The Audacity of Barack Obama
The Audacity of Barack Obama, Pt. II
Obama Plagiarizing Patrick
Plagiarizing Again
Hmm...does this sound familiar?
Michelle Obama's Corporate Experience
13.2.08
Obama's Sprititual Mentor: anti-semite, anti-gay
[Excerpts from Michael Hill article in the Baltimore Sun]
The packed house at Trinity United - some 3,000 in all - had been in the pews for almost two hours, energized by a 200-voice choir and a rousing dance performance Sunday, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stepped up to speak.
Wright is well-known in Chicago and in the black church world for taking over a small United Church of Christ congregation in 1972 and turning it into an 8,000-member powerhouse. More recently, his name has become familiar as the longtime spiritual mentor of Barack Obama, who joined the church in 1988 - a move Obama says was important to shaping his identity as an African-American.
The connection has thrown a spotlight on some of Wright's more controversial remarks in a church that advertises itself as "unashamedly Black and unapologetically Christian" - at times espousing a black liberation theology that can sound as exclusionary as Obama's message is inclusionary. He has also equated Zionism with racism.
[. . .] Wright was preaching from the Gospel of John, using his powerful style to link the story of the loaves and fishes to a contemporary political message.
Man should not put limits on what God can do, but that's what people always do, he told the crowd. Just as God made five loaves and two fishes feed thousands, God has provided liberators for blacks in the past - from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and now Barack Obama. But, Wright said, there were always reasons not to follow them.
Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.
"That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."
Many in the crowd were on their feet, applauding - amazed, amused and moved by the fiery rhetoric of their preacher, who is about to retire.
[. . .] Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen noted that a magazine associated with Trinity United once named Louis Farrakhan as its person of the year, praising the Nation of Islam leader. Cohen called on Obama to denounce such praise of Farrakhan, known for statements deemed anti-Semitic.
[. . .] "Like a member of my own family, there are things he says at times with which I deeply disagree," he said. "But as he prepares to retire, that doesn't detract from my affection for Reverend Wright or appreciation for the good works he has done."
[. . .] Dwight Hopkins, a professor in the divinity school at the University of Chicago who is a member of Trinity United, was not surprised by Wright's comments about the Clinton administration on Sunday.
Bill Clinton, he said, may have been from the South and appointed blacks to his Cabinet and opened an office later in Harlem, "but if you really look at the policies he backed, many were worse for blacks than those of the pre-civil rights days."
Hopkins pointed to Clinton's welfare reform policies and the criticism of activist Randall Robinson of Clinton policies toward black Caribbean countries such as Haiti.
[. . .] Ronald Walters, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, notes that Obama is getting the support of many black preachers who flirted with the Republican Party during the Bush administration, finding its position on cultural issues such as gay marriage and abortion appealing.
The packed house at Trinity United - some 3,000 in all - had been in the pews for almost two hours, energized by a 200-voice choir and a rousing dance performance Sunday, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stepped up to speak.
Wright is well-known in Chicago and in the black church world for taking over a small United Church of Christ congregation in 1972 and turning it into an 8,000-member powerhouse. More recently, his name has become familiar as the longtime spiritual mentor of Barack Obama, who joined the church in 1988 - a move Obama says was important to shaping his identity as an African-American.
The connection has thrown a spotlight on some of Wright's more controversial remarks in a church that advertises itself as "unashamedly Black and unapologetically Christian" - at times espousing a black liberation theology that can sound as exclusionary as Obama's message is inclusionary. He has also equated Zionism with racism.
[. . .] Wright was preaching from the Gospel of John, using his powerful style to link the story of the loaves and fishes to a contemporary political message.
Man should not put limits on what God can do, but that's what people always do, he told the crowd. Just as God made five loaves and two fishes feed thousands, God has provided liberators for blacks in the past - from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and now Barack Obama. But, Wright said, there were always reasons not to follow them.
Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.
"That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."
Many in the crowd were on their feet, applauding - amazed, amused and moved by the fiery rhetoric of their preacher, who is about to retire.
[. . .] Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen noted that a magazine associated with Trinity United once named Louis Farrakhan as its person of the year, praising the Nation of Islam leader. Cohen called on Obama to denounce such praise of Farrakhan, known for statements deemed anti-Semitic.
