On Fellowship and Discipleship
I once met a guy in some impoverished country far away, a land without telephones, dirt roads crossing barely passable mountains, heavy if not unbearable poverty. And this guy was a Christian missionary. Rather big and fat with a kind of doltish grin, a true believer, literal interpretation of the Flood and everything. And there the stereotype ends. He was bright - he focused on communications, for local people as well as his organization. He believed in preaching the Word, but foremost was giving people food and education, not as bribery or blackmail, simply as a matter of priority, of love. Practical things first. He was constantly in a good mood despite the rough conditions, patiently confronting corruption and lack of resources with the same equanimity. He had his "toolkit", as he called it. Cheating or taking the easy way out weren't in that toolkit. Service and patience were.
Whenever someone starts insulting fundamentalists, I think of him. One man. One very great man. There are certainly thousands or perhaps millions of hateful hypocrites out there. And I'm not a believer myself. But I'm much more tolerant of believers because of the example of one person. I give them the benefit of the doubt, a benefit that he earned for them.
There's been talk about people being foolish, reacting to Obama based on the words or deeds of his followers. But that's the way the world works. Communism has its roots in great ideas - ideas that blossomed in the focused and heroic conditions of small kibbutzes in Israel, and which stank and turned corrupt in the hands of typical people from East Europe to China. For most who suffered, the face of Communism isn't Lenin - it's the ashen face of the store clerk or the office bureaucrat telling you "No", the bulldog policeman searching your car and confiscating your camera and books, the strict and humorless teacher making you recite the precepts of Socialist Duty or the gleefully superior suckup faces of the young party acolytes giving their 110% for the next party showcase - making wreaths, wearing the scarves and uniforms, waving their flags for the insipidly dull speeches.
It's the human face of any movement that makes it live or die. If you're an Obama believer, it's incumbent on you to display why, in word and deed, if it's significant, if it's not "politics as usual". It's word-of-mouth marketing, it's teaching by example. If Obama is leading a movement beyond himself, and you portray yourself as part of the movement, then you either try to reflect those ideals or you cause others to reject them. That is a basic equation. Others may pull your load, take up your slack - in my friend's case, he made up for thousands of poor examples - but in the end it's better to do your part, willingly and gladly. A monk once chided his followers for being too stern - "a sad monk is a sad monk". Try not to be sad.
Whenever someone starts insulting fundamentalists, I think of him. One man. One very great man. There are certainly thousands or perhaps millions of hateful hypocrites out there. And I'm not a believer myself. But I'm much more tolerant of believers because of the example of one person. I give them the benefit of the doubt, a benefit that he earned for them.
There's been talk about people being foolish, reacting to Obama based on the words or deeds of his followers. But that's the way the world works. Communism has its roots in great ideas - ideas that blossomed in the focused and heroic conditions of small kibbutzes in Israel, and which stank and turned corrupt in the hands of typical people from East Europe to China. For most who suffered, the face of Communism isn't Lenin - it's the ashen face of the store clerk or the office bureaucrat telling you "No", the bulldog policeman searching your car and confiscating your camera and books, the strict and humorless teacher making you recite the precepts of Socialist Duty or the gleefully superior suckup faces of the young party acolytes giving their 110% for the next party showcase - making wreaths, wearing the scarves and uniforms, waving their flags for the insipidly dull speeches.
It's the human face of any movement that makes it live or die. If you're an Obama believer, it's incumbent on you to display why, in word and deed, if it's significant, if it's not "politics as usual". It's word-of-mouth marketing, it's teaching by example. If Obama is leading a movement beyond himself, and you portray yourself as part of the movement, then you either try to reflect those ideals or you cause others to reject them. That is a basic equation. Others may pull your load, take up your slack - in my friend's case, he made up for thousands of poor examples - but in the end it's better to do your part, willingly and gladly. A monk once chided his followers for being too stern - "a sad monk is a sad monk". Try not to be sad.
Advertisement
Wow, 8 recs and no comments. Interesting.
Ok, Des. But surely there are some Obama supporters out there, and on here as well who do just as you say. And yet I still see people say, "All you Obama supporters are...(insert critical adjective here). Do all people remember focus on the better examples and tune out or forgive the worse ones? I'm not sure.
Also, I'm not in full agreement with you here. I think we should all make an effort to represent the person we want elected, particularly in political discussions. But I still think the primary person to look to in deciding who to vote for should be the person themself.
June 11, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stereotypes die hard. It's hard to take back a bad first impression. The fathers have eaten of bitter fruit and the children's teeth are set on edge. Someone brought up The Unbearable Lightness of Being the other day, and in there, Oedipus plucks out his eyes for a sin he didn't realize he was committing. Personal responsibility for one's accidents, even the whims of fate and chance or the meddling of the Gods. And we are our brothers' keepers as well. In the mutiny against Captain Bligh, those who held weapons who didn't fight against the mutiny were held just as guilty as those who instigated it. Football teams are punished for the rowdiness of hometown fans in the stands. Around the world, people look at us based on what we're doing in Iraq and Kyoto.
Obviously if the leader's precepts are fatally flawed, there's not much use listening to the followers. Obama's not reciting the cant of Aleister Crowley or the precepts of Jim Jones or we'd slam our doors in the followers' faces. And with a normal election with typical politicians, we'd place most of the burden on the politician his or herself. But in this case, the leader is vesting more in a movement, not just a constituency. The "us" is supposed to be a part of the leadership and the reform process, the enabler, an active participant, not just voting for a politician to handle it all himself up in Washington. That's worked more and more with movements like netroots. We'll see how it works with government.
June 11, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, first off, I would hope that anyone hanging around here realizes that the crowd at TPM is by no means a statistically reliable sample of people. So even if this place were 99% assholes, we can't generalize that number to the rest of people.
But as is always the case, we're colored by our experiences and environments. If you frequent TPM, that's going to color your views as well, I suppose. If you're so inclined to make political choices based on anonymous people online. Which, I'm not personally, but that's besides the point.
People see what they want to see. I don't expect that to change anytime soon. Choose to see the nuts as representative of the bigger picture, or choose to see the rational and honest people as representative of the bigger picture. Both are out there. Which one you focus on depends on you.
June 11, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you have no responsibility to bear witness, it's up to the mob that occupies the center lane and the person who observes to work it all out?
June 11, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My responsibility lies with myself. I do what I think is right. I try to get others to do the same. Whether or not they ultimately do is something that lies with them.
But, my point is, you are the one deciding what that so-called "mob in the center lane" looks like. You can choose to see a bunch of "cult followers believers assholes etc." I don't see that. I see a bunch of people really excited about government. Politics. I welcome that change. A reverse from apathy. I can look past the people who I don't think are doing anyone justice. For some, they will continue to be the face on the crowd.
The same of course, could be said for Hillary supporters. Are the folks over at Hillaryis44 representative of the whole? At Taylor Marsh? Here? How about that woman in the video thats making the rounds? Well, that's not the face I see on that crowd either. Like I said, sometimes its more about you than the others. Eye of the beholder.
June 11, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I evaluate all of Obama's supporters? Is there one profile? That would be very strange indeed. But typically with any movement there's a vocal contingent, whether unified as a single group or more likely a spattering of different causes and ideas, and the vocal contingent often frequently gives a group its reputation(s). Of course where you live, where you get your discourse, etc. will also determine which voices you're hearing and the impressions you get. I don't recall ever labeling the whole contingent "assholes" at any time.
June 12, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. You didn't. But some have. It wasn't really a comment intended solely for you. You can substitute whatever adjective or name suits your "bad first impression."
June 12, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful post! Well written. Cogent. Excellent way of talking about how the character of the person trumps all. And how one person can affect the character of others.
In my view it's all about trust. It's about Obama having trust in people. And people trusting back. Trusting him as a leader - because of his character. And trusting each other. What a beautiful thing it is to meet people at an Obama rally. I was sitting with a white city council member (and his father!) on my right and two black young ladies on my left. Behind me were some grad students of ethnic origin studying for their exams.
Character. It's what matters in this election. And trust. Some people are scared of how others flock to Obama. For whatever reason they can't trust him.
And your message is really very much like the message of Jesus' disciples. Follow the example of the leader. It's such a simple message. And it takes such hard work. It's so easy to negate and not trust. But what a difference it can make if you do.
Yes We Can.
June 11, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have never seen followers more driven to alienate others from the movement.
June 11, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have.
June 11, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moi Aussi.
June 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, it was an exaggeration.
June 11, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ones here seem pretty driven, but maybe it's just us they want to alienate. In my case, it doesn't matter much. I'm alienated, but mainly from the Progressive blogosphere.
June 11, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need to look at Desi's analogy to religion and missionaries again. Consider the following parable.
There once was a man who looked at the good example of a kind and generous missionary, and the bad examples of people who claimed to be believers but did all manner of bad things. This man used the latter examples to explain his unwillingness to become a believer himself, saying that he felt "alienated" because some who claimed to be believers had offended him in anonymous notes that he found blowing in the wind, notes that he spent many, many hours collecting. And he hardened his heart in this fashion.
Another man also saw both kinds of examples, but took the positive examples as a sign of what was really true and good, and enjoyed the company of those who set those positive examples. And when he saw the bad examples, he felt pity for them, but he let the anonymous notes blow away in the wind. Indeed, rather than searching for offensive notes blowing in the wind, he ignored them. And he set about becoming a positive example himself.
Eventually, they both had to stand before the voting booth. The first man staggered under the load of several large suitcases full of the anonymous, offensive notes he had spent many hours collecting, and cast a vote for evil, and left the voting booth wailing and gnashing his teeth. The second man, having ignored the offensive anonymous notes, cast a vote for good, and then went out to have a few beers with some of the good believers he had come to know and respect.
If anyone has ears to hear, let them hear.
June 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the litterbug is the better man?
June 12, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gonna go make a donation. Right now. Thanks!
♪♪♪
June 11, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's been talk about people being foolish, reacting to Obama based on the words or deeds of his followers.
And that's because offense-aholics can always find someone to give them their daily "oh I'm so offended" fix. It doesn't mean anything. You can find offensive Hillary supporters, too. That doesn't prove anything whatsoever about the candidate. You keeping a chip on your shoulder about how you've been mistreated by random anonymous comments on a blog would be like someone basing their opinion of Hillary on goatlife and fogu and mw and the like.
Unlike your Communism example, Obama supporters aren't shaped and molded by the Obama campaign the way people living under Communism were shaped and molded by the intense pressures and huge problems they faced on a daily basis as a consequence of living under Communism. That's the first point on which your analogy breaks down.
But it would also be unfair to make a pro-Communist case by cherry picking people in that system who didn't fit the patterns you describe. And that's what you are doing when you cherry-pick the Obama supporters who have hurt your feelings as somehow telling you something about the Obama campaign itself. It doesn't.
There are plenty of other Obama supporters who treat you with kid gloves and kindness. You could choose to cherry-pick those examples. It's a bogus inference either way, so basically it just becomes a way of seeing what you want to see.
And by the way, if it's so very bad, why keep coming back to subject yourself to more of it? If I started posting at hillaryis44, and then got all bent out of shape over rude anonymous comments then I can't imagine that I'd keep going back for more. Not that I can imagine why I'd go to hillaryis44 in the first place. And not that I can imagine why I'd get all bent out of shape over what some random anonymous comments said about me. Who cares? But if it were making me unhappy to go there, I wouldn't keep going back day after day to voluntarily subject myself to something that made me unhappy.
June 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that you've got that out of your system, you might go back and re-read the post.
June 11, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Now that you've got....)
June 11, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were right the first time.
June 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha! Ziiinnnnngggg! Good one!
June 11, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, gasket? I just figured out what's going on with the Obamanauts. They think Obama actually won the Dem nomination as opposed to barely winning the required number of delegates in a primary season that included caucuses and proportional representation.
They're acting like they have some kind of mandate. Who does that remind you of?
June 11, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We only select one nominee, so yeah, he won the nomination. Delegates were 52-48 or so, maybe more depending on how you count SDs. You have another way of counting?
Why do you constantly (intentionally) confuse posters on this site who support Obama, with the candidate and his campaign. Obama, unlike Bush, has certainly made concessions to the minority faction in his party precisely because of the small margin of victory--hiring staff, bringing on advisers, emphasizing policy themes, etc... Your analogy as usual is not apt, but is fittingly condescending. Well done.
June 11, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was talking about his supporters. What made you think I was talking about Obama? He knows better than anyone that he didn't win anything.
June 11, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The very reason I loved Obama's "I'm the nominee" speech is because he looked like he was shitting bricks during it. So, I agree: He knows he didn't win anything. :-)
June 12, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything we see before us is merely an illusion.
Or, maybe, "“Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
June 12, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Einstein is over my head.
June 12, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes he's better taken out of context.
June 13, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's been talk about people being foolish, reacting to Obama based on the words or deeds of his followers. But that's the way the world works. Communism ...
And then you go on to use the Communism analogy to explain why it's not foolish to react to Obama based on the words or deeds of his "followers," but rather this is "the way the world works". But the Communism analogy doesn't fit, and I gave two reasons for saying so.
If you're an Obama believer, it's incumbent on you to display why, in word and deed, if it's significant, if it's not "politics as usual".
No, it isn't incumbent on me or any other Obama "believer." Do you seriously believe that the meaning of "not politics as usual" is that the candidate's supporters don't hurt your fragile feelings?
If Obama is leading a movement beyond himself, and you portray yourself as part of the movement, then you either try to reflect those ideals or you cause others to reject them.
You've confused "political movement" with "religion."
I support Obama. I think he'll be a great President. But I'm not a "believer" or "follower" in anything like the sense that would fit your description. And I'm not his "representative" or disciple or anything of the sort.
Decide whether to vote for him, or not, based on his positions on issues compared to those of McCain, based on how you think he'll handle the responsibilities of being commander in chief, as opposed to McCain, etc. Don't make silly excuses based on anonymous comments on blogs hurting your feelings. That's a stupid way to decide how to vote.
June 11, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid is as stupid does. Get it yet?
June 11, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're not his follower or his representative or disciple, how come you show up to try to trash me every time I post?
June 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't try to trash you, but I do try to trash the idea of letting anonymous blog comments influence one's vote.
That idea is bogus, and poisonous. But you are not that idea.
You're one of the smartest and most interesting posters here, when you're not in the mode of pushing the idea that anonymous comments on scraps of paper blowing around in the wind have anything whatsoever with Obama as a candidate.
June 11, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, for too many, these 'scraps of papers' have everything to do with their perceptions and voting choices.
June 11, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And my mandate (Billy said I think I have one!) is to try to convince people that basing their vote on what was scribbled by someone they don't know, found on some random scrap of paper floating in the metaphorical wind of the intertoobs, is really, really stupid.
The only thing stupider than that is for them to spend hour after hour searching out scraps of paper that offend and aggravate them, so that they can lug them around and stand on a metaphorical street corner complaining to anyone who walks by that they are so very deeply traumatized by the scribbles on the scraps of paper they've collected that they can't support the candidate allegedly supported by the people they don't even know who scribbled on those scraps of paper in the first place.
June 11, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your problem is that you don't understand why I believe in you more than Obama. You I can debate. You are the incarnation of his views. When someone talks about reforming welfare, I don't take the ideal - I look at the actions in practice. I accept imperfection. I don't accept that imperfection doesn't exist.
June 11, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good answer.
June 12, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
His position is he's only a bucket head and what he says to us doesn't matter. We should look beyond his bullshit to Obama, the real candidate and support Obama in spite of bucket head. Very funny idea about what it means to support a candidate. He thinks he has a mandate. Bush style! Yeeee ah!
June 11, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your "mandate" analogy is bunk as this winner makes concessions to the loser. Since you apparently don't have a candidate to associate with all your rudeness, I can just say you insults reflect badly on your family.
June 11, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My family. All of my family? My mom and dad or my children? How about my brothers and sisters? Be good to know who to blame. But I think I'm correct in saying that most of the Obamanauts around here act as though Obama has a mandate, whether Obama acts that way or not. By the way. Anybody know if Hillary jumped on McCain for the when isn't as important as how comment?
June 11, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's on vacation. With her family.
June 12, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
His position is he's only a bucket head and what he says to us doesn't matter.
Anyone who thinks that blog comments, posted by anonymous commenters on some political site on the intertoobz, should matter in their decision about who to vote for in November, is a moron.
We should look beyond his bullshit to Obama,
Duh.
the real candidate and support Obama in spite of bucket head.
Or don't support Obama, in spite of bucket head, if you think McCain would be better. In other words, don't make your decision about how to cast your vote based on bullshit on intertoob message boards. Duh.
Very funny idea about what it means to support a candidate.
Ha ha!
He thinks he has a mandate. Bush style! Yeeee ah!
Posting comments on meaningless message boards means I think I have a "mandate"? Um, okay, yeee frickin ha.
I don't even think Obama has a mandate, beyond the mandate to beat McCain in November. How do you get a mandate out of the primary season anyway? What might a presidential candidate have a mandate for, while they're still just a candidate? It doesn't even make any sense. Whether or not Obama will "have a mandate" after November depends on how he does in the general election, not how he does in the primaries.
