Tag: cults

Glenn Greenwald finds comfort in liberal dissent:

It’s certainly true that one has no difficulty finding cult-like liberal veneration for Obama – those who invoke Bible-like “he’s-a-master-of-11-dimensional-chess” clichés to justify whatever he does (the Lord works in mysterious ways but even when we don’t understand what He does, we Trust that He is Supremely Good and more Wise than us and knows best); who declare, in Bush-like “with-me-or-against-me” fashion, all critics of Obama to be the Enemy; who pay homage to Kim Jong Il-like imagery such as this and this; who believe that “trust” — a sentiment appropriate for family and friends but not political leaders — should be vested in Obama and thus negate any concerns over how he exercises power.  Some overly-eager journalists and bloggers are devoted to carrying forth the administration’s message (usually delivered anonymously) in exchange for favorable treatment and/our due to a painfully excessive sense of devotion, and there’s a Democratic establishment with a built-in machinery to defend Obama no matter what he does.

But outside of those anonymity-granting blogger/journalists and Democratic apparatchiks, these drooling, worshipful, subservient sentiments are largely confined to the fringes.  With some exceptions, to find this right-wing-replicating blind loyalty to the Leader, one has to search blog comment sections and obscure diarists.  Many — arguably most — of the most vocal liberal Bush critics have kept their critical faculties engaged and have been unwilling to sacrifice their political values and principles at the altar of partisan loyalty.

It should be emphasized that mere criticism for its own sake is also not a virtue.  Those who reflexively and blindly criticize whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Evil) are nothing more than the opposite side of the same mindless coin as those who reflexively and blindly praise whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Good). Pre-ordained, overarching judgments of Obama that are detached from his actions and grounded in Manichean caricatures are irrational in equal measure, whether that judgment yields praise or condemnation.

A rational citizen, by definition, praises and supports political leaders only when they do the right thing (regardless of motive), and criticizes and opposes them when they don’t.  It’s just that simple.  Cheerleading for someone because they’re on “your team” is appropriate for a sporting event, not for political matters.  Political leaders deserve support only to the extent that their actions, on a case-by-case basis, merit that support, and that has largely been the behavior of progressives towards Obama.

There is but one Leader.

The Leader is infallible.

Criticism of The Leader is blasphemous.

We cannot always understand The Ways of The Leader, but we must have Absolute Faith in Him.

Those who have Absolute Faith in The Leader are Exalted.

Those who do not have Absolute Faith in The Leader are The Enemy.

Those who claim to support The Leader but lack Absolute Faith in Him are, at best, appeasers of The Enemy.

Those who claim to support The Leader but lack Absolute Faith in Him are, at worst Trolls Spies.

Those Who Work for The Leader are infallible.

Criticism of Those Who Work for The Leader is blasphemous.

All that is good emanates from the Doings of The Leader.

All that is not good is beyond The Leader’s control.

Cultists speak a language that the non-believers will never understand.

It is of the same origin as idioglossia or “twin language” that twins may develop when language skills are delayed in development.

This should not be confused with Rovian or Clintonian cant that is carefully constructed to be the mirror image of what is being said; e.g., peace means war, “I am for you” means “I am for big corporations,” Democrat means Republican, etc.  A Tim Russert or Chris Matthews may not understand Rovianspeak but intelligent people with normal language skills do.    

Geekesque is one of my better blogging friends now. Ironically so, as a spat he and I had was the the first step to the mutual decision made by Kos and I to go our separate ways re: Daily Kos. He is a smart fellow. Very astute. But like I was with Clark in 2004, he defends Obama no matter what and dreams up ways to justify his actions. Take this diary:

In other words, if a candidate appears on stage with 100 black South Carolinians, 62 of them share the basic beliefs of McClurkin towards homosexuality.  (They may not have his zany ex-gay beliefs, but then most of them probably weren’t repeatedly raped by a male relative as a child).

If there are 10,000 people in the audience at a gospel concert, 6,200 hold the same basic beliefs as Donnie McClurkin.

Supposing that were true, the obvious point here is those 6,200 are not representing the Obama campaign, McClurkin is. Look, this whole thing was a monumentla STAFF fuckup. If they knew then what they know now, McClurkin would not be within a 100 miles of Obama. My own damage copntrol advice for Obama would be to ask McClurkin to “voluntarily” drop out because he is a “distraction.”