[. . .] "Like a member of my own family, there are things he says at times with which I deeply disagree," he said. "But as he prepares to retire, that doesn't detract from my affection for Reverend Wright or appreciation for the good works he has done."
[. . .] Dwight Hopkins, a professor in the divinity school at the University of Chicago who is a member of Trinity United, was not surprised by Wright's comments about the Clinton administration on Sunday.
Bill Clinton, he said, may have been from the South and appointed blacks to his Cabinet and opened an office later in Harlem, "but if you really look at the policies he backed, many were worse for blacks than those of the pre-civil rights days."
Hopkins pointed to Clinton's welfare reform policies and the criticism of activist Randall Robinson of Clinton policies toward black Caribbean countries such as Haiti.
[. . .] Ronald Walters, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, notes that Obama is getting the support of many black preachers who flirted with the Republican Party during the Bush administration, finding its position on cultural issues such as gay marriage and abortion appealing.
He's Got Obamaphilia
From the Los Angeles Times
February 8, 2008
You are embarrassing yourselves. With your "Yes We Can" music video, your "Fired Up, Ready to Go" song, your endless chatter about how he's the first one to inspire you, to make you really feel something -- it's as if you're tacking photos of Barack Obama to your locker, secretly slipping him little notes that read, "Do you like me? Check yes or no." Some of you even cry at his speeches. If I were Obama, and you voted for me, I would so never call you again.
Obamaphilia has gotten creepy. I couldn't figure out if the two canvassers who came to my door Sunday had taken Ecstasy or were just fantasizing about an Obama presidency, but I feared they were going to hug me. Scarlett Johansson called me twice, asking me to vote for him. She'd never even called me once about anything else. Not even to see "The Island."
What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one. He has not been firing up the Senate with stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war. He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him. There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a better tailor.
All of this is clear to me, and yet I have fallen victim. I was at an Obama rally in Las Vegas last month, hanging at the rope line afterward in the cold night desert air, just to see him up close, to make sure he was real. I'd never heard a politician talk so bluntly, calling U.S. immigration policy "scapegoating" and "demagoguery." I'd never had even a history teacher argue that our nation's history is a series of brave people changing others' minds when things were on the verge of collapse. I want the man to hope all over me.
Still, I can't help but feel incredibly embarrassed about my feelings. In the "Yes We Can" music video that will.i.am made of Obama's Jan. 8 speech, I spotted Eric Christian Olsen, a very smart actor I know. (His line is "Yes we can.") I called to see if he had gone all bobby-soxer for Obama, or if he was just shrewdly taking a part in a project that upped his Q rating.
Turns out Olsen not only contributed money, he volunteered in Iowa and California and made hundreds of calls. He also sent out a mass e-mail to his friends that contained these lines: "Nothing is more fundamentally powerful than how I felt when I met him. I stood, my hand embraced in his, and ... I felt something ... something that I can only describe as an overpowering sense of Hope." That's the gayest e-mail I've ever read, and I get notes from guys who've seen me on E!
When I started to make fun of Olsen, he said: "I get that it's a movement. But it's not like a movement for Nickelback. For the first time, we should feel justified in our passion. You don't have to feel embarrassed about it, buddy." It was a convincing argument until he told me he cried during an Obama speech. That did not help me feel less lame.
So to de-Romeo-ize, I called someone immune to Obama's hottie dreaminess: a white suburban feminist baby boomer. To get two things done at once, I called my mother.
My mom, a passionate Hillary Clinton supporter, immediately attacked Obamamania. "Some part of me wants to say, 'People wake up. He has no plans.' I get frustrated listening to his speeches after awhile," she said. She also said that the new vacation house in Key West is really great and her vertigo hasn't been acting up.
I started to feel a little more grounded again. Did I want to be some dreamer hippie loser, or a person who understands that change emerges from hard work and conflict? "People are projecting an awful lot onto him," Mom said. "Almost like what was that movie with, oh, the movie, oh God. That English actor, he practically said nothing. Oh shoot. He was the butler and everybody loved him and what he was thinking and feeling. Do you know the movie I'm talking about? You don't." Hers, of course, is the demographic most likely to vote.
But she's right. Obama is Peter Sellers in "Being There." As a therapist, she's seen the danger of ungrounded expectations. "You feel young again. You feel like everything is possible. He helps you feel that way and you want to feel that way; it's a great marriage. Unfortunately, the divorce will happen very quickly." Mom is the kind of realistic tough-talker who isn't afraid to make divorce analogies to a child of divorce.
"We want what he represents," she said. "A young, idealistic person who really believes it. And he believes it. He believes he can change the world. I just don't think he can."
Thing is, I've watched too many movies and read too many novels; I can't root against a person who believes he can change the world. The best we Obamaphiles can do is to refrain from embarrassing ourselves. And I do believe that we can resist making more "We Are the World"-type videos. We can resist crying jags. We can resist, in every dinner argument and every e-mail, the word "inspiration." Yes, we can.
It's embarrassing to be among the fanatics of a relatively mainstream presidential candidate.
Joel SteinFebruary 8, 2008
You are embarrassing yourselves. With your "Yes We Can" music video, your "Fired Up, Ready to Go" song, your endless chatter about how he's the first one to inspire you, to make you really feel something -- it's as if you're tacking photos of Barack Obama to your locker, secretly slipping him little notes that read, "Do you like me? Check yes or no." Some of you even cry at his speeches. If I were Obama, and you voted for me, I would so never call you again.
Obamaphilia has gotten creepy. I couldn't figure out if the two canvassers who came to my door Sunday had taken Ecstasy or were just fantasizing about an Obama presidency, but I feared they were going to hug me. Scarlett Johansson called me twice, asking me to vote for him. She'd never even called me once about anything else. Not even to see "The Island."
What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one. He has not been firing up the Senate with stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war. He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him. There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a better tailor.
All of this is clear to me, and yet I have fallen victim. I was at an Obama rally in Las Vegas last month, hanging at the rope line afterward in the cold night desert air, just to see him up close, to make sure he was real. I'd never heard a politician talk so bluntly, calling U.S. immigration policy "scapegoating" and "demagoguery." I'd never had even a history teacher argue that our nation's history is a series of brave people changing others' minds when things were on the verge of collapse. I want the man to hope all over me.
Still, I can't help but feel incredibly embarrassed about my feelings. In the "Yes We Can" music video that will.i.am made of Obama's Jan. 8 speech, I spotted Eric Christian Olsen, a very smart actor I know. (His line is "Yes we can.") I called to see if he had gone all bobby-soxer for Obama, or if he was just shrewdly taking a part in a project that upped his Q rating.
Turns out Olsen not only contributed money, he volunteered in Iowa and California and made hundreds of calls. He also sent out a mass e-mail to his friends that contained these lines: "Nothing is more fundamentally powerful than how I felt when I met him. I stood, my hand embraced in his, and ... I felt something ... something that I can only describe as an overpowering sense of Hope." That's the gayest e-mail I've ever read, and I get notes from guys who've seen me on E!
When I started to make fun of Olsen, he said: "I get that it's a movement. But it's not like a movement for Nickelback. For the first time, we should feel justified in our passion. You don't have to feel embarrassed about it, buddy." It was a convincing argument until he told me he cried during an Obama speech. That did not help me feel less lame.
So to de-Romeo-ize, I called someone immune to Obama's hottie dreaminess: a white suburban feminist baby boomer. To get two things done at once, I called my mother.
My mom, a passionate Hillary Clinton supporter, immediately attacked Obamamania. "Some part of me wants to say, 'People wake up. He has no plans.' I get frustrated listening to his speeches after awhile," she said. She also said that the new vacation house in Key West is really great and her vertigo hasn't been acting up.
I started to feel a little more grounded again. Did I want to be some dreamer hippie loser, or a person who understands that change emerges from hard work and conflict? "People are projecting an awful lot onto him," Mom said. "Almost like what was that movie with, oh, the movie, oh God. That English actor, he practically said nothing. Oh shoot. He was the butler and everybody loved him and what he was thinking and feeling. Do you know the movie I'm talking about? You don't." Hers, of course, is the demographic most likely to vote.
But she's right. Obama is Peter Sellers in "Being There." As a therapist, she's seen the danger of ungrounded expectations. "You feel young again. You feel like everything is possible. He helps you feel that way and you want to feel that way; it's a great marriage. Unfortunately, the divorce will happen very quickly." Mom is the kind of realistic tough-talker who isn't afraid to make divorce analogies to a child of divorce.
"We want what he represents," she said. "A young, idealistic person who really believes it. And he believes it. He believes he can change the world. I just don't think he can."
Thing is, I've watched too many movies and read too many novels; I can't root against a person who believes he can change the world. The best we Obamaphiles can do is to refrain from embarrassing ourselves. And I do believe that we can resist making more "We Are the World"-type videos. We can resist crying jags. We can resist, in every dinner argument and every e-mail, the word "inspiration." Yes, we can.
11.2.08
Obama Hero Worship and So-Called "Clinton Rules"
In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”
The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.
And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.
I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.
For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.
One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.
I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.
6.2.08
Yes We Can (Sweat to the Oldies)
Barack Obama Curriculum Vitae
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
Harvard Law School, J.D. 1991, Magna Cum Laude.
President, Harvard Law Review
Executive Board, Black Law Students' Association
Columbia University, Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 1983
United States Senator, Illinois, 2004-present
Illinois State Senator - 13th Legislative District, Chicago, 1996 - 2004
Minority Spokesperson for the Public Health & Welfare Committee, Member of the Judiciary and Revenue Committees, Co-Chair of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
University of Chicago Law School
Senior Lecturer, 1993 - present
Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.
Of Counsel, 1996 - present
Associate, 1993 - 1996
Illinois Project Vote
Director, April 1992 - November 1992
Voter registration and education campaign targeted at minority and low-income voters in Cook County.
Developing Communities Project
Director, June 1985 - June 1988
http://www.dcpincorp.org/About_us.html
Not-for-profit community development projects, including job training programs for area unemployed, college prep programs for low-income students, parent initiatives to reform public schools, and campaigns to clean up hazardous waste sites.
Business International Corporation
Research Associate, General International Business Information, January 1984 - January 1985
____________________________________________________________________
To Whom This May Concern:
I am submitting my resume in response to your solicitation of applications for Presidency of the United States.
When I finished college, I spent an entire year working as an entry level associate, writing research reports for business clients (who I never met). As these clients were "international," you can see how this translates into foreign policy know-how. Having perfected my knowledge of foreign economic markets, I turned to Chicago's South Side where I worked for a church-based group dedicated to solving neighborhood problems. As my ample experience knocking on doors and schmoozing with people demonstrate, I am very popular and people like me. Moreover, I demonstrated my ability to motivate young people to vote and go to church. I worked for three years as an associate in a law firm; but, paperwork, details, long hours, and "deadlines" are really not my "thing." So, I lectured on Constitutional Law once a year for a couple of years. I was really lucky to get this job because I don't have any scholarly publications and have no expertise in the field, but people like to hear me talk, and I am very popular. Speaking of which, did I tell you that Oprah is writing me a letter of recommendation? And that I am very popular and people like me? Finally, I understand that one of the job requirements is that I be over 35 years old. I am...in fact, I am 45 (is 45 the new 35?)
Sincerely,
B-- O--
__________________________________________________________________
Dear B-- O--,
We agree that you are a motivational speaker. Would you consider applying for one of the other available positions? We have openings in our inspirational poster division specializing in schmate and chotski for overweight, unmotivated, pessimistic, and underachieving people. I think you will find that your talents are more suited for this arena. As the "current beneficiary of a tsunami of drool," to use the phrase of Christopher Hitchens, you may very well be the next opiate of the masses! Perhaps we could market you as an alternative to antidepressants: Obama gives you hope and makes you think "yes I can" without causing sexual side effects and suicide.
Please let us know if you are interested in this position. We've represented the best in the motivation and inspiration industry.
Richard Simmons is the king of motivational exercise, especially if you're a beginner. This video workout is a dance party simulating a class reunion, with an energizing live band playing lively hits from the '50s and '60s, such as "It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To," "Great Balls of Fire," and "Dancing in the Streets."
