Strange Gods: Toxicity in the Cult of Personality
Mar 22, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
I first suspected America was developing an ideological toxemia in 2004.
That was the year the mainstream media, obsessed with the collegiate records of President George W. Bush, remained incurious to a fault about the school transcripts of his Democrat opponent, Senator John Kerry. Reason whispered that the same press gleefully citing the “gentleman’s C’s” that proved Bush too stupid to be president should be all the more anxious to put forth Kerry’s records, and seal their case, but that hiss died on the air, and those records remained embargoed until after the election, when Kerry’s college GPA was quietly revealed to be lower than Bush’s, and the subject was dropped.
I further suspected that we were in trouble in 2008, when the same mediating intelligences denounced any and all demands to discuss presidential candidate Barack Obama’s college transcripts, or his background, associations, or legislative records at the federal and state levels as racist contrivances. They had to be contrivances, we heard, because the candidate was transparently brilliant, and quite possibly more highly evolved than most mortals. Newsweek’s Evan Thomas suggested that Obama was “almost like God” compared to other politicians, and ABC News’ Terry Moran went so far as to describe the American Presidency as a “step down” for the Colossus from Chicago.
But I really knew America was in trouble when, both before and after his inauguration, the late-night pundits and political cartoonists found themselves unable to crack wise about the new president. This was not mere honeymoon courtesy; seasoned comedy writers accustomed to gutting sacred calves on a nightly basis declared Barack Obama a man too substantial, too good to be mocked.
The American chattering classes, largely indifferent-to-agnostic-to-hostile toward religion, had suddenly found themselves a god, and to speak his name in vain could not be countenanced. Heretics sinning against the speak-not commandment were speedily feathered with the gooiest tar available and then ostracized from polite company.
But this descent into absurd idolatry was not limited to formerly faithless media cynics and Democrats (I am redundant). On the other side of the aisle, conservatives and some Republicans—many of whom profess a Christian faith—were suddenly unable to endure the slightest criticism of Gov. Sarah Palin.
Her supporters do not, thankfully, regard Palin as some sort of transcendent humanoid, but to her base, Palin and her family have become sacrosanct to a troubling extreme that echoes the Obama cult: Jokes made at Palin’s expense are not jokes but “hate.” Constructive criticism (even when rendered mildly, and with acknowledgments of both her strengths, and the savaging she endured throughout the ’08 campaign) is categorized as “hate.” One either loves Palin unconditionally, or one is a heretic; doubt, or even a reasonable reservation, is an occasion of sin.
To Obama or Palin cultists, any critique must be invalidated because if you find a fault with them, you are de facto finding fault with the values and ideals of those who have invested so much of their identities into supporting and yes, “believing in” their heroes.
This does not speak well of American maturity. When I was an adolescent, to reject Bobby Sherman was to reject me; to mock David Cassidy was to sting me to my core. This pre-pubescent overwrought emotionalism is running rampant through our politics. At its worst, it creates a din of shrill and incoherent screaming; at its best it creates myths—witness the events of the past week, where Palin fans have claimed the president’s eventual support of a no-fly zone in Libya to be a victory for the “Palin Doctrine,” while Obama acolytes are cooing about the “remarkable” job Obama did “bringing this whole coalition together” and downplaying the roles of England and France who—it must be said—got there first.
So, yes, we’re in trouble. Our ideological allegiances to these cults of personality have us slip-sliding into the sin of idolatry and everything that comes with it—a comfort level with truthiness that helps us to maintain our world views, a grim joylessness that permits no laughter and justifies tossing aside friends and family members who do not believe, and a bunker mentality that is ever on-guard for perceived heresies.
All of these things get in the way of our relationship with God. Making strange gods of our passions helps construct a fortress that blocks God’s access to us, and we do not even realize that we are losing sight of Him, brick by fervently placed ideological brick.
This Lent, perhaps we would do well to consider making a sacrifice of our idols, for the sake of the nation and our souls.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
USA Today: Kerry’s D’s and Bush’s D
Evan Thomas: Obama “sort of God”
Terry Moran: For Obama, Presidency is “a step down”
SFGate: Is Obama an Enlightened Being?
New York Times: Want Obama in a Punch Line? First, Find a Joke
Hot Air: Jon Stewart assures audiences, it’s okay to laugh at Obama
Sarah Palin: No Animus; No Condescension
New York Sun: The Palin Doctrine Emerges
Newsbusters: Obama’s remarkable coalition
Comments:
3.22.2011 | 8:34am
ferd says:
Elizabeth, the root of this emotional polerization--that you have characterized as "idol worship"--is our society's reliance on INTENT. A people who reject solid truth concepts, moral absolutes if you will, must rely on "common perceptions" of personal morality. So we end up with this college football atmosphere of cheering for competing perceptions of morality that no one seems capable of defining (maybe because our best minds are off in the tall weeds of nuanced philosophy and petty articles).
Now the Left has a primal morality based on physical ethics which are fairly easy to define--Survival, Victim, Utility and Nature ethics. Of these, Utility is the "ethic" of the Strong dominating the Weak. Therefore, Leftist ethics splits into a black and white world of equality and nurture ethics (Survival, Victim and Nature) vs. the "evil" of Utility ethics. Thus, the Left puts a lot of effort into discovering what is your INTENTIONS. To the Left, Obama is obviously "good" because he is obviously a member of a Victim group and "appears" to give every indication of being a loving ruler rather than a Utilitarian manipulator. The terrible thing about these Leftists leaders is that they always turn Utilitarian once in power.
Palin, on the other hand, is a symbol of a completely different value system. Perhaps she is also an "icon" of heroism amid terrible slander. Should she be worshipped for her public martyrdom...uh...no.
Now the Left has a primal morality based on physical ethics which are fairly easy to define--Survival, Victim, Utility and Nature ethics. Of these, Utility is the "ethic" of the Strong dominating the Weak. Therefore, Leftist ethics splits into a black and white world of equality and nurture ethics (Survival, Victim and Nature) vs. the "evil" of Utility ethics. Thus, the Left puts a lot of effort into discovering what is your INTENTIONS. To the Left, Obama is obviously "good" because he is obviously a member of a Victim group and "appears" to give every indication of being a loving ruler rather than a Utilitarian manipulator. The terrible thing about these Leftists leaders is that they always turn Utilitarian once in power.
Palin, on the other hand, is a symbol of a completely different value system. Perhaps she is also an "icon" of heroism amid terrible slander. Should she be worshipped for her public martyrdom...uh...no.
3.22.2011 | 9:11am
Bop says:
Mrs Scalia,
It is not a question of sacrificing these gods, but of being always aware of their presence. And this is especially true for the most insidious god of them all, the one that would have you believe that you should and can sacrifice these gods.
By the way, you mean Britain, not England.
It is not a question of sacrificing these gods, but of being always aware of their presence. And this is especially true for the most insidious god of them all, the one that would have you believe that you should and can sacrifice these gods.
By the way, you mean Britain, not England.
3.22.2011 | 10:36am
fiestamom says:
Great article. One thing I will say in defense of Palinites, is that the media Palin hatred is unprecedented. From that first appearance with McCain to blaming her for Gabrielle Giffords, the media has been ruthless to her. When the media first started in on her, I took it personally. I was like you and Bobby Sherman, when they attacked her, they attacked me. I still kind of think that, b/c they regard Palin (and me) as a dumb country bumpkin who went to (gasp) A State School, has more than 2 kids and likes the 2nd Amendment. The media hates me too!
What they have done to her is so unfair. Unfortunately, the media has won, she'll never be President, but it would have been nice to have gotten the chance to judge her on her merits. Without turning on Morning Joe every morning, and they're still bashing her (me).
It would be easy to become a Palinite just to show the media they can't do this to her (me). So I understand where they're coming from.
What they have done to her is so unfair. Unfortunately, the media has won, she'll never be President, but it would have been nice to have gotten the chance to judge her on her merits. Without turning on Morning Joe every morning, and they're still bashing her (me).
