Cults (plural) of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I’ve been everything you want to be
I’m the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I’m the cult of personality- Living Colour
The latest round of polls in the post-Biden announcement era have left me scratching my head yet again. On the rare occasions when I turn out to be wrong, (who… me?) I at least try to make some sort of amends and determine where it was that I went off the beam. Since the end of Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations – at least for this cycle – I have been confidently awaiting the slow, perhaps-reluctant, but steady return of her avid followers to the Democratic fold. If these poll numbers hold any validity at all, it simply hasn’t happened to the required degree, and all of Hillary’s exhortations to the clan have not resulted in even half of them signing on to the Obama bandwagon. What went wrong?
During the early days of the Democratic primary, one of the repeated battle cries we heard were the endless accusations that Obama’s followers were a “cult of personality” who were star-struck by an empty suit with no substance. No matter that the two candidates had virtually identical platforms and proposals… Hillary was the candidate of substance who would bring those plans to fruition. She would correct the country’s errant course – set these last eight years by the Republicans, mind you – and do so in effective manner on Day One which the youthful and untested Obama would simply not be able to manage.
We all know how that story ended in June. And now a significant number of these acolytes seem prepared to vote for John McCain. Good news for Big Mac, no doubt, but what sort of followers are you getting in this bargain? If they were following Senator Clinton but are willing to reject Senator Obama who wanted to lead them in virtually the exact same direction, then were they not following the person rather than the issues and ideals? And when given the option, if they turn around and state that the reason for their choice of McCain is based on his readiness to lead, his character, his experience… are they not following a new person rather than the direction? In short, is the quality of being “ready to lead on Day One” still a virtue if your chosen official is prepared to lead you in the opposite direction from that which you purported to desire only ninety days earlier? Or are you just following a new personality, issues be damned?
There are a few exceptions, of course, such as I found during my interview with Silverio Salazar. He told me in quite plain language that he admired McCain’s stance on abortion, energy and the war, among other issues of the day. This is all well and good, but I’ll confess I was still left wondering why he had been supporting Democrats all these years, and Hillary Clinton specifically this season. It really sounds as if McCain would have been a far better fit for him than Clinton right from the beginning.
In short, I’m left in yet another state of confusion when attempting to glean the inner workings of the minds of the voters. Will the real cult of personality please stand up?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
57 Responses to “Cults (plural) of personality”
Sure, there are lots of reasons that a person could have not to support Obama. And I have no intention of arguing about your reasons.
But the flip side of this is that a common refrain among *some* NObama democrats is that Obama falls short of a standard that they are simply not holding McCain or Clinton to. He alone can't change his positions, attack his opponents, or misspeak without it revealing some fatal flaw in his character that it does not when McCain or Clinton do the same. So, I don't think it's pushing the limits of plausibility to suggest that the reason that the black candidate has to work twice as hard to convince *some* white democrats that he is as deserving as the white candidates he's running against might have something to do with race.
But, yes, of course, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to find him wanting.
Boudica's rationale for supporting McCain and specifically not support Obama fits into the buyer behavior patterns I discussed earlier in the thread. He bases his decisions as an Amiable. He could recite “reasons” for not supporting Obama, but they really are a smoke screen. The real reason is that on a visceral level, he just doesn't like Obama. No discussion of policies, positions, viewpoints will change that. Any poster that tries to reason logically with him to convince him that Obama is the better candidate will fail.
Of course he has heard all of the rightwing crap that has given him a somewhat distorted view of Obama. Half of it is lies and the other half are gross distortions, but it is an opinion shaped by that information.
Would it change his mind if he knew that McCain cheated on his first wife numerous times even though she was disabled. Would him help him understand the charactor of John McCain to know that he lied to Cindy about his age when they first met. Would it help him understand John McCain's charactor to know that he was engaged to Cindy before he divorced his first wife. Would it help him better understand John McCain better to know that the tourchers he endored in Vietnam are the same enhanced interrogation techniques that he is allow the Bush administration to practice in Guantanomo (something he should know better about). Would it help him to know that Cindy McCain stole drugs from the non-profit she was on the board for, and the only reason she avoided felony charges is because of her family contacts? Would it help him to know that McCain's staff is so full of paid off lobbyists representing countries other than ours, that his chief international advisor has received $800,000 over the past 4 years representing the country of Georgia? Gosh, if he had been president, his swagger during the crisis could have led us to a world war over a punk state. Would it help him to know that a majority of his senatorial colleages (while they acknowledge his service) understand what a flaming hot head he is and wouldn't want him being able to press the red button. Would it help him to know that McCain has flipped on every single major issue over the past 8 years. He actually had the audacity to vote agains his own immigration legislation when it came onto the Senate. Would it help him to know that this Maverick actually voted with George Bush 95% of the time during last year's congress. Would it help him to know that this environmentally sensitive Senator has 0% rating from the League of Conservation voters. That's right, not one environmentally favorable vote during the whole Congress. Would it help him to know that he voted down the tax credit for alternative energy. Would it help him to know that this veteran wouldn't support bi-partisan legislation updating veterans benefits? Even when there was enough bipartisan support to overturn a Bush veto?
I could make up stuff too, if you wanted to measure up to the unverifiable standards set by the righwing hack 527 jobs. But John McCain is such a target rich opportunity. You see Amiable buyers don't buy based on logic, they base their decisions on a gut decision on who they like. That is why 30% of the population still thinks W has done a great job.
This is not to knock Boudica's decision. It is his and he has a right to it. It is just to recognize that he is part of the 30% of the population that bases their decision on who they like as person. You can argue the facts until you are blue in the face and it won't change a thing. Fortunately, these people are statistically split between the two parties equally, so they weigh each other out.
Boudica's rationale for supporting McCain and specifically not support Obama fits into the buyer behavior patterns I discussed earlier in the thread. He bases his decisions as an Amiable. He could recite “reasons” for not supporting Obama, but they really are a smoke screen. The real reason is that on a visceral level, he just doesn't like Obama. No discussion of policies, positions, viewpoints will change that. Any poster that tries to reason logically with him to convince him that Obama is the better candidate will fail.
Of course he has heard all of the rightwing crap that has given him a somewhat distorted view of Obama. Half of it is lies and the other half are gross distortions, but it is an opinion shaped by that information.
Would it change his mind if he knew that McCain cheated on his first wife numerous times even though she was disabled. Would him help him understand the charactor of John McCain to know that he lied to Cindy about his age when they first met. Would it help him understand John McCain's charactor to know that he was engaged to Cindy before he divorced his first wife. Would it help him better understand John McCain better to know that the tourchers he endored in Vietnam are the same enhanced interrogation techniques that he is allow the Bush administration to practice in Guantanomo (something he should know better about). Would it help him to know that Cindy McCain stole drugs from the non-profit she was on the board for, and the only reason she avoided felony charges is because of her family contacts? Would it help him to know that McCain's staff is so full of paid off lobbyists representing countries other than ours, that his chief international advisor has received $800,000 over the past 4 years representing the country of Georgia? Gosh, if he had been president, his swagger during the crisis could have led us to a world war over a punk state. Would it help him to know that a majority of his senatorial colleages (while they acknowledge his service) understand what a flaming hot head he is and wouldn't want him being able to press the red button. Would it help him to know that McCain has flipped on every single major issue over the past 8 years. He actually had the audacity to vote agains his own immigration legislation when it came onto the Senate. Would it help him to know that this Maverick actually voted with George Bush 95% of the time during last year's congress. Would it help him to know that this environmentally sensitive Senator has 0% rating from the League of Conservation voters. That's right, not one environmentally favorable vote during the whole Congress. Would it help him to know that he voted down the tax credit for alternative energy. Would it help him to know that this veteran wouldn't support bi-partisan legislation updating veterans benefits? Even when there was enough bipartisan support to overturn a Bush veto?
I could make up stuff too, if you wanted to measure up to the unverifiable standards set by the righwing hack 527 jobs. But John McCain is such a target rich opportunity. You see Amiable buyers don't buy based on logic, they base their decisions on a gut decision on who they like. That is why 30% of the population still thinks W has done a great job.
This is not to knock Boudica's decision. It is his and he has a right to it. It is just to recognize that he is part of the 30% of the population that bases their decision on who they like as person. You can argue the facts until you are blue in the face and it won't change a thing. Fortunately, these people are statistically split between the two parties equally, so they weigh each other out.
I don't see why anyone should be ashamed to admit that personality plays a huge role in their choice. I'm not talking about the likability factors, but the character issues and personality traits that affect the way that a candidate will govern.
After all, I could easily list at LEAST half a dozen personality traits of GWB that have proven to be detrimental, and could probably even give a plausible explanation of how certain traits of his have led him to make certain policy decisions that no one could have foreseen in 2000 (anyone remember that he said that he wouldn't do any nation building?)
So these things are hugely important. You can't just assume that you're voting for the platform if you don't know if the candidate has any likelihood at all of achieving any of its planks, or even if he really intends to try (vs. just saying certain things to appease parts of the base or to pander.)
Of course if there's one or more issue on which you disagree strongly with a candidate, then those might be dealbreakers even if you prefer his/her character and feel he/she is a more skilled or experienced leader; but most people tend to favor a mix of some of the center left positions and some center right, and have to compromise on some of them anyway (since no one candidate or party will exactly match up with each voter's views.)
I don't see why anyone should be ashamed to admit that personality plays a huge role in their choice. I'm not talking about the likability factors, but the character issues and personality traits that affect the way that a candidate will govern.
After all, I could easily list at LEAST half a dozen personality traits of GWB that have proven to be detrimental, and could probably even give a plausible explanation of how certain traits of his have led him to make certain policy decisions that no one could have foreseen in 2000 (anyone remember that he said that he wouldn't do any nation building?)
So these things are hugely important. You can't just assume that you're voting for the platform if you don't know if the candidate has any likelihood at all of achieving any of its planks, or even if he really intends to try (vs. just saying certain things to appease parts of the base or to pander.)
Of course if there's one or more issue on which you disagree strongly with a candidate, then those might be dealbreakers even if you prefer his/her character and feel he/she is a more skilled or experienced leader; but most people tend to favor a mix of some of the center left positions and some center right, and have to compromise on some of them anyway (since no one candidate or party will exactly match up with each voter's views.)
Very well said, CStanley. Indeed, Bush' inability to learn (as I would characterize it) is perhaps his greatest weakness. Ironically or perhaps naturally, it is the flipside of one of his greatest strengths as a politician, namely the ability to stay on theme, on task, on message, forever and ever without seeming to lose genuine interest.
I guess I'm trying to base my vote on my best guess for what may follow in an Obama or McCain presidency. I've been batting it around in my head and come up with a few things.
1) With both McCain and Obama, you will get some sort of comprehensive immigration package through. There would be differences between the two, but something will happen with either administration and a Democratic Congress. Indeed, compromising on increased border security in order to get a deal done is exactly the sort of compromise I expect from Obama, which would put him close to the current McCain position.
2) McCain will continue the antagonist type of foreign policy that Bush has set with us vs. them and good vs. evil. I just hear far too little from him about other ways to handle foreign relations other than threatening and cajoling. A couple of his bad guy picks will be genuine bad guys and therefore it will be the best approach for them. However, such local successes will come with continuing longterm drawbacks as the next administration deals with the inevitable backlashes; i.e., he will deal well with some enemies and create new enemies in the process. I expect Obama's foreign policy to be more comprehensive and only reveal its true merit in 10-15 years.
3) McCain will continue to appoint SCOTUS judges, should he have the opportunity, that will erode Roe v. Wade. This seems a fairly stark difference between the two.
4) Both candidates would move in the direction of alternate energy, but I expect Obama to be far more aggressive. McCain will make some moves in that direction, but generally think of it as the long term plan for several decades. Obama will attempt to make it the medium term future.
5) Obama's health care changes will not be truly national coverage as he is still trying to work with the current system and this is the sort of area where he will compromise for some positive gains. But this expansion of health care will be greater than with McCain.
6) Taxes will go up on the wealthy in the short term with Obama, and perhaps in the long term with McCain after he has to do the numbers himself and is forced to pull a Bush, Sr. As a result Obama will do a bit better with the deficit since he's already facing reality. I really have no ideas on how each will attempt to control spending. I guess I don't expect large cuts from either.