Revolution of "Tomorrow": Sponsored by Budweiser
Are drunken college kids really the new generation of leaders? With interests like "gettin' drunk and havin' a good time," these future leaders are more likely to be doing the walk of shame tomorrow than proposing viable solutions for shrinking the deficit, dealing with undocumented workers, exiting Iraq, or developing alternative sources of energy (Red Bull does not count). Obama may also want to take a lesson from Borat before he invites college kids, a large component of his base support, for beers. Two former fraternity members filed a lawsuit against Borat's producers and Twentieth Century Fox. In the lawsuit, Seay (one of the frat boys) argued that the Borat crew got him and his pals drunk and encouraged them to engage in "behavior that they otherwise would not have engaged in."
Obama: The Cult of Personality
Charisma is seduction on a mass level. This is what we are witnessing with Barack Obama. Charismatics make crowds of people fall in love with them, then lead them along. People happily follow charismatics because they like to be led. Charismatics have a gift, a smoothness with language, that makes them stand out and which they use to express a vision. In their presence, people have a sort of religious experience. When mass seducers concoct the effect of charisma, the religious source of charisma's power is never far. Obama plays into people's desire to believe in something. There is nothing more seductive than giving people something to believe in and follow.
As a charismatic, Obama relies on the power of words: words are the quickest way to create emotional disturbance. They can uplift and elevate without referring to anything real. Charismatics know how to stand on a crowded stage and command attention. It is essential for the charismatic to be self-aware and have the ability to see himself as others see him. Obama heightens the effect of his words by commanding attention this way, staying calm, radiating self-assurance in order to appear regal. In order to animate his poise demeanor, and in order to seduce crowds of people, Obama has a fiery belief in a great cause around which people can rally: viz., change and hope.
Obama is not trying to tell you how he will govern. He is trying to produce an effect on the audience. That is the key to seductive oratory. Seductive language is designed to move people and lower their resistance. The seducer asks himself, "What can I say that will have the most pleasant effect on my listeners?" Often, this entails giving them vague hopes for the future. Words can be an intoxicating drug that will make people emotional and malleable. Obama keeps his language vague and ambiguous, letting his followers (which includes journalists too) fill in the gaps with their fantasies and imaginings.
Sometimes, the most pleasant thing to hear is the promise of something wonderful, a vague but rosy future that is just around the corner. This is the currency of Obama. He promises his audience something realizable and possible, but does not make it too specific: the seductive orator just lets his audience dream. Obama does not discuss how things will be accomplished. There is no greater anaphrodisiac, nothing more soporiphic than policy-talk. Obama does not explain how he will govern, or how things will be accomplished, because his aim is to lift people's thoughts into the clouds, where their defenses will come down. His seductive speech, an elevating drug, makes people not care that he isn't saying much of anything at all.
Following Super Tuesday, Hillary Clinton invited Obama to participate in a weekly debate. Obama's initial reaction was to dismiss the idea. This comes as no surprise, since the most anti-seductive form of language is argument. It is more persuasive to appeal to people's hearts than their heads. Obama, who has quickly climbed up the ladder of ambition on the basis of charisma, knows that emotional people are easier to manipulate. If he does not want to debate, it is because it is hard for an audience to decide whether an argument is reasonable: this requires concentration and active listening. If a person becomes distracted, or does not understand the discussion for some other reason, he may feel insecure or inferior. But, by using seductive language and letting the audience dream and fill in the blanks, the crowd bonds together, everyone contagiously experiencing a wave of emotion.
The goal of seductive speech is often to create a hypnosis, to make people more vulnerable to suggestion. Obama hypnotizes through his masterful use of repetition and affirmation. In his public appearances, he chooses words with emotional content, keeping the message simple, and uses these same words over and over. Hope. Change. The effect is to mesmerize: ideas can be permanently implanted in people's unconscious simply by being repeated. When Obama wants you to know something, he will indicate this by beginning his sentence with the command, "Understand that..." (This is the guru side of Obama). His campaign's latest affirmation is the "yes you can" mantra (now available as a music video).