It would be easy to become a Palinite just to show the media they can't do this to her (me). So I understand where they're coming from.
3.22.2011 | 11:31am
greenfairie says:
When a major media figure on t.v. calls Obama dumb (t-word) and still keeps his job with nary a peep, I'll buy your argument for equivalence.
Conservatives have seen this old saw before. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were castigated and quickly pushed into the Crazy Uncle Attic by first the liberal media and next by fellow Republicans taking their cues from the liberals. I suppose you could criticize or joke about Sarah Palin without it being hateful, but I've rarely heard either humor or criticism that wasn't. Now the conservative/GOP poobahs are muttering that she can't win, so off to the Crazy Aunt Attic she goes so some milquetoast candidate can try and save us from Obama's statism in 2012. Which he won't. The left wins again.
Conservatives have seen this old saw before. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were castigated and quickly pushed into the Crazy Uncle Attic by first the liberal media and next by fellow Republicans taking their cues from the liberals. I suppose you could criticize or joke about Sarah Palin without it being hateful, but I've rarely heard either humor or criticism that wasn't. Now the conservative/GOP poobahs are muttering that she can't win, so off to the Crazy Aunt Attic she goes so some milquetoast candidate can try and save us from Obama's statism in 2012. Which he won't. The left wins again.
3.22.2011 | 11:47am
Bop says:
Yo Ferd:
Isn’t intention the basis of all morality? I mean, if one is incapable of intending then isn’t one incapable of being moral or immoral? And isn’t one judged moral or immoral by the way one intends?
Isn’t intention the basis of all morality? I mean, if one is incapable of intending then isn’t one incapable of being moral or immoral? And isn’t one judged moral or immoral by the way one intends?
3.22.2011 | 1:14pm
Warren Jewell says:
However, solid Catholic that I am, I am disturbed about cultish agglomerations about, say, Maciel and now John Corapi. No evidence yet heard about the latter, no negative evidence will be countenanced by his idolators.
We have become a culture, not just a nation, of emoters without effort to be thinkers. Yes, truly, arrested adolescence and utter foolishness.
We have become a culture, not just a nation, of emoters without effort to be thinkers. Yes, truly, arrested adolescence and utter foolishness.
3.22.2011 | 1:20pm
Carson says:
@ferd, Bop, fiestamom, and greenfaire: Thanks for proving Ms. Scalia's point.
3.22.2011 | 1:39pm
Joe DeVet says:
Bop -- In a word, no. Intention is not the basis for all morality--though it is a factor, and I agree with you, absent the ability to intend (a normal human function) there would be no basis for praise or blame. But there are other factors, which I will recount at the risk of being overly simplistic.
The basis of all morality is what is right and what is wrong. To be morally right, an action must be good in three ways: object, end, and circumstances. Object--the objective rightness or wrongness of the act. End--the reason why the act is done; what purpose the act serves (its intent). Circumstances--whether the act is being done in the right time and place, and under the right conditions.
It is true a person might choose a morally bad act thinking that it is good. As John Paul II points out in "Veritatis Splendor", he is not morally culpable for the evil. However , the act is still evil in itself, and will have evil consequences.
The basis of all morality is what is right and what is wrong. To be morally right, an action must be good in three ways: object, end, and circumstances. Object--the objective rightness or wrongness of the act. End--the reason why the act is done; what purpose the act serves (its intent). Circumstances--whether the act is being done in the right time and place, and under the right conditions.
It is true a person might choose a morally bad act thinking that it is good. As John Paul II points out in "Veritatis Splendor", he is not morally culpable for the evil. However , the act is still evil in itself, and will have evil consequences.
3.22.2011 | 1:55pm
Fred says:
_It is true a person might choose a morally bad act thinking that it is good._
One might also choose a morally bad act knowing that it is morally bad but believing it justified for a good end. In that case intention does not matter, the agent has committed an immoral act. I think that was the point of the commenter that Bop (Yo, Bop could you please stop with the "Yo, whoever"? It's extremely annoying) was criticizing.
One might also choose a morally bad act knowing that it is morally bad but believing it justified for a good end. In that case intention does not matter, the agent has committed an immoral act. I think that was the point of the commenter that Bop (Yo, Bop could you please stop with the "Yo, whoever"? It's extremely annoying) was criticizing.
3.22.2011 | 1:57pm
Michael says:
Liberals like Thomas can be made to look idolatrous if you decide to assume the worst about their statements, as Scalia has, as she does nearly every week. First, Thomas praises Reagan, observing that, in Reagan’s struggle with the evil empire of the Soviet Union, “we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way.”
Second, he observes that the world in 2008 saw the US as the bad guys, people who were willing to wage presumptive war on trumped up evidence. And so in this context, Obama had a different job than Reagan. While Reagan had to be a strong national leader, Obama needs to be a strong international leader.
Because of this different international context, Obama has to promote a different message: “‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He's going to bring all different sides together.”
Scalia has decided that by claiming Obama is “sort of God,” Thomas means that Obama is god-like, divine, untouchable, and thus Thomas is idolatrous.
A more charitable interpretation of Thomas’s comment—and one more attentive to the context of the conversation—would conclude that Thomas was arguing that instead of taking a national point-of-view as Reagan correctly did, Obama is taking an international, birds-eye, or God-like perspective on international conflict. For Thomas, Obama is attempting to rise above national concerns as we imagine God doing.
But as Scalia has proven week after week, she’s not really interested in understanding liberals; it’s far more comforting to pretend that they are bad, bad people. She gets points for arriving at the correct conclusion—namely, that we aim at “a comfort level with truthiness that helps us to maintain our world views, a grim joylessness that permits no laughter and justifies tossing aside friends and family members who do not believe, and a bunker mentality that is ever on-guard for perceived heresies.” It’s just that Scalia displays her own comfort level with truthiness week after week.
Second, he observes that the world in 2008 saw the US as the bad guys, people who were willing to wage presumptive war on trumped up evidence. And so in this context, Obama had a different job than Reagan. While Reagan had to be a strong national leader, Obama needs to be a strong international leader.
Because of this different international context, Obama has to promote a different message: “‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He's going to bring all different sides together.”
Scalia has decided that by claiming Obama is “sort of God,” Thomas means that Obama is god-like, divine, untouchable, and thus Thomas is idolatrous.
A more charitable interpretation of Thomas’s comment—and one more attentive to the context of the conversation—would conclude that Thomas was arguing that instead of taking a national point-of-view as Reagan correctly did, Obama is taking an international, birds-eye, or God-like perspective on international conflict. For Thomas, Obama is attempting to rise above national concerns as we imagine God doing.
But as Scalia has proven week after week, she’s not really interested in understanding liberals; it’s far more comforting to pretend that they are bad, bad people. She gets points for arriving at the correct conclusion—namely, that we aim at “a comfort level with truthiness that helps us to maintain our world views, a grim joylessness that permits no laughter and justifies tossing aside friends and family members who do not believe, and a bunker mentality that is ever on-guard for perceived heresies.” It’s just that Scalia displays her own comfort level with truthiness week after week.
3.22.2011 | 2:08pm
Ken says:
Great post overall, but you misquote and misunderstand Evan Thomas. He didn't say that Obama was "almost like God," but that "he’s sort of God," given that he's "standing above the country, above – above the world" poised to "bring all different sides together." Chris Matthews then compared him in this respect to Reagan, an analogy Thomas accepted. Thomas was wildly and naively over-optimistic, and no doubt his exact choice of words to make his point reflected his admiration for Obama, but he didn't say the guy was almost like God compared to other politicos. Moran too was making a point that had nothing to with his personal opinion of Obama, but with the fact that holding office is a prosaic task compared to leading a movement.
And, Joe DeVet, do you have any evidence for ad hominem fantasy that Obama was elected for his "value as a racial icon based on whom to congratulate oneself for one's tolerance"? The fact that he was black made him a more attractive candidate for a lot of people, myself included. All decent people, even those who would never consider actually voting for him, were happy to see a black man be considered for the presidency. That Democrats were so shallow as to vote for him only because we thought that vote would reflect well on us is another matter.
And, Joe DeVet, do you have any evidence for ad hominem fantasy that Obama was elected for his "value as a racial icon based on whom to congratulate oneself for one's tolerance"? The fact that he was black made him a more attractive candidate for a lot of people, myself included. All decent people, even those who would never consider actually voting for him, were happy to see a black man be considered for the presidency. That Democrats were so shallow as to vote for him only because we thought that vote would reflect well on us is another matter.
3.22.2011 | 2:13pm
Barbara says:
@Bop, ferd, et al: One of my favorite quotes is from Hillel, "An ignoramus cannot do good." In other words, someone who intends to do good but does not think through the consequences of his actions will do more harm than good. The road to hell, etc., etc.
At one of my former church's seriously misguided interfaith lectures, a young and very sincere (presumably) Muslim man explained the advantages of his religion. One of them was that it didn't matter if what you actually did resulted in good, all that mattered was your intentions. I was skeptical about this lecture going in but I couldn't help but cringe when he said that. It was so childish and he clearly thought this was a selling point- much, much better than actually having to stress about what harm you may do.
At one of my former church's seriously misguided interfaith lectures, a young and very sincere (presumably) Muslim man explained the advantages of his religion. One of them was that it didn't matter if what you actually did resulted in good, all that mattered was your intentions. I was skeptical about this lecture going in but I couldn't help but cringe when he said that. It was so childish and he clearly thought this was a selling point- much, much better than actually having to stress about what harm you may do.
3.22.2011 | 2:27pm
Leo Ladenson says:
@Carson I think Palin is due a lot of criticism--for her interview performance during the campaign, for resigning the Alaska governorship, for getting herself and her family into the reality TV business--but there is simply no comparison between how she and Obama were treated during the 2008 campaign--and since. The Republican no. 2 was subjected to unprecedented scrutiny. In theory, I have no problem with that. In practice, the coverage was often invasive, mean spirited, and inappropriate. In comparison with the treatment of the Democrat no. 1, who was given a pass, it was simply a sick joke.
Thus I (and perhaps others) don't generally join in criticizing Palin publicly because the media has set that up as a crooked game and only a crook knowingly plays a crooked game.
Thus I (and perhaps others) don't generally join in criticizing Palin publicly because the media has set that up as a crooked game and only a crook knowingly plays a crooked game.
3.22.2011 | 2:31pm
Bio says:
Hi Fred (or Ferd):
"One might also choose a morally bad act knowing that it is morally bad but believing it justified for a good end."
An example please.
"One might also choose a morally bad act knowing that it is morally bad but believing it justified for a good end."
An example please.
3.22.2011 | 2:37pm
Sergio Méndez says:
"[...] empty-shell president who was elected not for his accomplishments or his policy positions (nil and toxic, respectively),"
That sounds like a good description of G.W Bush.
That sounds like a good description of G.W Bush.
3.22.2011 | 2:40pm
Aimee says:
Wow--the link to the SFGate article is just fascinating. I like the line at the end where he proposes, and then dismisses, the possibility that things could get worse with Obama. I wonder what he thinks now--that the forces of darkness are out to get the enlightened one? Sadly, I was not paying attention to all of this before the last election, and when people would tell me that O was being messianized I always took it with a grain of salt.
Now? Well, let's just say that link made me very uneasy, even three years later.
Now? Well, let's just say that link made me very uneasy, even three years later.
3.22.2011 | 2:44pm
Ken says:
I keep reading about how badly Palin has been treated in the media. Who's like to give examples? Leo, given those failings you cite, why does she deserve respect as a vice-presidential or presidential candidate/
3.22.2011 | 3:05pm
Bop says:
Barbara, Joe DeVet:
A novel by Anthony Burgess, I seem to remember. A holy man. He was in a hospital and he saw a dying child who was in great pain. Through prayer and the laying on of hands the man cured the child of pain and saved his life. Many years later when the child grew up he became a cult leader and mass murderer forcing his hundreds of followers to drink poison. If the holy man hadn’t saved the child’s life then this mass murder would not have resulted.
The point is that the totality of circumstances and results of an action are always unknown to the perpetrator of the act, and indeed to anyone else other than God. Consequently, the morality of an act, whether that act is praiseworthy or blameworthy, can only be judged by the as best as can be informed intention of the actor. Strange but true.
A novel by Anthony Burgess, I seem to remember. A holy man. He was in a hospital and he saw a dying child who was in great pain. Through prayer and the laying on of hands the man cured the child of pain and saved his life. Many years later when the child grew up he became a cult leader and mass murderer forcing his hundreds of followers to drink poison. If the holy man hadn’t saved the child’s life then this mass murder would not have resulted.
The point is that the totality of circumstances and results of an action are always unknown to the perpetrator of the act, and indeed to anyone else other than God. Consequently, the morality of an act, whether that act is praiseworthy or blameworthy, can only be judged by the as best as can be informed intention of the actor. Strange but true.
3.22.2011 | 3:14pm
Leo Ladenson says:
@Ken Perhaps you slept through 2008, but I'll give you one example. A rumor began the very weekend her candidacy was announced that Palin's son Trig was actually the son of Palin's daughter Bristol. Even when it was revealed that Bristol herself was pregnant and that her maternity of Trig was a physiological impossibility, many mainstream media commentators continued to beat the drum that Palin was hiding something about Trig, that she should release her medical records, etc., etc. (She was also criticized for "using" Trig as a campaign prop, when every other politician in the country is allowed to pose with his or her family.) An altogether shameful display.
Compare that with how the Obama daughters were treated. Obama was allowed to trot them out whenever he wanted--to be made props for his pro-abortion rhetoric--but a cordon of media silence was placed around them. I wish the Palin kids had gotten one tenth the respect that the Obama girls did.
I have no strong opinion on Ms. Palin's political prospects, but she deserves respect as a human being and a public servant--whatever your politics. It should be recalled, though, that she was the auxiliary to the McCain campaign. No one has ever satisfactorily answered the question why more scrutiny was applied to her than to the man who actually became president. It was a shocking dereliction of the media's duty.
In fact, I see Obama and Palin as mirror images. Both charismatic, both appealing to large constituencies, both relatively inexperienced, both growing up on the frontiers of American society (or in Obama's case, at times, outside of it altogether). So again I ask the question: why did the Republican no. 2 get all the scrutiny and the Democrat no. 1 a pass?
Compare that with how the Obama daughters were treated. Obama was allowed to trot them out whenever he wanted--to be made props for his pro-abortion rhetoric--but a cordon of media silence was placed around them. I wish the Palin kids had gotten one tenth the respect that the Obama girls did.
I have no strong opinion on Ms. Palin's political prospects, but she deserves respect as a human being and a public servant--whatever your politics. It should be recalled, though, that she was the auxiliary to the McCain campaign. No one has ever satisfactorily answered the question why more scrutiny was applied to her than to the man who actually became president. It was a shocking dereliction of the media's duty.
In fact, I see Obama and Palin as mirror images. Both charismatic, both appealing to large constituencies, both relatively inexperienced, both growing up on the frontiers of American society (or in Obama's case, at times, outside of it altogether). So again I ask the question: why did the Republican no. 2 get all the scrutiny and the Democrat no. 1 a pass?
3.22.2011 | 3:19pm
Matt says:
@ Bio: "One might also choose a morally bad act knowing that it is morally bad but believing it justified for a good end."
An example please."
John 11:50
An example please."
John 11:50
3.22.2011 | 3:20pm
Linus says:
I am about as conservative as you can get and I like Sara Palin but I don't get all emotional about her and I was unaware the was a large cult following. I think what I object to is the savaging of Sara that comes from both the political left ( meaning that they fear her influence and/or potentially lethal political power) and some in conservative circles ( mostly the Bush acolytes) who fear her for the same reasons. I don't know whether she would be an exceptional president or not but she would certainly be better that the one we have now. I don't know if she is electable or not but I prefer her to any of the folks who have so far stepped forward and would support her unless someone like Paul Ryan or Rand Paul steps forward. I don't think that makes me a cult follower.
3.22.2011 | 3:32pm
Matt says:
@ Bop: Of course only God knows "the totality of circumstances and results of an action". But that doesn't mitigate the fact that certain actions are evil in themselves - regardless of the actors "informed intention". In your fictional example, the holy man's healing of the child was a good act (assuming, of course that he had a right intention). The future acts of the child who was healed speak for themselves - they do not have any bearing on the morality of the healing.
If, however, the holy man had (in a vision, perhaps) foreseen that the child would later be a mass murderer, and had decided to kill (or withhold healing for) the child - that would have been an evil act regardless of his "informed intention". The primary source of morality is always the act itself (be it murder or healing).
If, however, the holy man had (in a vision, perhaps) foreseen that the child would later be a mass murderer, and had decided to kill (or withhold healing for) the child - that would have been an evil act regardless of his "informed intention". The primary source of morality is always the act itself (be it murder or healing).
3.22.2011 | 3:33pm
Ken says:
I think what I object to is the savaging of Sara that comes from both the political left ( meaning that they fear her influence and/or potentially lethal political power)
On the contrary, Democrats would love to see her be the Republican nominee in 2012. We see her not as a serious threat, but as a buffoon, a loose cannon, an egotist, an ignoramus, and a jerk.
On the contrary, Democrats would love to see her be the Republican nominee in 2012. We see her not as a serious threat, but as a buffoon, a loose cannon, an egotist, an ignoramus, and a jerk.
3.22.2011 | 3:38pm
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
A man who is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for merely being himself, without any accomplishment, is surely being regarded by many as being outside the category of normal humanity. His election was as much as anything a shout of Hossanah (Save us!) from Americans who felt Barry Obama was offering them salvation from the accumulated racial guilt they felt for the awful way African Americans had been oppressed for centuries. His actual accomplishments or abilities were of no relevance to his symbolhood, his nature as an idol.
I find Sarah Palin's resume to be similarly thin. Surely 250 million Americans can produce leaders of proven intelligence and ability.
I find Sarah Palin's resume to be similarly thin. Surely 250 million Americans can produce leaders of proven intelligence and ability.
3.22.2011 | 4:06pm
Leo Ladenson says:
@Ken "On the contrary, Democrats would love to see her be the Republican nominee in 2012. We see her not as a serious threat, but as a buffoon, a loose cannon, an egotist, an ignoramus, and a jerk."
Even on the FT blog, the ad hominems continue.
It might surprise you to know that I look on Palin and Obama as mirror images. Both young, charismatic, appealing to large constituencies, relatively inexperienced, having grown up on the frontiers of American society. Neither was really ready for the highest office in the land and the leadership of the free world. But only one party ran such a neophyte for the top job. Shame on the Democrat party.
Even on the FT blog, the ad hominems continue.
It might surprise you to know that I look on Palin and Obama as mirror images. Both young, charismatic, appealing to large constituencies, relatively inexperienced, having grown up on the frontiers of American society. Neither was really ready for the highest office in the land and the leadership of the free world. But only one party ran such a neophyte for the top job. Shame on the Democrat party.
3.22.2011 | 4:23pm
Ken says:
Leo, bad character is exactly what would justify "bad" treatment in the media. I get tired of going into details about why her character is bad, but that is is should be clear as day.
Also, I've asked you for example of that treatment in the mainstream media (not the progressive blogosphere). As I said elsewhere on this site, I respect Palin for not aborting her handicapped child. How else has she shown good character?
I don't entirely reject your criticism of Obama as too inexperienced (ideally) for the job, but doing the job relies in large part on having good advisors, and Obama has demonstrated intelligence and depth of knowledge that make Palin look like a kid, not to mention an excellent temperament.
And I might ask as well, are you upset about the Right's snarky comments about Michelle Obama?
Also, I've asked you for example of that treatment in the mainstream media (not the progressive blogosphere). As I said elsewhere on this site, I respect Palin for not aborting her handicapped child. How else has she shown good character?
I don't entirely reject your criticism of Obama as too inexperienced (ideally) for the job, but doing the job relies in large part on having good advisors, and Obama has demonstrated intelligence and depth of knowledge that make Palin look like a kid, not to mention an excellent temperament.
And I might ask as well, are you upset about the Right's snarky comments about Michelle Obama?
3.22.2011 | 4:34pm
Bop says:
@Matt:
You say: “If, however, the holy man had (in a vision, perhaps) foreseen that the child would later be a mass murderer” and decided to “withhold healing for” the child, then this withholding of healing would also be an evil act.
Didn’t Plato address this somewhere? My friend gives me a gun for safekeeping. He arrives one night at my home asking for it. I see he looks very down, depressed. But I give him his gun because it is his gun and he has asked for it back. Now maybe I know through an intuition of some sort that he is going to shoot himself. But still I give him his property because it would be wrong not to return it. I think I would be wrong to give him his property because I am concerned for a greater good than returning his property. I believe my intention for the greater good trumps my obligation to perform the morally correct action, returning his property.
If you knew, through a vision of some sort, that your friend in these circumstances would use his property to randomly shoot people when he left your house, what would you do?
Also, I am not convinced that Caiphas would have viewed killing Jesus as a morally bad act in the circumstances. To simply say it is a morally bad act rather begs the question
You say: “If, however, the holy man had (in a vision, perhaps) foreseen that the child would later be a mass murderer” and decided to “withhold healing for” the child, then this withholding of healing would also be an evil act.
Didn’t Plato address this somewhere? My friend gives me a gun for safekeeping. He arrives one night at my home asking for it. I see he looks very down, depressed. But I give him his gun because it is his gun and he has asked for it back. Now maybe I know through an intuition of some sort that he is going to shoot himself. But still I give him his property because it would be wrong not to return it. I think I would be wrong to give him his property because I am concerned for a greater good than returning his property. I believe my intention for the greater good trumps my obligation to perform the morally correct action, returning his property.
If you knew, through a vision of some sort, that your friend in these circumstances would use his property to randomly shoot people when he left your house, what would you do?
Also, I am not convinced that Caiphas would have viewed killing Jesus as a morally bad act in the circumstances. To simply say it is a morally bad act rather begs the question
3.22.2011 | 4:40pm
harry says:
I don't think it is a matter of American politics being infected with toxic cults of personality, at least not on the part of Palin supporters. I think it is a matter of the mainstream media's quite reasonable fear of voters wising up, and the voters who have wised up reacting appropriately to the MSM.
Having observed eight Presidential elections as an adult, and as one who has been intensely involved in politics at times, it appeared to me that the vicious hatchet job Sarah Palin was subjected to in the 2008 elections (and ever since) by the MSM was unprecedented. Their near worship of Obama and their refusal to even minimally vet him in any way was unprecedented as well. In regards to Palin and Obama both, even the pretense of objective journalism was abandoned. Why was that? Because the values of both individuals were understood clearly by the MSM. Palin's terrified them and Obama's thrilled them. It is as simple as that.
It is encouraging that in spite of the MSM's massive, unprecedented effort to misrepresent the candidates to the voting public the difference in the popular vote nation-wide was only 7 percent. That should be encouraging to those whose values are similar to that of Palin. It must be terrifying to the godless social engineers who comprise America's “ruling class.” See:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
for an astute description of America's “ruling class.”)
The social engineers have good reason to be terrified: Counting on the continued ignorance of the voting public is not much of a strategy when your best efforts to keep them in the dark only got you a victory by a 7 percent margin, and two years later the election revealed they had wised up considerably since then. They have good reason to fear that two more years of voters “wising up” will make a similar effort to distort and deceive in the 2012 elections the object of widespread mockery and ridicule among voters who won't be fooled twice. This will be reflected at the polls.
Of course, Republican victory is only assured if they don't run a “ruling class” ticket in 2012. If they do that, the presidency is up for grabs by either party, as the biggest block of voters are independents, more of which lean Democratic than Republican, and, among the mere 27 percent of voters who identify themselves as Republicans, a significant number are really “fifties” Democrats who have only registered as Republicans because of the social issues. Both groups are becoming increasingly opposed to the policies of the “ruling class” and have no significant allegiance to a particular party. They are able to detect “ruling class” candidates even when those candidates wear a Republican disguise. If the Republicans want the presidency they need to run a ticket whose values resonate with these two groups. If they run godless social engineers, this will be detected, and voter exasperation will make an eventual, successful third party inevitable.
Having observed eight Presidential elections as an adult, and as one who has been intensely involved in politics at times, it appeared to me that the vicious hatchet job Sarah Palin was subjected to in the 2008 elections (and ever since) by the MSM was unprecedented. Their near worship of Obama and their refusal to even minimally vet him in any way was unprecedented as well. In regards to Palin and Obama both, even the pretense of objective journalism was abandoned. Why was that? Because the values of both individuals were understood clearly by the MSM. Palin's terrified them and Obama's thrilled them. It is as simple as that.
It is encouraging that in spite of the MSM's massive, unprecedented effort to misrepresent the candidates to the voting public the difference in the popular vote nation-wide was only 7 percent. That should be encouraging to those whose values are similar to that of Palin. It must be terrifying to the godless social engineers who comprise America's “ruling class.” See:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
for an astute description of America's “ruling class.”)
The social engineers have good reason to be terrified: Counting on the continued ignorance of the voting public is not much of a strategy when your best efforts to keep them in the dark only got you a victory by a 7 percent margin, and two years later the election revealed they had wised up considerably since then. They have good reason to fear that two more years of voters “wising up” will make a similar effort to distort and deceive in the 2012 elections the object of widespread mockery and ridicule among voters who won't be fooled twice. This will be reflected at the polls.
Of course, Republican victory is only assured if they don't run a “ruling class” ticket in 2012. If they do that, the presidency is up for grabs by either party, as the biggest block of voters are independents, more of which lean Democratic than Republican, and, among the mere 27 percent of voters who identify themselves as Republicans, a significant number are really “fifties” Democrats who have only registered as Republicans because of the social issues. Both groups are becoming increasingly opposed to the policies of the “ruling class” and have no significant allegiance to a particular party. They are able to detect “ruling class” candidates even when those candidates wear a Republican disguise. If the Republicans want the presidency they need to run a ticket whose values resonate with these two groups. If they run godless social engineers, this will be detected, and voter exasperation will make an eventual, successful third party inevitable.
3.22.2011 | 4:41pm
fiestamom says:
@Carson, I don't know if you're being snarky, but I was agreeing with The Anchoress. It's easy to see how people go from supporting a candidate (Palin), to identifying with her, and it's really about the "supporter", not Palin. I try to think of Sarah Palin and her politics as objectively as I can, so I don't consider myself a Palinista.
As a Catholic, 2008 was hard on me. I was not a fan of Obama, but I had to learn the hard way that I have to be a Catholic first, an American second. Up until that point, it was the other way around. I now see that I can't count on America, the only One I can count on is God. How sad that it took me so long.
As a Catholic, 2008 was hard on me. I was not a fan of Obama, but I had to learn the hard way that I have to be a Catholic first, an American second. Up until that point, it was the other way around. I now see that I can't count on America, the only One I can count on is God. How sad that it took me so long.
3.22.2011 | 5:05pm
Grand Inquisitor says:
"So, yes, we’re in trouble. Our ideological allegiances to these cults of personality have us slip-sliding into the sin of idolatry and everything that comes with it—a comfort level with truthiness that helps us to maintain our world views, a grim joylessness that permits no laughter and justifies tossing aside friends and family members who do not believe, and a bunker mentality that is ever on-guard for perceived heresies."
An equivalency between the unprecedented juggernaut that put Obama into the White House with a by-comparison tiny group of loyalists to Palin is simply not accurate. It is this attempt, driven by motives of let's-all-get-along, that does a disservice to examining critically the dangers we face with an administration that is undoing the foundations upon which our nation was built, brick by brick. Freighting Palin with a comparable weight, a comparable juggernaut of absolutely blind support, is futile because it doesn't equate.
An equivalency between the unprecedented juggernaut that put Obama into the White House with a by-comparison tiny group of loyalists to Palin is simply not accurate. It is this attempt, driven by motives of let's-all-get-along, that does a disservice to examining critically the dangers we face with an administration that is undoing the foundations upon which our nation was built, brick by brick. Freighting Palin with a comparable weight, a comparable juggernaut of absolutely blind support, is futile because it doesn't equate.
3.22.2011 | 5:24pm
Leo Ladenson says:
@Ken I made a long comment on the whole media treatment of Trig Palin's maternity that seems not to have made it through moderation--somehow your ad hominems are okay, but exposing Trig Trutherism is not a fit subject. In any event, it was a disgusting spectacle. My concluding line was that I wish the Palin kids had been accorded one-tenth the respect that the Obama girls were shown, even when Obama trotted them out as props for his pro-abortion rhetoric.
"And I might ask as well, are you upset about the Right's snarky comments about Michelle Obama?"
I have never made any such comments. I just don't think political families are fair game.
On the other hand, I haven't seen one example from you of Palin's bad character or of Obama's good "temperament"--ha, one thought only the hapless, though humorous, Christopher Buckley was taken in by that canard.
"And I might ask as well, are you upset about the Right's snarky comments about Michelle Obama?"
I have never made any such comments. I just don't think political families are fair game.
On the other hand, I haven't seen one example from you of Palin's bad character or of Obama's good "temperament"--ha, one thought only the hapless, though humorous, Christopher Buckley was taken in by that canard.
3.22.2011 | 5:44pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
A cult of hatred for a particular personality is the mirror image of a cult of personality.
It's pretty obvious that the more irrational attacks on Sarah Palin stem from the fear that she could actually pose a threat to Golden One, Obama.
It's kind've like the masses in Orwell's "1984" needing a "two-minute" hate, and a figure to vent that hate on. It's the flip side of adoring "Big Brother." Anyone who opposes the beloved cult figure is evil, and must be despised.
It's pretty obvious that the more irrational attacks on Sarah Palin stem from the fear that she could actually pose a threat to Golden One, Obama.
It's kind've like the masses in Orwell's "1984" needing a "two-minute" hate, and a figure to vent that hate on. It's the flip side of adoring "Big Brother." Anyone who opposes the beloved cult figure is evil, and must be despised.
3.22.2011 | 5:47pm
Henry James says:
All elections, elect an idol, a god.
After a few years in office, they see they have elected a man.
After a few years in office, they see they have elected a man.
3.22.2011 | 6:08pm
Jessica says:
I agree with the comment fro Henry James- It i the society we live in and how we are provoked by the media
www.prcompany.org.uk
www.prcompany.org.uk
3.22.2011 | 6:16pm
Todd says:
At first, I thought this was going to be another post about Fr Corapi. Whew!
People find their heroes in all sorts of places beyond politics. What makes it easier to seek for heroes in one's community is that one sees them as living, flawed human beings, and not just as celebrities. The modern media system, both Left and Right, tout celebrity because celebrity sells. Your mentor in your home town--not so much.
One problem with the comparison between Mr Obama and Ms Palin: one is something of an extremist, the other not so much. The president doesn't have much of a base. Real liberals would and do question him on all sorts of issues--and rightly so. As for humor, Tom Tomorrow does an apt job of skewering the president. Always worth a laugh.
People find their heroes in all sorts of places beyond politics. What makes it easier to seek for heroes in one's community is that one sees them as living, flawed human beings, and not just as celebrities. The modern media system, both Left and Right, tout celebrity because celebrity sells. Your mentor in your home town--not so much.
One problem with the comparison between Mr Obama and Ms Palin: one is something of an extremist, the other not so much. The president doesn't have much of a base. Real liberals would and do question him on all sorts of issues--and rightly so. As for humor, Tom Tomorrow does an apt job of skewering the president. Always worth a laugh.
3.22.2011 | 6:18pm
Ken says:
Leo, have you tried reposting that long comment? I’ve had things disappear her but get posted when I sent them again. Good luck.
As for Trig Palin, I agree that Andrew Sullivan went off the rails there in a very unfair way. But he’s a rogue conservative, not really a mainstream guy? If any one else in the media took up his claims, I missed it, and I watched and listened to and read an awful lot during the 2008 campaign. I don’t remember the other girls being criticized then either. It’s true that Bristol was later made a laughingstock for her on again, off again relationship with Levi, in a way that smacked off class snobbery, and that was unfair. Then again, Sarah out her out as a spokeswoman for chastity . . . how cynical can you get?
Obama’s unflappability has been noted by everyone who’s worked with him. And I told you why I haven’t given examples of Palin’s bad character, although you gave a couple yourself. Briefly, because I really am sick of the subject, there was her snarky speech at the convention, the totally uncalled for mockery of Obama after wink-winking that she was a godly woman with a “servant’s heart.” There has been that same vituperativeness about Obama and liberals ever since, along with deep bitternessand counterattack (even on young Levi, for pete’s sake) when she’s been attacked. Loving her enemies she is not. There have been two Vanity Fair profiles that have sown her to be testy, thin-skinned, willful, and vindicative, and before that this piece in The New Republic (Barracuda: the resentments of Sarah Palin) that shows she’s been like that for a long time: http://www.tnr.com/article/barracuda. And google “Odd Lies of Sarah Palin.”
As for Trig Palin, I agree that Andrew Sullivan went off the rails there in a very unfair way. But he’s a rogue conservative, not really a mainstream guy? If any one else in the media took up his claims, I missed it, and I watched and listened to and read an awful lot during the 2008 campaign. I don’t remember the other girls being criticized then either. It’s true that Bristol was later made a laughingstock for her on again, off again relationship with Levi, in a way that smacked off class snobbery, and that was unfair. Then again, Sarah out her out as a spokeswoman for chastity . . . how cynical can you get?
Obama’s unflappability has been noted by everyone who’s worked with him. And I told you why I haven’t given examples of Palin’s bad character, although you gave a couple yourself. Briefly, because I really am sick of the subject, there was her snarky speech at the convention, the totally uncalled for mockery of Obama after wink-winking that she was a godly woman with a “servant’s heart.” There has been that same vituperativeness about Obama and liberals ever since, along with deep bitternessand counterattack (even on young Levi, for pete’s sake) when she’s been attacked. Loving her enemies she is not. There have been two Vanity Fair profiles that have sown her to be testy, thin-skinned, willful, and vindicative, and before that this piece in The New Republic (Barracuda: the resentments of Sarah Palin) that shows she’s been like that for a long time: http://www.tnr.com/article/barracuda. And google “Odd Lies of Sarah Palin.”
3.22.2011 | 6:25pm
Ken says:
Gran Inquisitor wrote:
An equivalency between the unprecedented juggernaut that put Obama into the White House with a by-comparison tiny group of loyalists to Palin is simply not accurate. It is this attempt, driven by motives of let's-all-get-along, that does a disservice to examining critically the dangers we face with an administration that is undoing the foundations upon which our nation was built, brick by brick. Freighting Palin with a comparable weight, a comparable juggernaut of absolutely blind support, is futile because it doesn't equate.
The equivalency isn't between their relative power or relative numbers, but between the attitude that so identifies with one side that it mindlessly rejects criticism of it, and mindlessly (as on talk radio Left and Right) criticizes every thing the other side does.
An equivalency between the unprecedented juggernaut that put Obama into the White House with a by-comparison tiny group of loyalists to Palin is simply not accurate. It is this attempt, driven by motives of let's-all-get-along, that does a disservice to examining critically the dangers we face with an administration that is undoing the foundations upon which our nation was built, brick by brick. Freighting Palin with a comparable weight, a comparable juggernaut of absolutely blind support, is futile because it doesn't equate.
The equivalency isn't between their relative power or relative numbers, but between the attitude that so identifies with one side that it mindlessly rejects criticism of it, and mindlessly (as on talk radio Left and Right) criticizes every thing the other side does.
3.22.2011 | 6:31pm
frederik have lehmann says:
tagrens
I totally agree with you. But can it really be true?
I totally agree with you. But can it really be true?
3.22.2011 | 7:04pm
Nora says:
A Catholic first, an American second...that's interesting.
Is it okay if Muslims vote as Muslims first, Americans second?
Can someone with dual nationality choose which one he places first once he's inside the election booth? A German first, an American second?
The politics of self interest are destroying this country.
That's what's at the heart of so much of the cult-of-personality problem no matter what arena it occurs in. The cult-of-personality is, as others have mentioned, all about identity. About self. It's not ever really about the idol in any meaningful way. It's about feeling good about oneself in the now. About feeling validated (whatever that means).
None of that does this nation any good at all. It's time for people to stop holding this nation hostage to their pet causes and personal feelings and make rational, reasoned decisions based on what benefits the nation as a whole, what makes us stronger, what will foster an atmosphere of opportunity and prosperity.
Is it okay if Muslims vote as Muslims first, Americans second?
Can someone with dual nationality choose which one he places first once he's inside the election booth? A German first, an American second?
The politics of self interest are destroying this country.
That's what's at the heart of so much of the cult-of-personality problem no matter what arena it occurs in. The cult-of-personality is, as others have mentioned, all about identity. About self. It's not ever really about the idol in any meaningful way. It's about feeling good about oneself in the now. About feeling validated (whatever that means).
None of that does this nation any good at all. It's time for people to stop holding this nation hostage to their pet causes and personal feelings and make rational, reasoned decisions based on what benefits the nation as a whole, what makes us stronger, what will foster an atmosphere of opportunity and prosperity.
3.22.2011 | 9:57pm
Tony Esolen says:
Both Mrs. Palin and Mr. Obama make Barry Goldwater look like James Madison, and Ronald Reagan -- I am thinking of his speech at the 1964 convention, which he wrote himself -- as Demosthenes. They are, in their different ways, deeply silly people. Neither one of them has a clue as to what ails the culture of the nation they would lead. If all the mirrors in their homes were tossed away, they would wilt from lack of attention. It would be interesting to compare the writing and the speeches of two statesmen of ordinary intellectual abilities from a hundred years ago, Cleveland and McKinley, to the twaddle we get now from the Palindrome and the Obamarama.
3.22.2011 | 11:15pm
Michael says:
Ken,
Thanks for posting such sane comments. You lift the level of conversation here.
Thanks for posting such sane comments. You lift the level of conversation here.
3.22.2011 | 11:41pm
Dennis says:
@Nora: Yes, it is okay if Muslims vote as Muslims first, Americans second. In fact, voting as a Muslim first may, in their view, be what is best for the nation as a whole. As a Catholic, I have a duty to God and what I think He wishes of me before I have a duty to man. Also, equating that with having two nationalities (if that is what you were doing) is not accurate. Nationality is based on human law, faith and acting on faith is based on divine law.
Now, I do not disagree that the politics of self-interest are destroying this country. How, though (and I ask this with sincerity, not sarcasm), are people to make the "rational, reasoned decisions based on what benefits the nation as a whole, ..."? What you consider 'pet causes' may actually be that person's opinion of what IS best for the nation. For example, let's consider abortion. Many on the pro-choice side of the argument view the ability to choose to have an abortion as not only moral, but a rational, reasoned decision based on what benefits the nation as a whole. Meanwhile, many on the pro-life side of the argument view the allowance of abortion as not only immoral, but hurtful to the nation as a whole, and therefore should be stopped. Both sides have studies and science to support their claims. How is the 'correct' decision arrived at when opposing sides have different ideas of what actually benefits the nation as a whole? I obviously brought up a lightning rod in the topic of abortion, but I ask that any responses deal with my original question. Abortion was the first thing that came to mind, but is only one of many topics that could have been chosen, such as off-shore drilling, bailouts of car companies, etc.
Thanks!
Now, I do not disagree that the politics of self-interest are destroying this country. How, though (and I ask this with sincerity, not sarcasm), are people to make the "rational, reasoned decisions based on what benefits the nation as a whole, ..."? What you consider 'pet causes' may actually be that person's opinion of what IS best for the nation. For example, let's consider abortion. Many on the pro-choice side of the argument view the ability to choose to have an abortion as not only moral, but a rational, reasoned decision based on what benefits the nation as a whole. Meanwhile, many on the pro-life side of the argument view the allowance of abortion as not only immoral, but hurtful to the nation as a whole, and therefore should be stopped. Both sides have studies and science to support their claims. How is the 'correct' decision arrived at when opposing sides have different ideas of what actually benefits the nation as a whole? I obviously brought up a lightning rod in the topic of abortion, but I ask that any responses deal with my original question. Abortion was the first thing that came to mind, but is only one of many topics that could have been chosen, such as off-shore drilling, bailouts of car companies, etc.
Thanks!
3.23.2011 | 8:54am
Gail F says:
Very nice piece. I remember how I felt -- bemused, I guess, is the word -- when Sarah Palin was chosen as the VP candidate and immediately attacked by Democrats because she had no experience. ??!!!? She had more executive experience than they guy they nominated for president, a guy who had accomplished absolutely nothing. I used to ask my friends who liked him for ONE example of something he did -- a piece of legislation he sponsored, a book that was not a ghostwritten memoir about himself, anything. They could not come up with anything, but they insisted he was a genius and Palin was an idiot. And it went down hill from there. The visceral hatred unleashed upon Palin (whom, let me say, I would never vote for) is breathtaking, but only in the breadth of its scope. It extends to everything about her. The constant Bush-bashing was bad but more focused, and the 8 years of Clinton-bashing before that were equally rabid.
That said, I do not know what to make of the Obama/Palin thing. There is a cult of personality around both of them that makes their supporters into groupies, and it all seems to be based around the way they look and act rather than around their accomplishments in government, which ought to count for SOMETHING when it comes to the presidency. But talking about qualifications and accomplishments seems to the majority of people to be beside the point. They stare at you as if you just don't "get it." I guess I don't.
That said, I do not know what to make of the Obama/Palin thing. There is a cult of personality around both of them that makes their supporters into groupies, and it all seems to be based around the way they look and act rather than around their accomplishments in government, which ought to count for SOMETHING when it comes to the presidency. But talking about qualifications and accomplishments seems to the majority of people to be beside the point. They stare at you as if you just don't "get it." I guess I don't.
3.23.2011 | 9:48am
Ken says:
Gail, do you remember the meeting convened at the White House at McCain's request when the bottom fell out of the economy in 2008? McCain, who had admitted knowing little about economics, sat largely silent at his own summit and spoke vaguely when he spoke at all, while Obama ran the meeting. Executive experience isn't everything.
I don't think Palin's an idiot, and I've read that she's a quick study (when she does study) but everyone could see from her interviews that she was far less informed than Obama. I've never seen any evidence that his books were ghostwritten either - so many unsubstantiated charges become articles of faith on one side or another because they have emotional appeal.
I don't think Palin's an idiot, and I've read that she's a quick study (when she does study) but everyone could see from her interviews that she was far less informed than Obama. I've never seen any evidence that his books were ghostwritten either - so many unsubstantiated charges become articles of faith on one side or another because they have emotional appeal.
3.23.2011 | 9:55am
Nora says:
@Dennis, yes -- but the problem is that people make one particular issue -- abortion, off-shore drilling, unions, healthcare, closing Gitmo -- the onle issue they care about. In their efforts to further that one agenda, they elect these godawful people who are completely ineffective even in affecting the agenda they were selected for. People have gotten awfully narrow and short-sighted these days. And the worst offenders are the first to complain when it all goes to hell.
3.23.2011 | 1:50pm
Joe DeVet says:
Ken,
I'm also glad that America has come far enough to be willing to elect a black man. Certainly, that is a change from, say, the 1950's when I first became aware of the mores and attitudes of our culture. However, it was clear before Obama came on the scene that the country was ready for a black president. Many believed Colin Powell could have been the one. So electing Obama, in my opinion, didn't bring any new news about racial attitudes.
I'm not glad that America elects a man, however, largely because he's black. Which I think was the case with Obama. The evidence? A review of other Democrat senators and other leaders in the party, available at the same time, reveals several who are white and had credentials and experience clearly better than Obama. So my thought experiment: is there any chance that any of them could have beaten Hillary in the primaries, or if they did, to win the general election? Do you recall how excited people were that we were going to get our first lady president, and how inevitable it seemed? Until Obama came along and offered an even more powerful icon of tolerance and progress.
I'm also glad that America has come far enough to be willing to elect a black man. Certainly, that is a change from, say, the 1950's when I first became aware of the mores and attitudes of our culture. However, it was clear before Obama came on the scene that the country was ready for a black president. Many believed Colin Powell could have been the one. So electing Obama, in my opinion, didn't bring any new news about racial attitudes.
I'm not glad that America elects a man, however, largely because he's black. Which I think was the case with Obama. The evidence? A review of other Democrat senators and other leaders in the party, available at the same time, reveals several who are white and had credentials and experience clearly better than Obama. So my thought experiment: is there any chance that any of them could have beaten Hillary in the primaries, or if they did, to win the general election? Do you recall how excited people were that we were going to get our first lady president, and how inevitable it seemed? Until Obama came along and offered an even more powerful icon of tolerance and progress.
3.23.2011 | 3:48pm
Ken says:
Joe,
the country may have elected Colin Powell if he'd run, but there is no way to really tell. Obama's nomination and election proved that attitudes had improved, and gave a lot of us an extra reason to cheer for him. And I think you'll agree that he had a lot more than race going for him: he had his rhetorical gift. I would have voted for Clinton if she'd been the nominee, and it's true she had a lot more experience. But some of that experience was not a happy memory.
Mike,
thanks again for your very kind and humbling compliment.
the country may have elected Colin Powell if he'd run, but there is no way to really tell. Obama's nomination and election proved that attitudes had improved, and gave a lot of us an extra reason to cheer for him. And I think you'll agree that he had a lot more than race going for him: he had his rhetorical gift. I would have voted for Clinton if she'd been the nominee, and it's true she had a lot more experience. But some of that experience was not a happy memory.
Mike,
thanks again for your very kind and humbling compliment.
3.24.2011 | 5:16am
RichardNC says:
Elizabeth
We know you're not a supporter of Sarah Palin, but are you really saying her supporters worship Palin like they would worship God? Don't you see how that would be offensive to people of faith to accuse them of worshipping a false idol?
This is a big accusation. Do you have proof of a Palin cult? Do you have pictures of anyone worshipping at the altar of Palin? Do we just take your word for it?
Being a strong supporter of Sarah Palin for the GOP nomination does not make one a cultist. I mean your post has been up for hours and I don't see it flooded with deranged Palin cultist attacking your nonsense. Was that what this was? A play for website hits. From reading the comments so far, I don't blame you. Talk about a boring group. I also love the leftist that seem to feel at home here. That says a lot about you and your articles.
By the way, Elizabeth, who is your man in 2012? Please try not to support him too hard or try and defend him as the 2012 race heats up, or we might have to call you a cultist. It's only fair. I can't wait to hear who support in 2012.
We know you're not a supporter of Sarah Palin, but are you really saying her supporters worship Palin like they would worship God? Don't you see how that would be offensive to people of faith to accuse them of worshipping a false idol?
This is a big accusation. Do you have proof of a Palin cult? Do you have pictures of anyone worshipping at the altar of Palin? Do we just take your word for it?
Being a strong supporter of Sarah Palin for the GOP nomination does not make one a cultist. I mean your post has been up for hours and I don't see it flooded with deranged Palin cultist attacking your nonsense. Was that what this was? A play for website hits. From reading the comments so far, I don't blame you. Talk about a boring group. I also love the leftist that seem to feel at home here. That says a lot about you and your articles.
By the way, Elizabeth, who is your man in 2012? Please try not to support him too hard or try and defend him as the 2012 race heats up, or we might have to call you a cultist. It's only fair. I can't wait to hear who support in 2012.
3.24.2011 | 8:29am
Ken says:
RichardNC wrote:
are you really saying her supporters worship Palin like they would worship God? Don't you see how that would be offensive to people of faith to accuse them of worshipping a false idol?
Well, if I remember my Old Testament, it wouldn't be first time people of faith were guilty in that fashion! I'm sure Scalia isn't accusing anyone of literally worshiping Palin or Obama in the sense that they worship God. But as sinners we're all tempted to put certain things above God in our lives. Those things are rightly called idols.
are you really saying her supporters worship Palin like they would worship God? Don't you see how that would be offensive to people of faith to accuse them of worshipping a false idol?
Well, if I remember my Old Testament, it wouldn't be first time people of faith were guilty in that fashion! I'm sure Scalia isn't accusing anyone of literally worshiping Palin or Obama in the sense that they worship God. But as sinners we're all tempted to put certain things above God in our lives. Those things are rightly called idols.
3.24.2011 | 4:33pm
John Wickey says:
The amount of comment in these entries that focus on Sarah Palin in relation to Obama or in other ways that she is or is not a telegenic phenomenon confims the point of the article by Elizabeth Scalia. Our interest in politics is less focused on principle and effective action to address the core issues of the country than on personalities.
3.24.2011 | 6:01pm
Henry James says:
Probably neither Democrats nor Republicans are immune to electing pop icons, and especially comic-book idols.
But consider the Republican record especially. The Republican lineup seems straight comic book material: 1) Arnold S. - muscleman and movie star; 2) Ronald Reagan - movie star; 3) George Bush Sr. - heroic downed airman; 4) Bush Jr. - jet fighter pilot; 5) the senator from AZ - Navy fighter pilot; 6) Sen. Brown of Mass. model - and nude centerfold in Cosmo.
Today, we don't elect people; we elect pop culture cliches, pop culture heros. Recently 7) Tom Delay, tried appearing on Dancing With the Stars ... to improve his Republican base. Before going to jail.
Voters today, are not electing people; they are electing childhood pop culture, comic book heroes.
But consider the Republican record especially. The Republican lineup seems straight comic book material: 1) Arnold S. - muscleman and movie star; 2) Ronald Reagan - movie star; 3) George Bush Sr. - heroic downed airman; 4) Bush Jr. - jet fighter pilot; 5) the senator from AZ - Navy fighter pilot; 6) Sen. Brown of Mass. model - and nude centerfold in Cosmo.
Today, we don't elect people; we elect pop culture cliches, pop culture heros. Recently 7) Tom Delay, tried appearing on Dancing With the Stars ... to improve his Republican base. Before going to jail.
Voters today, are not electing people; they are electing childhood pop culture, comic book heroes.
3.24.2011 | 6:35pm
Ken says:
John,
no one has said a word about whether or not Palin is telegenic. The issues are personality cults, which are a form of idolatry and character, and what it says to the non-Christian world when Christians embrace people of poor character like Palin and Gingrich as leaders.
no one has said a word about whether or not Palin is telegenic. The issues are personality cults, which are a form of idolatry and character, and what it says to the non-Christian world when Christians embrace people of poor character like Palin and Gingrich as leaders.
3.28.2011 | 1:50pm
Vader says:
There seems to be some confusion between the basis for morality, and the basis for judging the morality of another.
The basis of morality is whether an act brings about good. Or perhaps it's whether the act is in compliance with the will of God. To the believer, there's no difference. And this objective basis (objective in the sense of existing outside any one human mind) has little to do with the intent of the actors.
But the basis for judging the morality of another has to be intent, for the reason Bop first articulated: There can be no basis for holding one accountable unless he is capable of having moral or immoral intentions. If a man chooses his course based on a sincere desire to do the morally correct thing, you cannot hold him guilty; but if his understanding was flawed and the act was in fact immoral, you cannot praise the act.
Perhaps that is why the ordinary believer is commanded to "Judge not at all." Temporal judgement is committed to lawful magistrates, and eternal judgement to the Great Magistrate.
The basis of morality is whether an act brings about good. Or perhaps it's whether the act is in compliance with the will of God. To the believer, there's no difference. And this objective basis (objective in the sense of existing outside any one human mind) has little to do with the intent of the actors.
But the basis for judging the morality of another has to be intent, for the reason Bop first articulated: There can be no basis for holding one accountable unless he is capable of having moral or immoral intentions. If a man chooses his course based on a sincere desire to do the morally correct thing, you cannot hold him guilty; but if his understanding was flawed and the act was in fact immoral, you cannot praise the act.
Perhaps that is why the ordinary believer is commanded to "Judge not at all." Temporal judgement is committed to lawful magistrates, and eternal judgement to the Great Magistrate.
7.23.2011 | 6:36pm
Bertie Detzel says:
Now, I do not disagree that the politics of self-interest are destroying this country. How, though (and I ask this with sincerity, not sarcasm), are people to make the "rational, reasoned decisions based on what benefits the nation as a whole, ..."? What you consider 'pet causes' may actually be that person's opinion of what IS best for the nation. For example, let's consider abortion. Many on the pro-choice side of the argument view the ability to choose to have an abortion as not only moral, but a rational, reasoned decision based on what benefits the nation as a whole. Meanwhile, many on the pro-life side of the argument view the allowance of abortion as not only immoral, but hurtful to the nation as a whole, and therefore should be stopped. Both sides have studies and science to support their claims. How is the 'correct' decision arrived at when opposing sides have different ideas of what actually benefits the nation as a whole? I obviously brought up a lightning rod in the topic of abortion, but I ask that any responses deal with my original question. Abortion was the first thing that came to mind, but is only one of many topics that could have been chosen, such as off-shore drilling, bailouts of car companies, etc. Obamas unflappability has been noted by everyone whos worked with him. And I told you why I havent given examples of Palins bad character, although you gave a couple yourself. Briefly, because I really am sick of the subject, there was her snarky speech at the convention, the totally uncalled for mockery of Obama after wink-winking that she was a godly woman with a servants heart. There has been that same vituperativeness about Obama and liberals ever since, along with deep bitternessand counterattack (even on young Levi, for petes sake) when shes been attacked. Loving her enemies she is not. There have been two Vanity Fair profiles that have sown her to be testy, thin-skinned, willful, and vindicative, and before that this piece in The New Republic (Barracuda: the resentments of Sarah Palin) that shows shes been like that for a long time: http://www.tnr.com/article/barracuda. And google Odd Lies of Sarah Palin.
To say the least! We have a populace with an average attention span of 30 seconds, the sexual attitudes of an uninhibited 19-year-old guy in a freshman dorm, and a sense of history which prevents over 1/3 of native citizens from passing the (very rudimentary) US citizenship exam.
The greatest evidence of all: we have an empty-shell president who was elected not for his accomplishments or his policy positions (nil and toxic, respectively), but for his value as a racial icon based on whom to congratulate oneself for one's tolerance.