« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Nader and the Bush/Obama Cult of Personality
Put aside the possibly racist remarks Nader made, and focus on the bigger picture. Nader is looking at Obama very critically, as he does all Washington politicians. As he has consistently done for years now, he picks on politicians especially who claim to be "different" but are, in fact, under the influence of corporate money. In this interview, he seems to have evidence that the latter is true of Barack Obama, who, though he espouses to be different, is just like any other.
Many Obama supporters get positively vitriolic anytime someone on the left, such as myself, such as Nader, tries to pick apart their candidate. I'm looking for answers: is Obama really just another corporate crony? Is he even a progressive candidate? He opposes gay marriage, opposes single-payer universal health care, came out in support of the new FISA legislation that gives retroactive immunity to the telecoms, and decided to opt-out of public financing when it was convenient to do so.
More progressive than Bush/McCain, of course. A huge step forward for this country, as a presidential candidate, in terms of policy, and as a leader, of course. And I don't even mind that Obama has his own Cult of Personality. It's wonderful so many people are involved in politics who otherwise would not have been.
But in 2000 Bush had a cult of personality of his own that was completely fabricated. Everyone on the right thought he was different. Across the country people were swept up and forgot to look at him critically because they wanted so desperately to believe. I don't want to make that mistake for the political left. Barack might be our hero, and he might not. I think Nader is right to dig and hit hard and I think it is right to seek answers from our nominee. Not as if I'm going to switch my vote to McCain because Obama isn't liberal enough, just that I want to know what I'm getting this time.
Thoughts?
Comments (15)
As I see it, Obama is the most progressive candidate we're likely to get past our corporate masters.
June 25, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm happy to have a discussion about a "cult of personality", but, the Nader interview didn't strike me as a suggestion that Obama has a cult of personality. That's you.
That being said, I guess I'm a bit distrustful of this notion of a "cult of personality". Some Obama supporters are wildly enthusiastic about him. Why is enthusiasm interpreted to mean "lack of critical thinking"? One commenter even opined that if you even like a candidate, that means you're not being objective.
Second, early on in this race, multiple commenters were comparing Obama supporters to the Hitler Youth. Again, apparently that's because if you're enthusiastic about a candidate, you are either brainwashed, low information, or haven't thought about the issues.
Isn't it conceivable that people could be enthusiastically supportive of a candidate even if they have thought about the issues and where the candidate stands?
You use the example of Bush. I would argue that people weren't deceived because they brushed aside their ability to think critically--they were deceived, deliberately, by the campaign, into thinking that Bush was an individual he wound up not being at all.
Finally, why wasn't there any talk of the "cult of personality" surrounding Senator Clinton? She had enthusiastic and energetic supporters, but I don't recall anyone likening them to Hitler Youth, or pondering the cult of personality surrounding her.
Thanks for the post--it's an interesting topic.
June 25, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put aside the possibly racist remarks Nader made, and focus on the bigger picture.
First of all, the racist remark is the subject of the story.
Many Obama supporters get positively vitriolic anytime someone on the left, such as myself, such as Nader, tries to pick apart their candidate.
Again, you're throwing out a red herring. The story isn't the rest of Nader's remarks, it's the "talk white" nonsense.
It's like: "Your anger at me calling you an Uncle Tom is just your attempt at avoiding the broader issue."
No, the issue is the racist comment. The fact that Nader is further to the left than Obama is not an interesting point, neither is the fact that Nader's apologists are complaining about vitriol because someone has responded negatively to another one of Nader's hyperbolic character attacks. Talk about a cult of personality...
June 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, there's really not a personality out there in politics that's more of a "brand" than Nader. So he's a cult of personality too and also a bit of a social movement.
I don't know if it's fair for you to limit the discussion the way you are, though. So Nader said something stupid. Fine. He's also asking some questions about Obama and his character. Rather than answer those questions, and they are answerable, you're saying that Nader and Mr. Wilson here have no right to ask them (or, more accurately, no reasonable claim to expect answers).
Is Obama under the control of corporate interests? I really don't think so. I think on FISA, for example, that he believes exactly what he says he believes and that he thinks it's reasonable to basically say, "I'll try to get the part of the bill out that I don't like but since I prefer the bill mostly, I'm not going to block it over immunity." I think that's what Obama actually believes and I think it's a reasonable belief.
I happen to disagree with him. So I'm very angry and very wary of his other beliefs. But I'm pretty sure that Obama can disagree with me about a lot of things without that being evidence of corporate control.
Is he a progressive? Yes. I'm sure he is. If progressive is a big enough word to include both me and him and all of our disagreements then he is. If it's not that big a word, I haven't earned the right to write up and enforce a progressive's handbook so the question is immaterial.
June 25, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I find it slightly hypocritical that you would employ the "Cult of Personality" tactic when you recently made this comment yourself:
"You can call Ron Paul and his supporters WRONG, but don't call them LUNATICS. All that does is demean them and alienate them further. It feels the same when someone calls me a lunatic for my liberal views."
If you're going to throw around insults, don't you think you should be a little more consistent?
June 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what you quoted says that Wilson doesn't believe in throwing around insults.
June 25, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidence? Actually, he doesn't offer any real evidence for any of his assertions in that interview. But if he "seems" to have evidence, I guess that will do.
June 25, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we at least have the right to be pragmatic about it in the most self-interested sense of the word. Obama clinches the nomination and goes right out and tells AIPAC what they want to hear. Now, I will never quarrel with AIPAC's right to lobby nor minimize how effect they are at lobbying, but I just can't figure why those of us who oppose them so strongly on issues like the war can't be treated with equal deference and respect. Could it be because AIPAC will not compromise their core values, candidates know they will have their feet held to the fire and therefore AIPAC gets what it wants?
Anyway, I have pretty much declared myself a lobby since the 2002 war vote and I expect to be represented and if you don't do what my lobby wants my lobby won't vote for you.
June 25, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to have thoughts on a post so thoughtless, but: once you say, Obama is a huge step forward for this country, as a presidential candidate, in terms of policy, and as a leader, of course, nothing else need be said.
June 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of people want to take the conversation a bit further than that. I consider myself happy for what we have but always ready to ask for something more.
June 25, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite true. First you have an useelection to win. Then you have an agenda to shape. To pout because Obama is not your mirror image is sandbox politics.
June 25, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is the term progressives being defined?
I try to listen to how he describes himself as opposed to how others describe him. I think that some, on the right, some on the left and in the center project words, ideas, policies upon him that he has never held or decide to change his mind about.
Even I am projecting pragmatism upon him but I think it fits he better than any other term.
I don't understand why some are reacting as if he is president. He clinched the Democratic nomination and the next few months will surely test the skills he learned during the nomination process.
June 25, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
your life choices turn out pretty good because you care more about figuring out the straight skinny on things that might be about to happen, rather than expecting a political election to pan out just as the agitprop in the campaign circus promised and according to your dreams.
:-)
P.S. Hey 2000 is actually a great example. If you didn't dig deep and just believed what was said within the campaign circus, Bush was the non-interventionist who wanted to focus on domestic improvements and Gore was the interventionist hawk, and ironically that is actually why some people ended up voting for Nader. I believe a considerable number of people also voted for Bush because they were simply looking forward to some "change" from the Clinton administration, wanted to see what a new, different approach could do.
June 25, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you get back to me on the underlying question when Ralph isn't raising it by talking completely out of his ass?
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/the_nader_way.php
June 25, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can get lots of opinions here - some a combo meal with facts on the side and others with snark, assumptions and mish mash.
If you really want the truth - RESEARCH Obama's history/record - both personal and professeional. Only then can you have the facts. Trust me, it's all out there - up to date.
June 25, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment