Obamaphiles: it’s only love, and that is all
Here’s a rapturous account of Obama’s inauguration from ex-uber-editor Tina Brown (hat tip: Ann Althouse.)
Remember, as you read it, that the author was once at the helm of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, among other credits.
Brown’s fulsome prose is an excellent example of what I’ve been thinkng for quite some time, and that is this: if what we’ve seen in Bush Derangement Syndrome is hatred (and I believe it is), then what we are seeing among Obamaphiles is love.
I don’t mean that metaphorically; I mean it literally. Case in point, the besotted Brown:
…all day [Obama] was surrounded with astonishing poetic symbolism…[such as] the helicopter bearing away the ills of his predecessor in democracy’s spell-breaking moment of regenerative wizardry…[He is] the first president who has seemed to be in charge from the day he was elected, not, like other presidents from the day he was sworn in. The rest of the world, of course, elected him a year ago and have just been waiting to see their longing ratified…
[O]ur relief exploded yesterday into national outpourings of relief…
I was struck by how much less casual Obama looks behind the big, world beating smile. He exudes purpose and authority now. I told him my husband still has the contract he signed as president of Random House when their imprint Times Books acquired Dreams from My Father. “Worth something now, huh?” he told me, as he draped a long arm to gather me in between himself and his even taller vice president and easefully lit up for the camera. I felt safer and calmer than I have for eight years.
Love is not rational. The lover does not think he/she is idealizing the loved object. Instead, the perception is that the beloved represents a sort of objective perfection. Love’s bubble can burst, of course, when reality meets illusion. But usually it takes a fairly harsh dose of it before the love object is seen with clear eyes.
Why does Obama inspire love, rather than mere admiration? Some of the Obamalove is engendered by his youth, his good looks, his deep voice, and his coolness (in that piece I wrote, “choosing a President is now mostly about style rather than substance,” and that would be a good description of Ms. Brown’s career as well). But I submit that those who suffered most from hatred (rather than mere dislike) of Bush are the same people who are now in love with Barack Obama.
This is not a coincidence. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that’s a goodly part of what gives the love for Obama its full force.
Bush was hated for many reasons, among them his Texas style, his supposed frat-boy personality, and his alleged lack of intelligence. Obama is seen as the corrective to these things, his exact opposite. But I have come to believe that a very substantial part of the motivation for the depth of the hatred for Bush is that he forced the American people to confront the reality of terrorism, the rot in the fundamentalist Muslim world, and the need to combat it at times with violence.
These things are so markedly un-PC, so dreadfully distasteful, that they must be negated by the intelligentsia of the Left. Bush himself becomes the repository of evil rather than our enemies. Now that he’s gone, the whole thing can be regarded as a bad dream that has miraculously melted away. And ironically, it helps a lot that Bush’s war on terror has been markedly successful, which allows his haters to convince themselves that it was unnecessary.
In Tina Brown’s essay on Obama, she uses a word that struck me initially as very odd. I have highlighted it in bold in the following excerpt:
This was 9/11 in reverse. The last time I turned round and saw so many people behind me, it was that terrible day in New York when the twin towers burned and we poured out of our offices downtown and swarmed up Fifth Avenue. Then the faces were distraught. Now they were joyful. Then America had been assaulted by terror. Now it had been renewed by hope.
Ms. Brown is making the observation that the demeanor and emotional tenor of the two crowds are in contrast. Well, of course; why even bother to mention that? One was a group of people witness to a terrifying surprise attack in which thousands died; the other is watching a planned celebratory and ceremonial event.
If Brown had written “This was very different from 9/11″—indisputably true, but so what?—that statement would not have caught my attention. But the “reverse?” Did the three thousand dead spring to life? Did the planes fly out of the buildings, miraculously made whole, fires quenched? Have we returned to the innocent unawareness of 9/10?
For Brown, that return is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But Brown herself is not all that important, despite her status as a former star in the world of print journalism. The significance of her piece is that she has succinctly expressed what is behind much of the love for Obama: the depth of the need to undo 9/11 and its consequences, and to counter eight long years under the yoke of the dread and hated Bush.
[Note: Dr. Sanity appears to agree—with me, that is, not with Tina Brown. The doctor has written a wonderful post on the psychological phenomenon known as “undoing” (and although she wrote the following before the Tina Brown piece even appeared, it is nevertheless a perfect description of it):
[The intense feeling of Obama supporters] is not normal excitement or enthusiasm over an inauguration–even a very special or historic one. This is not even normal relief that now things are somehow going to be different. This is emotional excess that disguises a severe, disabling anxiety; an anxiety that has been tenously held in check by the psychological denial that came before. It is as if the bizarre national depression the media have been hyping for the last eight years suddenly flipped into a full-blown mania–with all the euphoria, grandiose ideas and plans, delusions of grandeur, wildly impulsive spending, irritability and inappropriateness one sees in an acute manic episode….
They will even go so far as to erase any evidence of events that have transpired since the beginning of the millennium when Bush took office and including 9/11–especially 9/11–so as to pretend they never happened.
They will simply ‘undo’ the last 8 years; rewrite the history and take us across the bridge back to the 20th century.]
Brilliant. It requires repeated reading, to go for in-depth conversation – I’ll do it tonight.
All “meat’, no “water”.
I second that, Tatyana. Your best and most important post to date, Neo.
This is why I am so worried.
So what happens if something horrible occurs, would it shock someone out of Obama-mania?
Depression then anger at him, or do they just go into denial mode, and declare that he always right in what he does?
I don’t know, I just keep getting a sinking feeling that his inexperience will lead him into having to over-react to make up for initial poor choices. All the while his loyal worshipers will refuse to see it.
As posted in an earlier thread, this type of unquestioning adulation strikes me (as a layman) as profoundly maladjusted. It’s as if these people are outsourcing judgment and prudence (and, yes, adulthood) to another who knows better than they do.
Of course, the garden variety liberal who doesn’t trust his own judgment is, paradoxically, in that particular case showing good judgment.
You could call the inaguration “The Rapture on the Mall” for the pseudo-religious claptrap that was repeated over and over by attendees into the microphones of the media. Here was a mass hypnosis with the subjects not even able to see or hear the Master. Makes me wonder what some of the big rallies for Hitler in the 30s were like. I’m used to seeing (on TV) throngs of people dancing mindlessly in front of their favorite rock stars, but this had an altogether different feeling. The stories published in the press told of people feeling compelled to travel in some cases hundreds of miles to Washington. Remember Richard Dreyfus as the obsessed lineman in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind?” It was that kind of irresistable urge operating on otherwise rational people. Gail Collins, the NYT columnist with a bad case of BDS, compared her experience with the one she had at Woodstock I. She didn’t share if she had been taking hallucinogens, but based on what my sister told me (she went) it’s a safe bet that BDS was preceded by LSD in Ms. Collins’ case. The feelings of connectedness and euphoria without a rational basis are also reminiscent of people’s experiences while on acid trips.
I keep thinking of Euripides’ play The Bacchae, with Obama as the vengeful Dionysus.
Theres something about the makeup of liberals that irrationally requires leadership of platitudinous words to shape a reality they’re comfortable with.
I have little doubt Obama could sanction waterboarding a terrorist, and immediately shape a perception among supporters until they’d swear the whole event was 180 degrees from anything Bush/Cheney.
Theres a good chance had Al Gore been President on 9/11, we’d be farther along in killing jihadist with Gore’s instinctual grasp of his fellow liberals need for reality support.
The piece by Tina brown is absolutely creepy. This is not observation it is thinly veiled sexual longing. And the point where she said “He wrapped me in his arms and I felt more secure than I had in eight years” gives it an almost incestual tinge – “the great father figure that I want to be literally possessed by.” It is really scary. 50% of the population has moved to Jonestown.
It is weird and creepy.
I accept that a certain amount of creepy love and creepy hate will find expression among the rank-and-file of blue and red (though there was precious little Bush love even on the right as I recall).
However, the problem I see is that at the highest levels–the Democratic leadership and the prominent members of the MSM we find Bush hate and Obama love.
Y’know, if he’s so f’in ‘cool’ how did he get all flustered and f up the oath?
This is inevitable, I think. The man cannot spend the next four years as a mirror, a Rorschach ink-blot in which everyone can see himself or herself. For the first time in decades, he will have to make actual executive decisions — which will inevitably be unpopular with some people. Politicians make enemies, whether they actually accomplish anything or not.
When a person’s cherished illusions shatter, it’s not a pretty thing to watch. I have a feeling we’re going to watch a lot of it over the next four years.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Dan, I hope she didn’t get nekkid, like at Woodstock!
We have not had access to Obama’s academic records from high school through college and then law school. We don’t know what kind of grades he got, what courses he took, and what this test scores were. We have really nothing to go on that would verify or falsify the claim of his many legions of besotted lovers that he is brilliant. The only thing they fling at us as “proof” of his brilliance: that he was an editor of The Harvard Law Review and that he had been accepted into Ivy League schools. But absent the benchmarks of academic merit and achievement, how do we know that it was not affirmative action that got him into those schools? How do we know anything about this man’s mind?
All we know is that his adoring, besotted followers are lined up, swooning to this Teleprompter Jesus.
Neo,
I find the adulation of President Obama all rather pitiful. It feels a little like the appalling sentimentality which followed the death of Princess Diana.
Predictably it is the same voices whose criticism of President Bush was so caustic. Bush committed the inexcusable rudeness of telling the truth, and having the courage of his convictions. In so doing he forced reality to disrupt the fantasy world inhabited by so many liberals.
Obama will no doubt attempt to sustain the fantasy world, imagining that it is possible to negotiate with Iran, to persuade the UN and EU to support the war against Islamofascism and to appease the domestic agenda of Islamists, but he will fail on all these issues. Unless of course he adopts the same politics as the hated Bush.
If he becomes Bush, he will be hated by his own constituency (like former Prime Minister Tony Blair, or indeed James Ramsay MacDonald). Unless he becomes Bush, the Islamist will be emboldened to attack, with ever increasing confidence and violence, both physically and in the culture war.
In either event the left will be disappointed, because the fantasy will be impossible to sustain, unless he has an unforeseen answer to a couple of pressing questions. ‘Mr President, what are you actually going to do, in order effectively to deter Islamist violence against Americans, and persuade American Muslims to reject the Islamist project and accept the American Constitution?’
The first of these questions will be fairly immediate, as the Iranian regime may be close to developing a nuclear device – 2009/10.
Or perhaps we are all wrong. Perhaps Mr bin Laden, President Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei and Mr Ayman al-Zawahiri, will be so charmed, so utterly overwhelmed by President Obama’s boyish good looks and charm, that they will abandon their professed ideological missions to evangelise Islam by violence, annihilate Israel, and impose justice Shari’a style.
I hope very much that I am wrong about Obama, and that his charm will work. If it does, and I am, I undertake to eat my bowler hat!
PS if anyone reads this post, and shares my hope that Europe may remain part of the free world, please visit the online petition in support of the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who is to be prosecuted for remarks considered by the Dutch Appeals Court to be ‘insulting’ to muslims. If he is convicted, and no one protests, Europe will have lost the freedom of expression, and will be sliding into dark and uncharted political waters. Your support is needed. You do not have to support his politics (which are simply neocon and NOT racist), to object to his prosecution.
“”When a person’s cherished illusions shatter, it’s not a pretty thing to watch.””
Theres a drug for shattered illusions. Its called liberalism. 9/11 should have shattered several memes like multiculturalism and appeasement. All it did was generate a demand for more drug. Obama turned out to be the purest uncut source they could find.
January 20, 2009 has been hailed as a historic day. I fear that it will turn out to be more historic than we can possibly imagine.
Is he as arrogant as he appears? Is it a mask to cover for personal insecurity? Which would be worse? One thing is certain, if the press, the congress and a large segment of the population are caught up in a rapturous adoration as they appear to be; we are on a slippery slope.
One of the snarky things said of George W. Bush that irritates me the most, is the label of frat boy personality. The man has been a Chief Executive in the public arena for 14 years (counting Texas of course); he was a successful business man before that. He quit drinking cold turkey because it was beginning to have too much control over him. He is one of the most disciplined individuals we have had the opportunity to scrutinize under a powerful microscope. And pissants call him a frat boy personality. AAAAGH! (Fighter pilot personality I could buy, but most of the babblers and scribblers don’t understand that so they use a label they think they do understand. As a former “frat boy” and fighter pilot I doubt they realy understand either term).
Good point.
First comes denial when reality strikes. Then rationalizing.
Then pretending it’s okay, what they meant all along.
Then it’s crow three times a day.
Or they’re going to have to pretend, or convince themselves, to love what they previously claimed to despise.
It’s going to be fun to watch.
Problem is, one way to stretch out the rapture is to appease, give away, and kick the can down the road.
That’s going to be scary.
oddflyer: “One of the snarky things said of George W. Bush that irritates me the most, is the label of frat boy personality. The man has been a Chief Executive in the public arena for 14 years (counting Texas of course); he was a successful business man before that. He quit drinking cold turkey because it was beginning to have too much control over him.”
I was scrolling down reading the comments with the intention of posting something about the “frat boy” thing myself, but I see you beat me to it. From what I have heard, the elder Bush suggested to the younger Bush that he should go talk to Billy Graham. Sometime after that (or during) the younger Bush had a religious conversion.
I’m not so sure that the Obamanauts are going to have that sort of moment of clarity. Given their tenuous relationship to reality (e.g., their dark mutterings the last few years about Bush taking over the government in a junta) and propensity for hysteria, I think they may well find some way to attribute any of Obama’s failings to someone else.
George, you’re up.
…And I just going to make a “I am Barrack Obama” video modeled on Michelle Malkin and friends “I am Sarah Palin” video.
Um, I’d have called it worship. I once attended a religious conference being put on by a “Christian” evangelical, charismatic religious cult. The behavior was much the same.
Excellent. Displacement — projection — scapegoating. Then send the poor goat into the wilderness to die, laden with your sins.
I’d love to know what you all think of the hypothesis this article: he takes a look at the Obamanoids’ fever, and dissects it at the basement level.
http://dennisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/deconstructing-barry.html
“Deconstructing Barry.” Refers to him as the Ghetto Gatsby and the void at the heart of the storm; but he spends his energies on analyzing why American citizens embrace Obama with such unnerving and unprecedented fervor.
I think he’s got it. (Dennis Dale, that is)
“”Um, I’d have called it worship.””
And isn’t it interesting that the most dangerous religion in the country is the only one established and unashamedly sanctioned by the government.
