"Is Obama an Enlightened Being?"

[jordan179]

Courtesy of Mark Morford, SF Gate columnist, who is not kidding in his article "Is Obama an Enlightened Being?":

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL

Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the

Comments

[rinku]

That article is pretty stupid, I read it months ago. "New Age" is just as much a religion as Christian fundamentalism, and just as stupid a reason for supporting a candidate.

As an aside, I wonder why Churchill, Roosevelt, and Hitler (all highly charismatic) all happened to have power in world powers at around the same time? Were the 30s/40s an era where charisma was particularly important in becoming elected?

[tinymammoth]

I am going to hypothesize that this is the spread of the mass media for the first time - radio and newsreels. Before that most people would only see their candidate in photos or even drawings, and never hear his voice.

[irked_indeed]

I think it's worth distinguishing between having stupid beliefs and it being stupid to apply one's beliefs.

If, for instance, I believe the color blue is lethal, I have a stupid belief. If I never go outside on sunny days because of this belief, I'm actually behaving in a pretty sensible fashion based on what I understand to be true.

Now, most religions say some things that have pretty notable consequences for politics. Suppose, for instance, that my religion teaches all right-handed people are evil- if I really believed that, shouldn't I confine my support to lefties?

The religion itself may be stupid, of course- certainly the First Church of All Righties Are Evil would be. One, both, or neither of fundamentalist Christianity and New Age stuff may be, as well. If accepted, though, they may actually give very good reasons to support or oppose a given candidate.

[jordan179]

As an aside, I wonder why Churchill, Roosevelt, and Hitler (all highly charismatic) all happened to have power in world powers at around the same time? Were the 30s/40s an era where charisma was particularly important in becoming elected?

It was a crisis: the Old Order (liberal democratic capitalism in America and Western Europe; conservative aristocratic imperialism elsewhere) had apparently failed due to the Great War and the Great Depression. In a crisis, people need perceived strong leadership, and will take people from outside the normal bounds of the Establishment if they are sufficiently charismatic.

[eric_hinkle]

Say, jordan179, have you read the book Liberal Fascism? The authors does go into detail about just this period in history and gives some theories of his own as to why it happened.

Mind, I don't agree with everything he says, but I do like his chapters on history, though he could have gone into more detail on the Palmer Raids & Anti-German hysteria during WW1.

[jordan179]

I intend to read it some time.

Yes, the memory not only of the anti-German but also the Red Scare, both under Woodrow Wilson, seems to have oddly vanished from popular awareness. My belief is that this is because liberals revere Woodrow Wilson as a hero, and don't like to consider that he was perhaps the most oppressive wartime President, for the least cause, that we've ever known.

[cutelildrow]

dearie, as I said below, this little new-age pagan cringes at the thought of naming a pontificating hollow figurine of clay like Obama a worker of the forces of good and light.

[eric_hinkle]

Say, CLD, out of curiosity, any word on how the Neo-pagan/Wiccan community is leaning? I'm assuming they're pro-Obama, but I remember some very conservative Pagan Reconstructionists.

[cutelildrow]

Wish I knew. I've been a Solitary practicioner forever, and I've pulled back from being socially active in the neopagan circles. A few too many of the "I am the chosen of my deity" encounters, and I decided it's not worth the stress. You might want to ask oronoda how are the army neopagans leaning, she might have an idea.