I want to thank the Logician for helping Brew a fine cup o'Joe the other day. The feedback has been...limited, but what feedback I've received has been outstanding. With that, I hope that the Logician will write subsequent essays further enlightening us, in particular the "us" that do not wish to be enlightened. They are the ones who need it most.
He's a Rock:
In the Marine Corps, and I'm sure in other realms, the term "rock" means that someone is, let's say, less than brilliant. With this being the case, Chris Rock has recently shown the ability to live up to his surname. Sure, Rock is a funny, funny man; I've laughed at many of his jokes. But that does not preclude him from saying something stupid while on Larry King.
Rock says that Obama has more in common with "average" Americans in that he doesn't own 12 houses like McCain does. He says,
"The guy with one house really cares about losing a house, because he is homeless. The other guy can lose five houses and still got a bunch of houses. Does this make any sense? Am I the only one that sees this? I'll go with the guy with one house. The guy with one house is scared about losing his house."
As the kids today might say, "ORLY?" (That's "oh, really?" for you old people who aren't as hip as the Coffee Brewer.)
This might make sense were he talking about some Average Joe, but he's talking about a sitting US Senator and bestselling author who also happens to have a wife who makes pretty good money as well. Obama is not at risk of losing his home. Thus the point Rock was attempting to make seems incredibly weak. Obama's not an Average Joe (no offense to all the Joes out there). Sure, McCain's family might own several homes, but that doesn't make Obama more like average Americans by default. They're both vastly different from average Americans.
The Cult of Obama:
But what of this difference? It's interesting to behold the schizophrenic nature of some political campaigns. Somehow, the supporters of Obama can maintain two separate identities for their candidate. On one hand, he's an average Joe with one house who drives a hybrid car. But on the other, he's a "scholar," a term I've heard thrown around about the candidate a great deal lately. Would you classify most Americans as scholars? I would not. But this assumes that Obama is a scholar. Is he? Or is it that he's neither an average American (average Americans do not generally run for President) nor a scholar?
It is true that Obama earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1991. It is true that Obama seems to have acquired a reputation as an intellectual man. If the former garners him points as a scholar, the latter annuls those points, being by all measure of the word, a cultivated image. He has written nothing scholarly. He doesn't engage in intellectual conversation in any public arena as his speeches and debates stick to campaign messages and talking points. Scholars are men like Benjamin Franklin, Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Aristotle, and Marcus Aurelius. Men who are on a quest for knowledge, and are always putting forth their ideas for discussion. I know scholars; there are men for whom I've worked who I consider scholars. I have a good friend I consider a scholar. But in this case, scholar and intellectual are monikers given to us by the Obama Cult; said enough times, they become some sort of quasi-truth.
Obama's contribution to the political climate has been utterly short of scholarly. In fact, his contributions fall more within the realm of religious imagery than any sort of intellectual stimulation. His messages are the exact opposite intellectual, speaking entirely to emotion. "Change we can believe in." "Yes we can." "The audacity of hope." Just plain old "hope." These are not appeals to the intellectual, these are appeals to emotion. There is no substance to any of this. What sort of change? Yes we can what? What do we have the audacity to hope for? Must hope even be audacious? Is HOPE ENOUGH?
I would argue that hope is not enough. I would argue that Obama has little idea of what sort of change we need. He presents "change" in and of itself as enough of a reason. Communism is change, but it's not the kind of change we need. I would argue that Obama doesn't really have a well thought out, intellectually-driven idea of just what "we can." In a sense, he's all smoke and mirrors. Obama is the Wizard of Oz of politics. He's full of powerful imagery and flowery prose, but once you pull back the curtain, just the same old thing pulling strings. He's a Potemkin village.
The problem is, people have bought into it. With a campaign run on "hope" and "change" (whatever that might be), Obama is now poised to become President. But his messages are so vapid they might as well be coming from a cult leader. And that's what this is, a cult of personality. Why else would we have singing children extolling the name of a politician who's going to "change it and rearrange it?" This video should scare people. Watch it. (I warn you, it's been removed and replaced a few times, so you might have to look for it.)
But I wonder if these children thought they too were going to change the world. Maybe these kids thought their leader was pretty awesome. Children are so cute when used to profess the glory of a leader. Remember, it was a child and his penchant for the truth who told us that the emperor had no clothes. Messages that use children effectively are very powerful.
You might think it a stretch to compare Hitler, Stalin, and Jesus to Obama. Perhaps it is. Perhaps I am indulging in histrionics. But the point is that such idolatry is not something that I wish to see in American politics. We rejected kings and tyrants even though they might be charismatic. We must always be on the lookout for men whose ambition outstrips their ability or desire to serve the people, and instead might wish that the people serve them.
I ask that you revisit the quote I gave you in Morning Coffee (130). Remember it.
Don't forget, the VP debate is on tonight. Let's see how Palin does, shall we?
Word of the Day: Donnybrook (noun): 1. A brawl; a free for all; 2. A heated quarrel or dispute.
On This Day in History: Jerusalem falls to Saladin after 88 years of Crusader rule (1187). George Washington sends the proposed amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) to the states for ratification (1789).
"These people remain here because I have thoroughly opened them to the Seven Seals." - David Koresh. Of the 76 people who died in the fire at the Davidian compound in Waco, seventeen were children under the age of 17. Surely, they adored David Koresh until the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment