing sense of unease and now depression setting in, as I see this cult of personality growing and growing around Obama. He's hard to resist; he makes his listeners feel good. He's inspiring, he says lots of things that make you feel warm and fuzzy. But afterwards, when I try to find any substance, and content in what he said? It's all air and fluff. I fear that he is the most cynical of politicians, exploiting the American populace at a time when they are so fearful and so desperate for leadership that they would crawl across a desert for a drop of water. My fear is that when they get there, they'll find that the water isn't real. It's just the SOUND of water.

[happygoluckytoyou]

59. ANY DEMOCRAT IS THE LEFT SOLUTION....

IM VOTING OBAMA.... BUT WILL SUPPORT HILLARY IF SHE WINS...

THE GOP LOVES TO FRACTURE OUR PARTY... THEY JUST LOVE THAT OCTOBER DIVIDE

[Spider Jerusalem]

62. A quibble:

'classical liberalism' = free trade, laissez faire, focus on the primacy of individual rights of property, etc (see John Locke and John Stuart Mill for an idea of what's embodied in 'classical liberalism').

American 'liberalism' = democratic socialism (mixed economy, welfare state, subjugation of corporate interest to the interests of the people, labour unionism, etc).

The 'classically liberal' position on mandatory healthcare, as opposed to the freedom to exercise individual choice on the issue, would be decidedly *against* such mandates.

[AX10]

63. Bookmarked!

:hi: