"Obama Worship"
This is a topic that's been bothering me for quite some time now, and I think that writing a diary about it will be the best way to get it off my chest, rather than endlessly debating it in the comments.
As a fairly regular reader of MyDD, and as an Obama supporter, I can't help but notice a recurring theme in the comments about the presidential race. There seems to be a tendency for the supporters of other candidates to sometimes dismiss Obama supporters as so uninformed about or charmed by or enamored with Barack Obama that we clearly overlook the real issues. I've even seen it referred to as "Obama Worship." The gist of this idea is that because Obama is a charismatic and captivating politician (some might say "rock star"), then hi supporters are drawn not to the issues he stands for, but to his star power. I've seen comments that say Obama supporters are blind followers of a media creation. A diary I wrote was referred to as "the Church of Obama." One lovely commenter even went so far as to suggest that I didn't know the meaning of my user name (if anyone was wondering, it comes from the famous sticker that Woody Guthrie would put on his guitar), because one of the tenets of fascism was the blind, rabid support of a single leader.
I understand where this idea comes from, but I can't say that I consider it a sensible argument. Obama has so far enjoyed enormous, excited crowds at his speeches and mostly positive media coverage (as he admitted in "The Audacity of Hope"). I realize that some supporters of other candidates feel victimized (Edwards people because of the haircut thing, Clinton people because of the blogosphere's hostility towards her), and may use this forum to give Obama supporters a taste of what they feel they have to go through. And of course political criticisms of Obama are valid - not everyone's going to agree on every issue.
But what I don't appreciate is the idea that because Obama is a uniquely exciting politican, or because he has a "rock star" quality, then his supporters are shallow or uninformed. The two - charisman and substance - are not mutually exclusive. Liberals always harken back to the days of JFK and RFK - those two were the biggest rock stars politics has ever seen, and we revere them. Many Obama supporters, including myself, are up on the issues and believe that Barack Obama has the best ideas and plans to take America where it needs to go.
Isn't that the point of supporting a candidate? Edwards supporters think he has the right ideas, Clinton supporters think she has the right ideas, Richardson supporters if they're out there think he's got the right ideas. There is a lot of love shown to Edwards on this site, and not once have I seen an Edwards supporter called "blind" or "uninformed" or "dazzled by charisma." This double standard - criticizing Obama support as shallow while ignoring equivalent support of others - seems unfair. Just because what Obama's saying is exciting or dynamic doesn't mean it has no merit. Indeed, we should be happy that his message is reaching a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise care.
Lastly, I'd just like to ask (please!) for a moratorium on the phrase "Obamaniac," which I've been called several times. That also goes for "Hill Bot" or whatever might be used towards Edwards supporters(there really isn't one right now - "Ed Heads?"). I'm not a maniac - I'm just excited to vote for Barack Obama. Isn't that what it's all about?
|
|
|
Permalink :: 221 Comments :: Post a Comment
|