“But the “reverse?” Did the three thousand dead spring to life? Did the planes fly out of the buildings, miraculously made whole, fires quenched? Have we returned to the innocent unawareness of 9/10?”
Reminds me of the tv insurance commercial (can’t remember the company name), in which the disaster to the house is played backwards when the insurance company addresses the damages. Specifically Obama’s very recent use of the Katrina issue (against Bush), and suggesting they would have done so much better, and now will put “everything” back together better than ever… The expectations of the federal government, and associated fantasy life of these blowhards is surreal, it’s hard to believe they are educated adults.
he is loved the way a polished sociopath is loved because he cultivates things that way. he is a foil, he forces you to fill in the blanks, and if your used to filling them in with whatever you LIKE rather than something by principal, then your going to love him or rather be infatuated in him.
so many bring up the concepts of style over substance, what i refer to as cargo cult… it can be exhibited by the sociopath originator, or the follower that adopts the ‘logic’ or points without examination.
parasites are incomplete people as are symbionts, the difference is whether they like each other. if you look at life and entities as a competition of genomes and lineages (which it is) all running on a treadmill to knowhere (till we leave planet), then some types of people makes some interesting sense. as the bulk size of the species grows, sorting occurs, and these types start to link up against the ‘norm’. the norm is basically the mean in a small group… NOT the sum in a huge population. put this way…. a sociopath, or a autistic, would be so rare as to not be noticed.
contrary to populat left belief, there is no way to stop darwinian development (the closest to it would be to create a source clone, put it in stasis, and create the whole population from that entity as first source every time).
as populations get larger, and asortative mating occurs through both halves of the genetic recipe, conditions and syndromes that would be incredibly rare, start to become more prevalent.
what is happening is that the species is blowing out to try new things, and what might be rare, could in this new situation, pool up, and become a force to challenge the rest of the types. while this not possible with autistics, it is possible with sub clinical sociopaths in the modern age.
even worse, is that the ideologies dominating in the battle were started by people that understood darwin before the well had been poisoned by a failed attempt to make engels conflagration that would sweep the world. by the first two sociopathic mechanized forces who concieved of war with no rules, no honor, and no limits, till they either are exterminated, or they exterminate the other who fails to realize the situation.
you see, after one fell (russia), then another fell (germany), then all they had to do is keep going by getting the sociopathic to link up and learn how to be more effective at manipulating and share how not to get caught.
you hide your goal by never speaking of it ever, and writing papers that reveal technique and process. those receptive to leveraging such will learn, others will find it interesting but not have the balls to execute.
so what is happening is the revolt of the parasites, whose ideology only seeks to enslave the mass of the good (which is the successful mean in small populations), exterminate their troublesome numbers, promote their own numbers, invert the genetics to be the new dominant socialist man, whose purpose is to suck the life out of those it used to have to skulk in the dark to victimize, and did so with such poor ability…
ask any forensic psychologist what happens when two sociopaths get together how they feed off each other.
everyone is too busy arguing a morals that for them dont exist, a guilt that tey dont care about, and end that is for them, and not you.
all that need be done is for good men to do nothing.
maybe if i list some things and hope they reveal the pattern.
they like terrorists, pedophiles… their changes make people easier to victimize without repurcussions.. they remove weapons from the good so they can help those like them to prey on others… they like misery and sadism, the way others like sunshine and flowers. they have set families to be destroyed.. which would favor making functional sociopaths out of what would be normal people. their favorite kind of state is the aristocratic feudal one, where one only has to worry about whats above you, but can parasite as you please below you.
want to know why they are closing down gitmo, and why a serial killer takes claim for crimes they didnt commit once caught. its roughly the same reason.
the serial killer cant hurt or do nasty anymore, it was its greatest joy. but if it takes credit for others things, it can keep another one out there doing more harm by proxy. birds of a feather…
human types naturally link up with their resonant types, the trick is to pool them. and then hide the meaningfulness of their linkages.
on the gitmo thing, it has nothing to do with any of the arguments that are provided like hampster chewsticks to the rest… got to keep your teeth/mind sharp, so they keep coming up with ways for the people to gnaw on meaningless things so they dont get in the way, or actually develope real skills that may threaten the situation.
this is all natural, just as good people will naturally help another person when they drop a stack of presents… but we dont know our natures any more… and we are all the same, so there are no different people… we are also conviently offing ourselves. cause the nasty way was not workable, so patients, constant bias, and cunning will do it.
problem is that this is the parasite.. they are cunning, but cunning isnt intelligence. of course everyone thinks everyone else thinks like them, so the parasites think that the others think like they do. which is why they always come up with these bizare paranoid things and project them. they think their enemies think like they do… JUST as the other type is also making the fatal mistake of thinking that sociopaths and the arguments are just like they are.
so one side ignores slights because they dont mean to hurt people, so it must not be intentional.
and the other side gets paranoid because the alligator they see never snaps at them, and so the tension forces them to think that there are more and more complicated plans against them…
the parasites have cunning… it looks like intelligence, but has no substance.
they live among others, but prey on them rather than actually work (their genetic benifit comes from less expenditure, more benefit, more power), so they cant actually do things. they are cargo cult, they are form with no substance. but they think that the other sides intelligence is cunning that they dont understand…
they dont get that the world works by principals because their principals is to work the people that can work the world.
they are parasites, and when they control everything, they cause a trajedy of the commons in genetics, and they ruin the system because parasites cant exist as the dominant class EVER.. and neither can symbionts.
[want to know why women are not as represented in the hard sciences. they are symbionts who rely on getting their needs from their male hosts. the males can outproduce their needs, and so are the ‘providers’ to there symbionts, which both love each other for the mutual benifit such relationships bring. it was easy to turn the symbionts in this arangments into parasites, but it took sociopathis in law and ideology to do it. the men are already voting what happens when the parasites take hold, they are not mating, marrying, or providing (we say they have a failure to launch). of course the core women of the feminist movements are the real parasites, just read the quotes i have put up.
read their works, they see everyting in terms of power and weakness, victim and prey, top and bottom (and they top from the bottom incredibly well).
same with other groups… isnt it funny that rap cant be linked to h rap brown? and that the originators were high up in a branch of the ideology center? the samepeople who read adorno, the primitivization… and who took the rap of h rap brown and copied his poetry style from die ni**** die… then they circumvented the distribution so that they could inject this into the one target community (the feminists did the same thing with the womens mags and linked up with big tobacco and liquore to beat out redbook, then dictate to women how to be, and they ate it all up).
the earliest rappers parents were like obamas parents, originators of other major movemtns, like the black panthers and the black national socialists. they then used what adorno taught, which is that when you primitivise the music, people dont listen to the meaning of the lyrics. like the double game in arguing within an unchallenged false framework, the meaning embedded in the framwork is ignored, but rpeated over and over. (our brains have no filters to really categorize what we are learning… and we no longer care to choose what we put in it, as we are no longer allowed to know how we work. we might notice others who are different and then not tolerate their games in our midst).
you then take the money from this, and you put it back in and you create merchandizing… you then use our tribal grouping kind of thing… you create a culture out of that framework embedded in the music. you create clothes that helps the sociopath terrorize people and not get caught…and when everyone wears it, you cant find the culprits. their clothes are baggy, so you acnt tell the weight… hoods so you cant tell the face… but crack showing because its outrageous and will take your attention away from a salient description point, like the face, tattoos, rings, etc.
they believe people are blank slates and thye look down on the good people because they are easy to manipulate. they are weak, and the weak are held in contempt.
the more they take power, the less things function. the more violent things get. and the more totalitarian it gets, becuas ethey are illusion over substance.
russia had to steal the bomb, and technology… they look down on the weak, but the weak can do something that these strong cant do… they can produce beyond their own needs, and so create a society large enough to support lots of parasites.
jesus was right.. the meak shall inherit the earth… but after the strong parasites starve themselves out by over predating their source of life.
for those caught in this that are not that way, learn it, hide it, or be lucky… because this is beyond stopping without disaster… and may not be stoppable till it all falls apart to the point that a new industrial revolution causes the power revolt and puts the people back in charge.
interesting thing is that this could never succeed if they didnt stop us from going into space. planning to store nuclear material for 10,000 years… and being so afraid of pollution… they arent going to let us expand to the universe… then the good would inherit it all as they dominate.
[want to know why there are gays, and why gays occur more frequently the larger the family gets? its pretty simple… the first ones are most important to be maters… the others are less important they mate, and more important that when they do mate, they are either dead ends or underproductive! do the math… they are genetic decoys… if you have a son, and the next two are a boy and a girl and they are gay… what will happen in the small group (not the large city where such types can pool beyond their intended function, like sociopaths, and the abuse they get helps them function like them), is that they will go out… they will not have flagrant free sex.. they will marry someone elses son and daughter.. and they will be horrid ffor the other genetic line… the males will not mate muich… the females willsee sex as rape… they will basically become feminists before the rare mentality was made a way of thinking (ideology). this makes it easy to understand why they are shunned by ‘normal’ people, because they are timebombs for their family lines. its why first borns are favored… ]
avoiding sociopathic unions, and decoy unions is important in small groupings where such can vault a small family line, into dominance. so it became important for reputation, and for families to know each other and know what kind of person they were getting… literally..
so is it any wonder that the sociopathic parasitical would want to destroy culture which informs the good to watch out… dont increse these… do not favor what they favor, because sin is how they tempt you… etc… maybe you might wrap some of it in symbology and put it in religion… which would make religion the enemy too… because the virtues would embody how to behave in a way that is completley sickening to the predatory class, who wants to eat the cow, not dance with it.
sometimes the bigger picture is more interesting than a belly button…
thats my last post for a while..
take care all…
hope you found it all interesting…
see ya soon… maybe… 🙂
http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/l/living_colour/cult_of_personality.html
Pretty much describes Barack and the Obamatons in a nutshell.
Put another way: “Berlin Diary” by William Shirer:He has become – even before his death – a myth, a legend, almost a god, with that quality of divinity which the Japanese people ascribe to their Emperor. To many Germans, he is a figure remote, unreal, hardly human. For them he has become infallible. They say, as many peoples down through history have said of their respective gods: “He is always right”………..
i have to say just one thing that people are not getting…
So what happens if something horrible occurs, would it shock someone out of Obama-mania?
thats when the totalitarian stuff starts happening.. hitler was not disliked, nor mussolini… they still like stalin… and mao is still a major hero…
the stamford experiment shows what will happen, but its small.. this is writ large. the more things fail the more punitive they will get to be effective because they cant choose things from empirical things that will work, they are incomplete, they are cunning, not intelligent.
the sociopathic parasites will become more and more punitive. they will stop the counter revolution!! the protesting that the good and just allow, they dont allow…
thats when they will name the protesters the violent right… thats when they will fire up the demonizaiton you already see against other oppressor groups…
at some point, they are going to either accept stepping down, or they will have to fire into the crowds.
been trying to explain how it works… what leads up to it… the mentalitties necessary… the process that is used… the principals of operation..
but everyone is hung up on labels, and how labels change rteality, they cant boil this down to the bare bones.
what i just put up is as bare bones as you are ever going to get… no ideology, no religion, just empirical principals and unclouded looking at whats around.
just read about venezuela…
around the time that chavez came to power, what happened with student protests? they were not nice, but nothing happened to the students. the good people have accepted the false argument that there is no change through reform within the systems process (which is a lie because its always been evolving), and so political terrorism became normed.. just as other abnormal views became normed…
so that flips the power base, and then how does the power base act? (either covertly or overtly. covertly is laws and then waiting till they are stricken, and so forth. a law that is not constitutional will operate for a while, and a while is all ya need. same as those symbolic laws they ahve been putting up. suspend the constition, and voila, they instantly are valid).
just as they said the right behaved (the cunning side projects cunning, and so becomes paranoid, and so telegraphs their own actions), is how they are going to behave.
they have been projecting all along… so they are telling you what they will do…
Opposition Stirs Violence in Venezuela
link deleted for filter
Right wing groups generate violence and play victims, and “are the ones concocting these plans to blame the revolutionary student movement.”
and within a week to make it look like these were right wing protests and forbidden, they have left wing protests that celebrate chavez
Venezuela Students Rally for Chavez
link deleted for filter
Thousands of Venezuelan students marched Wednesday in Caracas and other cities in support of the government of Hugo Chavez and in repudiation of the violent demonstrations held by a sector of students tied to the opposition
guys, they are cargo cult.. they just keep repeating the script and trying it over and over adjusting it each time…they have no principals to work off of, and dont even believe they exist but are a cunning plot of the other side, like logic
everything is stolen.. the ideology, the substance… the techniques… the technology… the very property and the very state…
the reason history keeps repeating is that they keep practicing!!!
the other side has intelligence, and biology on their side… (parasites are incomplete, if they win, they lose, the best they can do is maintain their place and not be known… but they will get known through genetics, logic, valid education, and other sciences… which is why they try to assert ideology over empericism, soft science over hard science, it can reveal them).
the other side can think and so adapt faster than the parasites can set up the chess board. hence history seems to be an endless series of close calls.
its in front of us… you only have to get out of the pool to look at all the water, rather than stay in and have very limited view and motion.
we can shift our perspective and our closeness… but if we are too emotional, we cant do it… ergo, emotions are cool, logic is not…
because logic can also reveal the parasite masquerading in the masses…
Artfldgr types all that from his cell phone I bet.
Dave Grossman wrote about this in his essay Bipartisanship Didn’t Make It to the Weekend.
“Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, ‘Baa.’
“Until the wolf shows up! Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog….”
Modern liberals take Grossman’s metaphor to the next level. They are sheep who continue to hate the sheepdog even after the wolf has killed part of the flock. They insist that the wolf is a fluffy bunny and that it is the sheepdog that is the menace that must be destroyed.
Grossman continues:
“Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn’t bring your gun, you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness, and horror at your moment of truth.”
Today’s denialists kill a third time: By denying that there was a moment of truth on 9/11, they destroy their own souls to avoid facing this unpleasant reality. And, to echo Orwell’s comments on pacifism 70 years ago, they become they become, objectively speaking, collaborators with the wolf.
Oops: the previous link was supposed to be titled “On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves.”
That’s what I get for using cut-and-paste to create links.
Logern…. you blew my concentration for the night with your comment about the cell phone!!
But excellent comments all — especially the references to pieces by those knowlegeable about psychology, and the discussions about the “degree” of worship, how and or why it develops.
As much as I hope I’m the one who is way off (as in, off in the wrong direction) because I have felt nothing for “The One” since day one (I just don’t hear the “tune”), the theories just increase my sense of foreboding….
But then, there’s another way to think about this: there is a thin line between Love and Hate…….
They can’t see a sheepdog without projecting the face and motives of a Kent State national guard onto them.
Notice how so many liberal premises are based on projecting rare exceptions into the realm of the norm. All evangelist are Jimmy Swaggart. All southerners are hicks. All terror suspects are innocent. All American soldiers are guilty. All republicans are racist…..
The list is practically endless of judgements writ in stone then evidence gathered. And they think conservatism sees the world in black and white.
I just read how Obama said “I won” to the GOP today.
Had Bush said that, the press and the dems would be screaming about how arrogant and divisive he was.
But no, it gets not a mention.
The end of your post was exactly right–we are going backwards to the failed socialist experiments of the last century! One of my students thought that Obama represented something new, but Obama is precisely something old and failed. THIS time we’ll make it work! But it never will.
Jeannine, you are exactly right in that observation. Where do you think your students have acquired their fondness for socialism? (I’m assuming it’s definitely not from you).
I think the kids are projecting on to Obama the ideas and hopes THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PUT THERE. Now, he does drop hints every now and then that he truly is a man of the Left, but he’s subtle about that and tries to not blare it from the mountain tops.
You won’t get from Obama an exposition on the ideas of Gramsci, Adorno, Marx, and Marcuse. He does not provide the kids with the provenance of his ideas or even their ideas.
He’s merely reaping the harvest that has already been prepared for him. And that’s the truth.
The story here is about reaction to President Obama, and not necessarily the man himself.
What percentage of the population is actually enraptured by President Obama in all the ways that are suggested, ie actual anti-American, multi-culti Leftists? Polls suggest this number is small, though they are disproportionately noisy and annoying.
What percent are are excited by the symbolic narrative that he represents? President Obama started running as the symbolic second coming of Martin Luther King. The financial panic allowed him to add on the symbolism of the second coming of FDR.
This is probably a much bigger number.
We should have a conversation about what is so potent about these two narratives–and especially the African-American Civil Rights narrative–that make them so exciting to large numbers of people who don’t seem to know enough about anything to have an opinion about the issues we face today. Shelby Steele had a great line about white Americans being a “stigmatized people” as a result of experiences that went along with the Civil Rights movement.
What percent are merely Democrats who are happy that there guy is in, the other guy is out, and so they get to do a lot more for their policy goals and constituents? A good number, I would think.
What percent are temporarily excited by and swept up in the hysteria? This is probably a bigger number still.
I have argued elsewhere that what characterizes the modern Democratic party is extreme sensitivity to urban social anxieties. If people have a hope or expectation that these anxieties are about to be removed, one would expect a mass outpouring of emotion. The result would feel like hysteria and look like the Dianafication of American politics.
How they will react when the same old anxieties come back remains to be seen.
Does anyone remember that back at the beginning, when Bush won, the most vocal objections to George W. were “his smirk”, and “his swagger”. And Bush said–I don’t know, in Texas we call it walking.
They went from that to the drunkard bit, and then the search for the possibility that he used cocaine, and sent something like 45 reporters up to Yale searching for evidence among anyone who had ever known him. All the other hatreds came along much later. Interesting.
Too many people have bought the bill of goods that suggest our financial problems and inequality problems have an emotional solution. Mr Obama is this emotion made flesh.
The hallmark of being a responsible adult is to understand how emotions cloud issues and their rational solutions. You can dress emotion up in a fancy suit and lawyerly language, and its still base emotion.
I went to a dinner last night, after a viewing. My oldest friend’s father passed. I sat among people I have known for 45 years, to 20 years. I saw many I have not seen in over 30 years, having moved around this country.
Conversation went in many directions. I was amazed at information some had, and some did not, about the same subject of conversation.
It made me realize even more clearly, that the majority of people formulate their opinions from MSM in print and on the tube, than from anywhere else. And those people are Obama lovers.
They do not see things as I do, having not heard the take I have heard on a subject or situation. Of course I hear the MSM version of things, one can’t hide from it. But blogs, web sites. talk radio provide an alternative to weigh against. These people don’t have that.
It’s also funny. The lefties’ kids have piercings, tatoos, attitudes and lack of respect toward their parents and others of the parents’ age group, and do not even attempt to hide the fact. The young males were dressed casually. The young ladies dressed to attract the male hormones. The more conservative folks’ kids had suits and ties and nice dresses on. The kids, much more than the parents, ended up in separate groups at separate tables.
The Bush haters and Obama lovers were out in force. The fact I was given two eyes, two ears, and only one mouth became more clear than ever. I left early from the dinner. Couldn’t take much more. I’d have begun to speak up. It was not the time or place.
pst314, Bill Whittle wrote a magnificent essay, Tribes, over on ejectejecteject.com, in which he refers to Grossman and the sheepdog/sheep/wolves metaphor; one of his commentators then stated that the metaphor goes back to Plato in The Republic. I haven’t read it, but I wouldn’t be surprised; there seems to be truth in the the claim that all of Western philosphy is either Plato or commentaries on Plato.
I see a connection between Neo’s insight that Bush-hatred is grounded in the fact that he made us face the reality of terrorism and the oft-heard criticism from the left over the past eight years that his foreign policy constituted fear-mongering.
My own reaction after a relative died on September 11 didn’t feel like fear so much as outrage, dawning realization, and eventually, grim resolve. I’ve never quite gotten the “fear-mongering” claim. Yes, it may induce fear to point out that a threat exists. But the fear comes from the existence of the threat, not the fact that somebody pointed it out. Pretending that the threat doesn’t exist may be more comfortable, but it won’t make the threat go away.
I never quite comprehended the argument that it is somehow less fearful to react to the discovery that a threat exists by crouching in a corner with eyes squeezed shut and fingers in ears yelling “LA LA LA THERE’S NOTHING THERE I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” than to study the threat with eyes wide open and think about what should be done about it. Both reactions certainly include fear. But in which one, I ask you, has fear won?
So this makes sense. What made some people so mad at Bush is that he kept them from denying that a threat exists, and they felt fear. Ergo, their fear was his fault, and he and his supporters were fear-mongerers. It will be interesting over the next few years to see how those who made this claim react to Obama’s handling of this issue. If he behaves as if the threat is real — and watching his moves so far, I’m thinking that he just might — will he, too, become a fear-mongerer in their eyes?
You people are too funny. I’m surprised you even looked up from polishing your bronze busts of Bush’s head (which actually are for sale via National Review) to be shocked by the idea of people actually being excited by another politician who doesn’t share your views.
Of course, nothing I say will produce anything but a howl of rage from these quarters, so just remember: the world has proved you wrong repeatedly. I just hope, if things actually do improve under the Obama administration, that you can appreciate it.
I am right to be extremely uneasy about Obama and to be skeptical of him because:
Although in his autobiographical, “Dreams From My Father” Obama wrote about his early Muslim schooling in Jakarta, Indonesia during the time his mother was married to her second husband, Muslim Lolo Soetoro, his campaign website consistently denied that this Muslim education ever took place. The MSM helped by not publicizing the fact that researchers who took the time to go to Indonesia and scrutinize Obama’s school records and talk to Obama’s schoolmates, found ample evidence of Obama being registered in Jakarta schools as a Muslim, attending the required Muslim religious training, going to the Mosque with his step-father and, indeed, being enrolled in supplementary classes in recitation of the Qur’an and being fairly religious.
The press has played down the fact that Obama’s father was a Muslim and a Socialist, a tribesman from the mostly Muslim Luo tribe in Kenya. Moreover, as a sitting U.S. Senator, Obama took the time to go to Kenya–on the taxpayers nickel–where he and Michelle very actively campaigned for several days for a fellow Luo tribesman, a Muslim and Communist, educated in Communist East Germany; Raila Odinga, nicknamed the “Butcher of Kenya” for the hundreds of murders his supporters are responsible for. According to the statements of Muslim leaders themselves–backed up by the text of the signed agreement that was printed in the press–Odinga signed an agreement that, if Odinga had won the Presidency, would have put majority Christian Kenya under Sharia law in return for Muslim leaders delivering Muslim votes to him. Odinga didn’t win, but in order to stop the destruction, killing and rioting by his supporters, that saw hundreds of Christian Kenyans killed by these machete wielding gangs, and an estimated hundred thousand or more Kenyans fleeing their homes to escape the violence, he was given the position of Prime Minister by the government.
We don’t even know if Obama met the Constitution’s test of being a “natural born citizen,” because he has refused to release a copy of his original long form birth certificate, and has spent considerable time, money and effort fighting tooth and nail in various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, against producing this document. Somehow, the fact that governmental officials from the deeply Democratic state of Hawaii have told us that they have viewed his birth certificate and that “all is in order” does not reassure me in the least. I know where I would place my bet.
We know nothing of his academic record since he has refused–as have the universities he attended–to release his undergraduate and law school records. Moreover, when he was head of the Harvard Law Review he wrote exactly one brief law note, and during his ten plus years as a lecturer in law at the University of Chicago, he published not one single article or book.
Obama just never speaks of his four years of ‘executive experience” as Director of the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago where, along with Bill Ayers, he steered over $100 million dollars–some say over $200 million–to far left groups and programs that were supposed to reinvigorate and upgrade Chicago’s abysmal schools. Result–all parties concerned, and outside observers as well, agreed that the Challenge was a colossal failure.
Obama has never explained how he managed his meteoric rise through the legendarily corrupt Chicago political machine.
Then, there is the matter of Obama’s over 130 “present” votes when he was an Illinois state Senator. More worrisome is the fact that, in his four years as a U.S. Senator, Obama proposed and saw voted into law exactly one minor bill dealing with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and that as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Western Europe–which has oversight over NATO and, thus, the War in Afghanistan–he held not one hearing at all on any subject.
I could go on and on, but you get the drift.
In sum, the American public has just bought the classic “pig in a poke” and has no clue–certainly not any clue from Obama’s empty rhetoric about “Hope” and Change”–about who it has just elected, and handed the most mighty power in the world and all our futures to.
Wonderful, wonderful piece, neo. And somewhat terrifying in the full context of history.
I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, and no doubt others have made a similar observation: folks who’ve been waiting, so far in vain, for evidence of Obama Derangement Syndrome need only do an about face. They have only to examine the behavior of the throngs of mindless idolaters, mass-hypnotized by the media’s depiction of this fraud going (at least) as far back as 8/28/08, to realize that they have simply been looking in the wrong direction. ODS has been right there, in plain sight, for some time now.
Conventional wisdom might have suggested that since BDS afflicted those with an irrational hatred of GWB, ODS would be its polar opposite with respect to BHO. Not so. And it’s not so in a way that echoes the fallacy of Brown’s “9/11 in reverse“.
Psychology researcher Jonathan Haidt’s work in understanding the difference between self-described liberals and conservatives goes a long, long way in explaining how this all works.
The key, IMHO, is in understanding who is most likely to engage in irrational behavior. For my money, Haidt’s documented characterization of the liberal/left, whose intuitive ethical development is at best 2/5 complete, answers this question completely.
I recommend Haidt’s work, but hasten to add that he doesn’t go as far as to label the liberal/left’s condition as moral adolescence, which is precisely what it is. When he starts asking why he sees the differences he’s documented – in every culture examined – that conclusion will be inescapable.
But more importantly, what we choose to do with that revelation, as timeless and pervasive as it is, may well determine whether we fall to Santayana’s dictum or we break the cyclic decline suffered by all the great civilizations that went before us.
Dear Loyal:
“Of course, nothing I say will produce anything but a howl of rage from these quarters, so just remember: the world has proved you wrong repeatedly. I just hope, if things actually do improve under the Obama administration, that you can appreciate it.”
So, why bother commenting at all? Is this just pulling the wings off flies, or what? Here’s how to write a post that’s worth reading: if you’re a fan of Obama, write about that. Give reasons. If you have a beef about how “we” have been repeatedly proved wrong (by “the world,” which brings up all kinds of interesting questions and topics you don’t address) well, for heavens’ sake – write about that! It’s helpful if you use actual facts, not grandiose, sweeping, and non-specific accusations. The point is to engage in dialogue – not diatribe.
Parachuting in to sneer and throw insults around is not terribly impressive, and leaves the reader to conclude that you are simply full of Achates. Come on back when you have something interesting to say.
there is indeed a lot that links the “irrationality” of bushwhacking to its mirror – obamadoration … question is whether they are separate impulses that share common characteristics, or if they’re both manifestations of some higher-order reality in modern politics
wonder if you’ve read Gustave Le Bon’s “The Crowd”?
them that put out the eyes of the people now curse them for their blindness (to paraphrase milton) .. could it be?
cheers!
Mrs. Whatsit, I’ve never gotten that one either. If a rattlesnake set up housekeeping under my front porch, I’d kill it. I wouldn’t be quaking in terror, but they’re a threat I don’t want around. Same thing with Muslim terrorists.
The “fear-mongering” meme is especially amusing given that those prone to using it commonly segue from that into a hysterical rant about global warming exterminating us all, a laughable proposition.
You missed the point. The point was that anyone who is excited by any politician is a nitwit. The President is the CEO of the country. Who is “excited” by the CEO of, say, GE, or Microsoft? To be “excited” is to indulge in adolescent hero worship to make up for one’s own lack of substance.
Nonsense.
And if they don’t…? If Obama dismantles Bush’s security measures and we’re attacked again? What will be your reaction to that? More “excitement?”
Whatsit,
The PEOPLE have control over this country.
For anybody who thinks the value of homes and the stock market plummeted because of any actions of the President is uneducated.
Stocks and home values plunged because PEOPLE lost confidence due to the credit crunch.
People divested including my lady. People also divested BECAUSE OF Obama’s stated policies of higher capital gains rates and higher income tax rates for people like me and my lady.
The president can’t control that downward value spiral. Only the people can control what the values of their homes are.
People idiotically bought into teaser rate adjustable loans. I didn’t. People bought into more home than they can afford and are now upside down in value versus what they owe.
It is the people who did this to themselves. Anybody who wants to blame greedy corporations for the actions that people took in greed and politicians gave the green light for is uneducated.
And guess who was for these teaser rate loans???
Obama, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank – these are the men that people put their hope and faith in.
Guess who was trying to reform this stuff in 2005 and 2006?
McCain and Bush.
Journalism is dead. And the masses who put their faith in a man who helped cause value plummetting and divesting got what they deserved.
Who is hurt? All of us.
Who is helped? The power grabbing cradle to grave nanny state Democrats ACTING like they ‘care’ more than Republicans.
Conservatives have policies that are better. They want to teach people how to fish rather than give them fish. Democrat policies create dependency and DILUTE the safety net that is needed for elderly and non-able bodied people.
That – is the way I see it. And I’ve been paying attention to this stuff since 1990. Converted from liberalism in 1991 after a trip to the library 3 times a week that year….
br549 –
I hear you about speaking up.
It is very important to do at the right time and the right place. But also when you are in the right frame of mind.
The other day, I was talking with a wonderful woman I know who is an avid Obama supporter. She is about the 10th person I’ve heard go on and on about how “well-behaved” the inauguration crowds were, how there were no arrests and no problems, just millions and millions of peaceful, well-meaning patriotic citizens.
I just want to scream! Of course! Folks on the right don’t protest and throw eggs and create posters with images of our president beheaded and overturn cars!
Spoiled brats always are wonderful to be around when they get their way.
Argh!!!! I’m going to a dinner tonight and I know it is going to be the exact same thing all over again. I don’t want to make enemies or make the evening uncomfortable. I realize there are times when you should speak your mind and times when you shouldn’t.
But I’m rapidly losing my ability to keep my mouth shut, even when I should.
Deana
Curious to see if the idiom “pig in a poke” I used in my post above was apt, I did a little research and discovered it was much more apt than I thought.
According to several sources, this ancient idiom originated in the Late Middle Ages, and was used to describe a swindle (no doubt perfected before humans even acquired speech) in which someone intent on buying a pig is sold a bag i.e. a “poke” with a wiggling animal in it, that the seller tells the buyer is a suckling pig. The buyer never looks into the bag but pays for the pig and proceeds homeward, and at some point he opens the bag to discover it contains a cat.
Buyers back then were advised to see if they were buying a pig by opening the bag, thus sometimes “letting the cat out of the bag” or being “left holding the bag” after the cat jumped out.
Deana, my sympathies. It’s really difficult to maintain around clowns like that, who for some reason invariably assume everyone else shares their views.
At a business lunch meeting a few months ago a Taiwanese import went on a rant about how stupid Bush was, what a disaster, etc. Several of us just concentrated on our plates, but I was sorely tempted to tell him that some consider e biggest problem with Bush was letting too many foreigners enter the country (legally and illegally), just to see his reaction.
He’s perfectly entitled to his views, but how boorish do you have to be to 1) bring up politics at a business meeting, 2) compound tht faux pas by engaging in a vitriolic rant on politics, and 3) publicly criticize the nation that took you in and gave you great opportunities?
All I can say is that you haven’t been truly annoyed until you endured a BDS rant in broken English by an ingrate right off the boat.
“”who for some reason invariably assume everyone else shares their views.””
So true. The average Obamaton thinks the election came out 90%- 10% for some reason. Probably just more imagined perception being an active and integral part of their reality.
SteveH, here in the People’s Republic of California those few remaining Americans have a great riposte to liberals talking about “landslides.” By great good fortune, Prop. 8 (defining marriage as …well, marriage) passed by exactly the same margin as Obama won.
So…did California vote in a landslide to reject homosexual “marriage?” I’ll give them Obama’s landslide if they’ll give us that one. And if not, not.
Well, the die is cast. It’s reported that Republican objections to some of Obama’s ideas for stimulus were met by the observation that, “I won.”
We are going to see all the liberal presciptions for defense, foreign policy, and domestic programs going into high gear.
Already Gitmo has been ordered closed, and Army field manual protocol is now the standard for any terrorists who become prisoners. NGOs have been authorized to counsel on the benefits of abortion overseas. High powered diplomats have been appointed to solve problems in Palestine and Pakistan. A stimulus plan that favors alternative energy, bailing out states with money problems, redistributing money to those who don’t pay taxes, and much, much more – all things that have been described as pushing on a string in terms of stimulating the economy – is on its way. This in just the first three days of the Obama presidency. I fear there is much more to come.
It is our job to clearly point out where and why we disagree with the actions of the Obama, Reid, Pelosi led government. It is necessary to point out the specifics when liberal policies fail and to have alternative policies ready to replace failed ideas. It is important to establish a counter to the cheerleading of the MSM. Most of this work has to be done on the Internet and in person to person communication because the MSM will not do its job. It is also important to do this without ad hominem insults. Hate is a corrosive emotion and interferes with clear thinking. If you doubt that, consider the intellectual level of those inflicted with BDS for the last eight years.
The libs have now got the controls of the ship of state. We must carefully observe and record what they are doing. I am certain that many of their policies will create more problems for us. I will, however, be ready to admit if some of their prescriptions actually work. Don’t lose hope. Those of us who believe in conservative solutions to problems must renew our efforts and keep up a stalwart loyal opposition.
I’m old enough to vaguely remember the tv shows like Laughin and Smothers Brothers and the political power they weilded. We need our own version for the next 4 years with the balls to point out the absurdity of political correctness and its democrat masters.
We are the anti establishment now. Time to take advantage of people who’ll grow increasingly tired of being told what and how to think as their standard of living plummets.
“Bill Whittle wrote a magnificent essay, Tribes”
Yes, I read it when it first appeared and agree that it is very fine. Anyone who has not yet read Bill Whittle should go to his site and read every essay. And maybe buy the book.
A guest on a recent Oprah gushed about Obama, saying of him that “the light of the New Age is here.” Such idolatry, I predict, will be extremely hard to crack.
Deana:
The time and place was a dinner paying respects to my oldest and dearest friend’s father. I was not about to engage in any political confrontation there.
It did not stop the Obama lovers from bad mouthing Bush and republicans in general, as for 8 years or more, it has been the topic of most conversations among people. A few of us looked at each other with knowing eyes, but said nothing. In another time and place, oh!, it would have been lively. I do love to watch them spew.
At social gatherings I avoid politics like the plague, unless I pick up “tells” from other Republicans who are staying under the radar like me. When among the rabid socialists and liberals, who are foaming at the mouth about Boooossssssshhhhhhh, I look away, remain silent, and try to find a way to slip away. What can I say? These people are so emotional and to get into a debate with them is pointless: they only shout over you and “emote” more powerfully. It is impossible for these people to have a calm, rational discussion.
Fred, I love the expression “tells” re Republicans. At my business lunch described above, I too noticed the people who failed to “Harumph” (as in Blazing Saddles) at the appropriate points, and were suddenly fascinated by their plates.
In a later conversation with one of them after a little prompting he eventually came out of the closet, slowly, hesitantly, tentatively, until he realized he was among friends.
Spot On Neocon.
I cannot go to a meeting or meet any of my lib friends without comments that express relief and hope now that Obama has taken the reigns. There seems to be a drugged look in the eyes and a thirsty look for the next high. Bizarro.
If what was experienced under Bush was depression, and for Obama it was mania, what is next? If we are to follow the course of maniac depression there is going to be one huge crushing depression. I don’t think the manic phase can be sustained. But than who would have dreamed the hatred of Bush could grow as it did? Could the adoration of Obama grow even more frenzied? If so, that is pretty worrisome.
Dinner party rules for conservatives:
There are some simple techniques for dealing with dinner party blowhards and social bush-bashers/obamatrons.
1. When they start ranting, just say “Now, now” in a genial tone of voice with a smile on your face. It is amazingly effective, and lots of people will want to talk to you afterward.
2. When someone offers a bumper-sticker sentiment as a deep thought on some issue of the day, ask “Do you study that closely?” in a mild manner. Most often, there will be stunned silence followed by a hasty change of topic.
3. If someone wants to rant on after #2, just keep asking questions about where they get their information, their views of the implications of their position, how they do the cost/benefit analysis, their response to some authority’s (particularly some liberal authority’s) criticism of their position, etc. Force them to clarify their points. In most cases they start embarrassing themselves within about 45 seconds. Very few come back for this treatment twice.
4. Restate their positions without euphemism and in the clearest possible terms: remember Orwell on how people would react to Oxbridge types defending Stalin’s purges if the apologists had to say, “I support killing people when you can get good results by doing so.” It is very gratifying to see how uncomfortable social liberals get when you strip away the euphemisms. Someone will change the topic within 30 seconds.
5. Avoid stating your own position or contradicting the blowhard. If asked whether you agree with the blowhard’s point, you can say no and give two or three reasons why not, then stop. You are not obligated to make a case FOR the opposite, and you shouldn’t bother to ask the blowhard whether he agrees with you. That’s OK, because reasonable people can disagree. If he really pushes for your opinion, you can point out that you weren’t the one who gave the strong opinions in the first place, and you only asked questions.
6. If really pressed, I quote my mother, who old me “There are three things you shouldn’t discuss in company: politics, sex, and religion.” Not too surprisingly the most dangerous and explosive topics manage to combine all three.
The trick in all cases is to stay calm and not to take anything that is said personally, no matter how stupid or offensive it might be. The key is to make social embarrassment work against the blowhard. If male, the blowhard is usually making a dominance display. In that case, refusing to be bullied without losing your temper is normally enough to make him look pretty small. If female in mixed company, the blowhard is probably signaling “in-group” membership: the underlying message might be “I want to belong.” Proceed accordingly.
I have lived for most of the last 30 years in deepest Blue State, academic, ecclesiastical, NGO, and European circles, and I can testify that these tactics are easy, painless, and highly effective.
Pingback:Aboard Air Force One & More | The Anchoress
Pingback:Boring Bush and Obama Drama « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier
Pingback:Need a Laugh? Or Cry? Obama’s Contradicts Himself | TxSkirt
Mrs. Whatsis, you’re my hero; your post of Jan. 24, 9:26am I think, neatly sums up what I’ve been trying to say since 9/11 about the role that fear played and didn’t play in the psyches of those, respectively, who chose to pretend that the towers fell through some sort of freak accident, and who chose to respond to the attack actively and with determination. I want to quote one bit for those who haven’t followed the whole thread:
“[T]he fear comes from the existence of the threat, not the fact that somebody pointed it out. Pretending that the threat doesn’t exist may be more comfortable, but it won’t make the threat go away.”
Oops, 9:36am. The rest as stated.
And I should’ve added, Neo, fabulous post. Thank you as always for your insight.
Oblio, you forgot steps 7 and 8:
7. Run to your computer and type out a blog post whining at length about how terrible it is that someone who is not conservative would dare to speak up at a dinner party.
8. Type out another post explaining that liberals dominate academia, the media, the diplomatic corps, etc. but somehow always lose the debate when run up against the Oblio Wall of Cut-Rate Condescension.
Now, now, Bogey.
Here are my tips for dinner party debate:
1. Avoid making it personal. You have the facts on your side, so there’s no need to put the other person’s education, intelligence or upbringing down.
2. Avoid exaggerating the other person’s views. Often, people state their case in ways the leaves wide room for interpretation. You’ll be a lot more persuasive if you give their statement the maximum benefit of any doubt. Remember, we’re talking about someone who’s making statements that are wrong in big ways that are easy to demonstrate, so there will be no need to exaggerate. Straw men are a waste of everyone’s time.
3. Always behave as if the person you’re debating with is, in general, just as smart and/or informed as you are. If you’re certain the person you’re debating is unintelligent, change the subject or leave the room. Taking glee in defeating a moron in a debate is like tattooing “Sociopath” onto your forehead.
4. Don’t let the other person personalize the debate. Only you control how you respond, and ignoring ad hominem is dead simple.
5. Try helping your opponent along. You’re smart and well-informed, so you have no need to debate weak opponents. When someone provides a weak argument, help strengthen them, then take that on. Doing so helps establish rapport and also makes you more persuasive. The best way to anticipate someone’s arguments is to make them first in your own mind.
6. Keep it simple, keep it concise. The rapier, not the bludgeon.
This is much better, Bogey. These are, in general, helpful rules for a principled debate.
There are some problems with your rule number 3 above, as it implies mere withdrawal. The point about it being a dinner party is that you don’t want to withdraw, you haven’t asked for a political debate, it is unwelcome, and you wish to change the subject. That was the context for my advice in the first place.
In a formal debate, that is to say a non-social occasion, I don’t think you should leave your opponent alone on the stage simply because they are too stupid or ill-informed to continue the debate.
I heartily recommend trying number 5 above before concluding that your conversation partner is not capable of following the argument or discussing differences of opinion in good faith. If they can’t or won’t respond, that is a serious matter. Again, this is a good rule for discussion, but not necessarily for debate.
To your list, I would also add that you should be as precise as you possibly can be in your logic, pay attention to the meanings of words, and take responsibility for your argument. Make corrections and give credit. You should never use your own sloppiness (lack of clarity or rigor in your argument) as a convenient way to avoid conceding lost points. This behavior leads people to conclude that you are not principled, intelligent, or well-meaning. At that point, your rule number 3 begins to kick in.
By the way, Bogey, my tactics work just as well for a progressive cornered at a social event by conservative blowhards. Try them out with my blessing.
Bogey, what do you do with the person who begins the unwarranted “debate” with (as I was reading in a thread elsewhere) “that incompetent imbecile and undeniable war criminal George W. Bush”? Oblio, I’d certainly go with your “Now, now, Jim,” as the best possible response, but Bogey, has that person left enough wiggle room in his position such that I should assume (per your #2) he didn’t really mean that he actually does hate George W. Bush rather than simply disliking his policies? In any normal discussion I’d be a hundred percent behind your urging to give the other the benefit of the doubt, but “debates” about Bush don’t seem to me to fall into the “normal” category very often.
(In other words, dagnabbit, it’d be nice if the other side of said unwarranted “debate” would read the rules too. But funnily enough, life isn’t fair. Sigh.)
A blog is not a dinner party. 🙂
Jamie raises a good point, and that is that most BDS sufferers don’t have a serious point, but usually start with spittle-flecked vituperation for Bush personally.
That doesn’t leave much – or indeed, any – room for a civilized discussion. Anything less than whole-hearted agreement causes the BDS sufferer to direct the vitriol toward his interlocutor, who would receive kinder treatment if he had come out in favor of child molestation.
The sanctimoniousness is particularly hard to take. BDS sufferers typically beg the question by presuming their conclusion in making their opening statement. (“Given that Bush is a war criminal, an idiot, an incompetent, went to war to enrich himself and his friends (!), has shredded the Constitution, and ties firecrackers to puppies’ tails …”). That is not a promising start to a rational exchange of views.