Obama's words do not stand for anything real, other than the feelings they evoke. His campaigners like to say that if Obama gets a crowd in a room, he can win the crowd over. This may be true, but only because by beautifully wielding elusive and vague language, he allows his listeners to conjure up their fantasies and diminish their contact with the ugly reality that has worn on them. He is a savior to the hypnotized.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---As a charismatic, Obama relies on the power of words: words are the quickest way to create emotional disturbance. They can uplift and elevate without referring to anything real. Charismatics know how to stand on a crowded stage and command attention. It is essential for the charismatic to be self-aware and have the ability to see himself as others see him. Obama heightens the effect of his words by commanding attention this way, staying calm, radiating self-assurance in order to appear regal. In order to animate his poise demeanor, and in order to seduce crowds of people, Obama has a fiery belief in a great cause around which people can rally: viz., change and hope.
Obama is not trying to tell you how he will govern. He is trying to produce an effect on the audience. That is the key to seductive oratory. Seductive language is designed to move people and lower their resistance. The seducer asks himself, "What can I say that will have the most pleasant effect on my listeners?" Often, this entails giving them vague hopes for the future. Words can be an intoxicating drug that will make people emotional and malleable. Obama keeps his language vague and ambiguous, letting his followers (which includes journalists too) fill in the gaps with their fantasies and imaginings.
Sometimes, the most pleasant thing to hear is the promise of something wonderful, a vague but rosy future that is just around the corner. This is the currency of Obama. He promises his audience something realizable and possible, but does not make it too specific: the seductive orator just lets his audience dream. Obama does not discuss how things will be accomplished. There is no greater anaphrodisiac, nothing more soporiphic than policy-talk. Obama does not explain how he will govern, or how things will be accomplished, because his aim is to lift people's thoughts into the clouds, where their defenses will come down. His seductive speech, an elevating drug, makes people not care that he isn't saying much of anything at all.
Following Super Tuesday, Hillary Clinton invited Obama to participate in a weekly debate. Obama's initial reaction was to dismiss the idea. This comes as no surprise, since the most anti-seductive form of language is argument. It is more persuasive to appeal to people's hearts than their heads. Obama, who has quickly climbed up the ladder of ambition on the basis of charisma, knows that emotional people are easier to manipulate. If he does not want to debate, it is because it is hard for an audience to decide whether an argument is reasonable: this requires concentration and active listening. If a person becomes distracted, or does not understand the discussion for some other reason, he may feel insecure or inferior. But, by using seductive language and letting the audience dream and fill in the blanks, the crowd bonds together, everyone contagiously experiencing a wave of emotion.
The goal of seductive speech is often to create a hypnosis, to make people more vulnerable to suggestion. Obama hypnotizes through his masterful use of repetition and affirmation. In his public appearances, he chooses words with emotional content, keeping the message simple, and uses these same words over and over. Hope. Change. The effect is to mesmerize: ideas can be permanently implanted in people's unconscious simply by being repeated. When Obama wants you to know something, he will indicate this by beginning his sentence with the command, "Understand that..." (This is the guru side of Obama). His campaign's latest affirmation is the "yes you can" mantra (now available as a music video).
Obama's words do not stand for anything real, other than the feelings they evoke. His campaigners like to say that if Obama gets a crowd in a room, he can win the crowd over. This may be true, but only because by beautifully wielding elusive and vague language, he allows his listeners to conjure up their fantasies and diminish their contact with the ugly reality that has worn on them. He is a savior to the hypnotized.
Blankly smiling workers and collective farmers looked out from the covers of books. Almost every novel and short story had a happy ending. Painters more and more often took as their subject state banquets, weddings, solemn public meetings, and parades.The apotheosis of this trend was a movie which in its grand finale showed thousands of collective farmers having a gargantuan feast against the backdrop of a new power station. Recently I had a talk with its producer, gifted and intelligent man. "How could you produce such a film?" I asked. "It is true that I also once wrote verses in that vein, but I was still wet behind the ears, whereas you were adult and mature." The producer smiled a sad smile. "You know, the strangest thing to me is that I was absolutely sincere. I thought all this was a necessary part of building communism. And then I believed Stalin.
"So when we talk about "the cult of personality," we should not be too hasty in accusing all those who, one way or another, were involved in it, debasing themselves with their flattery. There were of course sycophants who used the situation for their own ends. But that many people connected with the arts sand Stalin's praises was often not vice but tragedy.
How was it possible for even gifted and intelligent people to be deceived?
To begin with, Stalin was a strong and vivid personality. When he wanted to do, Stalin knew how to charm people.--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