7) Both candidates will withdraw the majority of forces from Iraq by 2011. McCain will fight to keep several large bases in Iraq with many thousands of troops with which to threaten other countries in the area. Obama would keep just one or two smaller presences if he could cut the deal because some generals will tell him how useful such a base would be and he will go with a small presence.
And that's my best guesses on what the Presidencies would mean on a practical level. Overall, I prefer the scenario with Obama, so he will get my vote. As I think through it, Obama's (guessed at by me) scenario is far closer to what Clinton was fighting for and so it makes sense to me for a Clinton supporter to cast their vote in Obama's direction.
After all, the value of experience is in knowing how to accomplish goals. Experience in and of itself is not a great value in a political leader. It's like courage in a terrorist. A good thing put to horrible purposes. Similarly, it is the way such experience can be used to make dreams into reality that is of great value. So choosing a McCain who would use his experience to hold back most of Clinton's very goals values experience with no purpose.
(It'll be fun to see how completely wrong my guesses above are in 4 years time.)
Very well said, CStanley. Indeed, Bush' inability to learn (as I would characterize it) is perhaps his greatest weakness. Ironically or perhaps naturally, it is the flipside of one of his greatest strengths as a politician, namely the ability to stay on theme, on task, on message, forever and ever without seeming to lose genuine interest.
I guess I'm trying to base my vote on my best guess for what may follow in an Obama or McCain presidency. I've been batting it around in my head and come up with a few things.
1) With both McCain and Obama, you will get some sort of comprehensive immigration package through. There would be differences between the two, but something will happen with either administration and a Democratic Congress. Indeed, compromising on increased border security in order to get a deal done is exactly the sort of compromise I expect from Obama, which would put him close to the current McCain position.
2) McCain will continue the antagonist type of foreign policy that Bush has set with us vs. them and good vs. evil. I just hear far too little from him about other ways to handle foreign relations other than threatening and cajoling. A couple of his bad guy picks will be genuine bad guys and therefore it will be the best approach for them. However, such local successes will come with continuing longterm drawbacks as the next administration deals with the inevitable backlashes; i.e., he will deal well with some enemies and create new enemies in the process. I expect Obama's foreign policy to be more comprehensive and only reveal its true merit in 10-15 years.
3) McCain will continue to appoint SCOTUS judges, should he have the opportunity, that will erode Roe v. Wade. This seems a fairly stark difference between the two.
4) Both candidates would move in the direction of alternate energy, but I expect Obama to be far more aggressive. McCain will make some moves in that direction, but generally think of it as the long term plan for several decades. Obama will attempt to make it the medium term future.
5) Obama's health care changes will not be truly national coverage as he is still trying to work with the current system and this is the sort of area where he will compromise for some positive gains. But this expansion of health care will be greater than with McCain.
6) Taxes will go up on the wealthy in the short term with Obama, and perhaps in the long term with McCain after he has to do the numbers himself and is forced to pull a Bush, Sr. As a result Obama will do a bit better with the deficit since he's already facing reality. I really have no ideas on how each will attempt to control spending. I guess I don't expect large cuts from either.
7) Both candidates will withdraw the majority of forces from Iraq by 2011. McCain will fight to keep several large bases in Iraq with many thousands of troops with which to threaten other countries in the area. Obama would keep just one or two smaller presences if he could cut the deal because some generals will tell him how useful such a base would be and he will go with a small presence.
And that's my best guesses on what the Presidencies would mean on a practical level. Overall, I prefer the scenario with Obama, so he will get my vote. As I think through it, Obama's (guessed at by me) scenario is far closer to what Clinton was fighting for and so it makes sense to me for a Clinton supporter to cast their vote in Obama's direction.
After all, the value of experience is in knowing how to accomplish goals. Experience in and of itself is not a great value in a political leader. It's like courage in a terrorist. A good thing put to horrible purposes. Similarly, it is the way such experience can be used to make dreams into reality that is of great value. So choosing a McCain who would use his experience to hold back most of Clinton's very goals values experience with no purpose.
(It'll be fun to see how completely wrong my guesses above are in 4 years time.)