Music reveals some of the problems with Obama
Bookworm on Mar 05 2008 at 6:37 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama
This following observation about Obama, which takes as its starting point the increasing number of youth oriented videos lauding him, is correct. It’s made more interesting by the fact that it comes from a Clinton campaigner, Simon Woods, with the irony being that he doesn’t recognize that it’s the liberal equation of politics with salvation that created the conditions in which Obama could be viewed as a political Messiah:
The Obama campaign uses a religious calling as its central rhetorical trope: “I’m asking you to believe,” reads the banner across the top of barackobama.com. His appeal to voters is an archetype of religious conversion: instead of being asked for support, Americans are exhorted to “join the movement”.
In Georgia, he directly equated his supporters with God’s people: “God had a plan for his people. He told them to stand together and march together around the city… and when the horn sounded and a chorus of voices cried out together, the mighty walls of Jericho came tumbling down.”
Later in the speech, he asked the congregation to “walk with me, march with me… and if enough of our voices join together, we can bring those walls tumbling down.”
Ironically, the Obama campaign has taken the logic of the religious and republican right - “You’re either with us or against us” - and come up with its Democratic alter ego.
Obama has created the impression that Clinton supporters, like the Pharisees in the temple, are obstacles to change: “I want to speak directly to all those Americans who have yet to join this movement but still hunger for change. They know it in their gut… But they’re afraid. They’ve been taught to be cynical.”
It’s not an argument for better government; it’s an exhortation to see the light. It’s not a plan for the Presidency, but a leap of faith.
This idea came to a head in Obama’s Super Tuesday speech, with those much talked about phrases: “We are the change that we seek… We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” This is the language that the second Will.I.Am song has taken on. This marked a new level of discourse, and journalists wrote warily about its “messianic” feel.
The article’s author makes a second, equally interesting point which is that the Obama campaign is a throwback to the 60s, in that the message is the both medium and the end:
But I think that misses the point. The real problem with this is not the cod-religious congratulation of being the chosen ones, but a quieter, more insidious message: that the campaign itself is the change he talks about.
In this way, the Obama campaign is styling itself as a sign of change, rather than an argument for it. As he said in South Carolina: “We are showing America what change looks like.” In that linguistic and conceptual manoeuvre, the goal of accomplishing the specific changes Americans urgently need - in health care, the economy, education - is relegated to the background. You’re not so hungry for reform when you’ve already feasted at the table of self-congratulation.
With this kind of intelligence and insight, I confidently assume that, in the near future, Woods will make a political shift and join the ranks of the neocons.
Email This Post To A Friend
28 Responses to “Music reveals some of the problems with Obama”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Okay. So Obama’s saying America needs a change (i.e., needs something different), but when he uses something different in his campaign that’s not playing by the rules. What rules? I’m for Clinton. She’s more qualified in my opinion, but Obama isn’t cheating by using a different kind of appeal. Apparently, a lot of people, especially young people, want to “believe” that America can become something different. What makes the questions one set of voters ask more valuable than the questions another set asks?
The Civil Rights Movement of the 60s was a religious movement. MLK was a Messianic figure (in the minds of his followers and later in his own mind). What’s different is that King chose to remain a preacher rather than to run for president. A lot of people have made a big deal out of Obama’s Islamic connection, but apparently he understand Black Christianity quite well. No Black church can survive without a charismatic preacher.
Of course, God’s people didn’t include the preborn or even the newly born. Obama, as a state senator, voted against a ban on partial birth abortion and the born alive act. The born alive bill came about as stories of abortion survivors were left to die, with no measures taken to help them.
Another of his views concerned his opposition to parental notification. In Obama’s worldly view, children under the age of eighteen need parental approval for body piercings and tattoos, but not for abortion.
“No Black church can survive without a charismatic preacher.”
What does this mean?
Beware of false prophets. They would lead us to destruction. Obama represents nothing new under the sun.
Sorry about that. I was trying to sound like a charismatic preacher in sound-bytes.
“No Black church can survive without a charismatic preacher.”
Wow. That is quite a statement. Helen, what do you mean by that? That black christians are somehow unable to live their lives according to God’s word and form a church unless they have some charismatic preacher to guide them? White people and others do this all the time - why are blacks somehow different?
And just as a side note, saying that someone is messianic is not, in my book, a complement. Maybe I’m alone in this but when I hear the word “messiah” attributed to modern day individuals, it implies cultish, non-thinking, non-discriminating behavior.
Deana
Jim Jones, Deana, Jim Jones.
“A messianic figure is a person who is viewed as having a number of the characteristics of the Messiah in the eyes of a particular group. These usually include that the person is charismatic, influential, develops a power base, is appealing to a large group that views itself as oppressed in some way, and appears to offer a way to overthrow that oppression.” From Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
That’s the same definition for a revolutionary leader.
Actually I suspect it is the other way around. No charismatic preacher can survive without disciples, the more ethusiastic and credulous, the better.
Helen -
Thanks for the link to the definition but I know what messiah means. My point was that when I hear it used, I am immediately suspicious because there can be a very fine line between being attracted to someone because of his / her charisma versus being attracted to someone in a cultish sort of way. Besides, being a Christian, I believe that there is only one Messiah and it would seem to me that serious Christians would be quite hesitant to portray themselves as a messianic-like figure.
Helen - Two people on this board have asked you what you meant by “No Black church can survive without a charismatic preacher.” When you get a moment, can you please explain what you meant?
Thank you.
Deana
Deana, Since when are the comments on someone’s blog considered a “board’? And who gives you the right to decide who the “serious Christians” are? “Study, to show thyself approved.”
No, I’m not answering you.
Helen –
I am not making the claim that I have the right to decide who “serious Christians” are. You and I both know Who alone can do that. What I am saying is that the Christians I know who take their religion seriously would loathe being thought of in messianic terms. As far as Obama is considered, I believe him when he says he is Christian. I also have absolutely no insight as to whether or not he is consciously attempting to portray himself in a messianic light with his campaign rhetoric but that clearly is how he is being perceived by supporters and non-supporters alike. There are many reasons why one would think that he would be at least a little queasy about nurturing that impression, only one of which is the concern over the “weirdness” factor. I believe Americans tend to be suspicious of cult-like figures in the political arena. If we only had a couple more weeks to go in this election cycle, the “join the movement” exhortations would be sufficient but we have many months to go and at some point, we are going to have to get down to discussing difficult policy issues. Those discussions will require more than telling Americans that “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Fake messiahs never live up to the real thing.
Helen – you are certainly free not to answer the questions that people ask you. I simply ask you to remember that readers are equally free to infer the meaning behind your regular refusal to explain your own comments.
Deana
P.S. I know I’m wasting my breath here but why in the world does referring to someone’s blog as a board upset you so?
And who gives you the right to decide who the “serious Christians” are?
Why should you care, Helen. You’re not supporting Obama for Prez.
What I am saying is that the Christians I know who take their religion seriously would loathe being thought of in messianic terms.
You ever notice that the primary proponents of multicultural understanding have little native talent at comprehension themselves, Deana?
I simply ask you to remember that readers are equally free to infer the meaning behind your regular refusal to explain your own comments.
What that means is that if you, helen, don’t clarify yourself, people like me will interpret your meaning for you and tell other people what you meant. Which you don’t like, but that’s what happens when you concede the battlefield.
I explain helen’s comments quite well, if I do say so myself.
P.S. I know I’m wasting my breath here but why in the world does referring to someone’s blog as a board upset you so?
If you want my input, Deana, I do believe helen is using this definition for board.
an official group of persons who direct or supervise some activity: a board of directors.
Helen doesn’t like feeling like she is in front of a board of directors that she is responsible for answering to.
Deana, The comment about the “board” seemed like a demand for an answer. Obviously, that’s not what you meant. Just so, Obama’s rhetoric might not mean what you perceive it to be.
In the traditional black church (one of the seven black denominations), th preacher holds more power than he does in many “white” protestant denominations. This is a generalization (for details read a book on black religion). This has been so since slave time, when the preacher was more educated than the other slaves. Preaches in the “slave tradition” have a set formula for their preaching (and speech-making, too — think MLK). The average sermon (according to a white Baptist pastor friend) is 22 minutes. The black sermon is considerably longer and consists of combining certain set (memorized) pieces and a time of improvisation. The set pieces (often passed from preacher to preacher) are used over and over. So if something sounds familiar, it’s because it is. That’s why Hillary Clinton’s accusation of “plagiarism” didn’t hold water. Black preachers borrow from one another freely. It’s a compliment not theft.
So what’s the “weirdness factor”? Not many white people have attended black churches and even know what’s orthodox and what’s weird with respect to black Christianity. All preachers have abit of ego. And I think Obama fits the mold as a black preacher, although to my knowledge he isn’t ordained as such. Obama makes wonderful speeches. He just doesn’t answer the questions you want answers to.
Y.,
You explain my comments poorly, because you think life is a battleground. To explain what someone means, you have to know what they mean. And you haven’t a clue, not because you aren’t smart, but because you don’t want to.
Helen –
The reference to the “board” was short for “discussion board.” That’s all.
I do truly appreciate your explanation and support of your earlier comment (and only wish that you would do that more regularly – it adds to the discussion).
I still am not comfortable with the statement that “No Black church can survive without a charismatic preacher.” Whereas this definitely was not so in the past, now many members of black churches are likely to be as educated (if not more so) than the minister/preacher. The idea that black church members “need” a charismatic leader may be perceived as implying that the members of the church must be led or directed because they are somehow incapable of following God’s word and achieving spiritual goals on their own. I do not say this in an attempt to deny the importance of a pastor and the church elders – they are important, perhaps particularly so in a black church. But there is definitely the danger of developing a personality cult if people believe that they have to have a charismatic leader. Personally, I’d rather have a pastor who adheres to the teachings of the Bible, makes himself available to teach and counsel, and is humble as Jesus instructed us to be, but that is just me.
But this perceived “need” for black Americans to have a charismatic leader is found in the wider community as well. Until recently, black Americans were frequently viewed by blacks, whites, and others as needing leaders. I find that disturbing and patronizing to black Americans. When Americans think of the Latinos, the Indians, Asian immigrants, or really any other group – are they able to think of a single person who is considered a sort of de facto “leader”? No. Because these people are most often thought of as individuals who are capable of achieving on their own. But somehow, black Americans aren’t given that consideration. And to be fair, many black Americans have not (until recently) been willing to speak out about the fact that they themselves do not believe that they need leaders. I am sympathetic as to why this has happened but in my heart, I know that any achievements black Americans have made are, in large part, due to their own individual efforts, not the efforts of one man who happens to be charismatic.
As for the “weirdness factor” – even if black Americans are completely comfortable with a very charismatic, almost messianic-like presidential candidate (and I don’t believe many are), the rest of America is not. As the primaries wind down, I would expect a political campaign would realize the need to soft-pedal efforts to promote that messianic feel for fear of making the general populace leery of their candidate.
Deana
To explain what someone means, you have to know what they mean.
When you finish working on that for yourself, please come and tell us.
It’s unlikely you have studied warfare and battle to any extent such that you can understand what someone like me means in my comments.
On the other hand, those that study war must also study pacifism, since pacifism is simply another potential foe in warfare. The matter of human motivation is very important in leading men or women in conflict. Ideology, even the ideology of pacifism, are critical components in the motivation of individuals.
All preachers have abit of ego. And I think Obama fits the mold as a black preacher
Somebody remind me what Leftists and Democrats said about Bush and his theocracy. It is rather ironic, in a sense.
Deana, The comment about the “board” seemed like a demand for an answer.-Helen
You explain my comments poorly-Helen
People are going to have to make their decisions about that, for better or for worse.
But suffice it to say that a “board” that demands answers is pretty much like a board of directors.
Deanna:
I never thought about it, but you’re absolutely right with regard to the perceived need for a black leader. That may explain why other communities don’t have their Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons. I need to mull over very seriously what you’ve said here.
Years ago, there was a small group of white girls in my college community that bragged of their infatuation with all things “black” (”once you go black, you never go back!”). They insisted on always being around “black” people, bragged about black people, digressed knowledgeably about their expertise in all things “black”and basically, looked at black people like subject for a sophomoric anthropology thesis.
With the exception of a few guys in it for easy sex, the black people that I knew had nothing but contempt for these girls, recognizing that infatuation for the condescending, racist paternalism that it was. These were the same kind of whiteys that would tell a really bright black woman from Gary that I knew that she should give up her dreams of medicine because, being “black”, she was better suited to education or social service. In their own minds, they were being open-minded, loving and helpful, I’m sure.
Unfortunately, when people make sweeping generalizations about black people needing or doing this or that, it brings all these ugly memories flooding back.
Sure, black Americans have had charismatic leaders (Frederick Douglas), just like white Americans, too, have had charismatic religious and political leaders (Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan). Moreover, both black and white charismatic leaders have show extreme diversity in views - W.E.B. DuBois was not Booker T. Washington was not Jim Jones, just as populist preacher Fr. Charles Coughlin was not Billy Graham.
Enough with race-based generalizations, already.
Y., When I finish knowing what I mean, I won’t be able to come by; I’ll be dead. Education is a life-long process. But when you stop trying to tell me what I mean, you will stop wasting your time and mine.
Bookworm, Is it off limits for me to tell him to shut up?
As far as black need for a leader, I don’t think it’s as strong as it was prior to the 60s. But Obama is a black JFK: charismatic, good looking, well educated, young wife and sweet little kids, and able to deliver an emotional speech. He is a throwback Democrat with political correctness to span the time gap: black/ white Islam/ Christian. He has wide appeal as a political leader. Unfortunately for us all, politics may not be the best way to choose governmental leaders.
Some people want to talk policy and voting record, etc.
But you see, racism has reentered the picture. While some people want to know about foreign policy etc., others want to know if a black man can become the President of the US. Both are valid questions.
“A black JFK”? Interesting.
Hmmmm…just how is Obama like JFK?
Do you refer to JFK’s heroic war record (PT-109), initiation of foreign wars (Vietnam, Bay of Pigs), overthrow and assassination of foreign leaders (Dhiem), supply-side economics and tax reduction, devoted anti-communism, being a serial philanderer and sex maniac, his illegal drug use?
Just asking.
“But Obama is a black JFK: charismatic, good looking, well educated, young wife and sweet little kids, and able to deliver an emotional speech.”
Didn’t I sat that?
Your questions are good, Danny, but I think Helen has made a good point in an image saturated age. Remember the old Fernando Lamas line that “It’s better to look good than to feel good?” That’s precisely what has happened here. JFK was young, handsome and well-spoken. Obama is young, handsome and well-spoken. Therefore they are the same. They look good, so the fact that they are entirely different in substance is irrelevant. In America, therefore, the fact that JFK and Obama, politically speaking, are two different animals, is no hindrance to Helen’s comparison. So, while I don’t agree with Helen’s comparison (I think you’re right, Danny), I do believe that, culturally, Helen has made a perfectly apt observation.
I’ll admit there are limits — the fact that David Duke was young, handsome and well-spoken didn’t help him (and thank Goodness for that). I suspect that young, handsome and well-spoken analogy only works on the lefter side of the spectrum.
You did say that, Helen, but that focuses very closely on external qualities. I think Danny was trying to point out that, in substance, there are no points of intersection between Obama and JFK. Politically, they come from two entirely different areas. Now, if people just care that a politician looks good (that Fernando Lamas thing, again), then that’s okay. But to make comparisons between the two as if the political outcome for electing Obama will be the same as it was for electing JFK — well, that’s a different kettle of fish. BTW, which comparison were you making?
I am speaking only about Obama’s campaign and why I think he appeals to certain people. Charisma is sexy. And the young voters believe, as does each generation in its time, they just invented sex.
Obama is not my first choice for president in 2008.
Well then, Helen, you and I are on the same page about the merits of the Obama/JFK comparison: it’s based upon superficialities. My problem is that I worry profoundly about a political system that thinks those superficialities are as deep as one needs to look in order to elect the leader of the Western world. I’d like to think that Warren Harding taught us that the election must be about more than just a pretty face (and, yes, I concede that it’s hard nowadays to imagine how Harding could once have been considered a sex pot by the newly enfranchised women voters).
When I finish knowing what I mean, I won’t be able to come by; I’ll be dead
That must be why you find it a bother to answer questions from the “board” here. You think we’re waiting for you to die.
Education is a life-long process.
It doesn’t take a life-long process to know why 2+0 is still 2.
To explain what someone means, you have to know what they mean.
Given that it will take your entire life for you to know what I mean, I am obviously going at a faster pace here.
Bookworm, Is it off limits for me to tell him to shut up?
It’s unlikely it would do anything regardless.
. Unfortunately for us all, politics may not be the best way to choose governmental leaders
Do you prefer religious and Christian ways to choose leaders of the government, then.
Some people want to talk policy and voting record, etc.
While others want to talk about they believe in Obama because Obama believes in them.
But you see, racism has reentered the picture.
The institutional racism of Chicago is born out by the examples of both Michelle and Obama Barack.
Hmmmm…just how is Obama like JFK?
In the simplest fashion, that Democrats believe Right wingers will assassinate him once he proves to be making “Real Changes” tm, Danny.
(and, yes, I concede that it’s hard nowadays to imagine how Harding could once have been considered a sex pot by the newly enfranchised women voters).
Power draws in the young women.That has always been true, regardless of what else was going on.
It’s a DNA thing.