June 11, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I give you a serious answer, you'll just want more. If a mandate is an authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue, Obama might assume he has a mandate from the Democratic Party to campaign on his health care proposals, for example. He knows he doesn't. His supporters here in the echo chamber don't. You can extend that example for yourself. Over half the Democratic Party agrees with Clinton and think she would better represent the Party. You guys don't act like that's the case. You act like your candidate has a mandate. You should start acting like we're in this together and the only issues that are settled are the issues Obama and Clinton agree on.
June 11, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I give you a serious answer, you'll just want more.
I guess we'll never know.
If a mandate is an authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue, Obama might assume he has a mandate from the Democratic Party to campaign on his health care proposals, for example. He knows he doesn't.
Correct!
His supporters here in the echo chamber don't.
Wrong! Or about as wrong as a sweeping generalization can be, although there's probably someone who thinks (for what reason I can't imagine) that Obama has a mandate to campaign on some particular health care proposal.
Over half the Democratic Party agrees with Clinton
On what? Voting for someone in a primary doesn't mean you necessarily agree with them in some particular way. People vote the way they vote for all kinds of reasons, based on issues, personalities, biases, many things.
and think she would better represent the Party.
Or any of the many reasons that people have for deciding who to vote for. You do love your sweeping generalizations.
You guys don't act like that's the case.
Oh, please. Most of those who voted for Hillary are already saying they'll vote for Obama in November. Some aren't. Most who aren't at this point, will be before November. Some won't. That's politics. Some who would have voted for McCain against Hillary, or stayed home, will go to Obama in November. That's politics, too.
You act like your candidate has a mandate. You should start acting like we're in this together and the only issues that are settled are the issues Obama and Clinton agree on.
Whatever you think it means to say that an issue is "settled," it doesn't happen during the primaries. And I don't think Obama has a mandate on any issues, nor would he even if he'd locked up the delegate totals on super tuesday with no strong competition from any of the other competitors.
June 11, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is simply untrue by any conceivable measure.
Clinton has power to force some concessions...some. And that is the way it is supposed to work. But there is only one nominee and only one President, and those who who intend to be in the game after November know this full well. She can't hold him nor the party hostage without destroying everyone including herself. Everyone including her most powerful supporters want to win too bad.
June 12, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the fuck are you talking about?
June 12, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
To follow up on the "communism" metaphor, I'll say that the practical definition of an "ism" lies in its implementation. Few, if any, Obama supporters not on somebody's payroll ever actually discuss issues. It's all about "oooh, he's so handsome and suave" -- "he's so inspiring." "Change you can believe in."
Obama-bots practice the worst sort of bumper-sticker politics. You can't even make bank that a plurality of them will show up at the poll in November!
That is the practical, public face -- and definition -- of the Obama campaign. Surely, he talks nonsense out of both sides of his mouth -- but who's listening? Not the people who are busy pasting on bumper stickers.
He's not a heroic figure leading a "movement." He's a talented politician, a modern-day Huey Long, if you will -- who knows how to bend the reeds, get them to do what he wants, without ever leaving the comfort of his porch, or getting a smudge on his trouser cuff. His is not a life of sacrifice for a higher calling. It's a climb up the ladder of success, a ladder made of power and wealth.
"Communism," in the modern definition, is not the theory of Marx but the practical thuggery of a thousand apparatchiks. "Obamism" is not the theory of Obama, but the practical bullying of a million Obama-bots.
Thanks.
mp
June 11, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Differences of degree, not of kind.
June 11, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
But choosing a political movement to support with one's vote, and choosing a religion to commit one's life to, are decisions that are different in kind, not just in degree, IMO.
June 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to the process of decision-making. Both are a-rational decisions. Logic has little or nothing to do with each. If making a political decision were purely logical, the one with superior logic could convince others of the position. However, there are rational people on both sides who cannot be so convinced.
June 11, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. And their reasons, while non-rational, are not necessarily irrational, are they?
June 11, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we each have different interests or values then we may well choose different movements or candidates while rationally pursuing our self-interests.
That dynamic surely describes some significant subset of the electorate.
June 11, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rational is in the eye of the beholder.
June 12, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to the process of decision-making. Both are a-rational decisions. Logic has little or nothing to do with each. If making a political decision were purely logical, the one with superior logic could convince others of the position. However, there are rational people on both sides who cannot be so convinced.
I agree, as far as that goes. But this one point of similarity doesn't change my mind about them being very different kinds of decisions.
To me, a religious commitment of faith is (or should be) a life-changing thing, something that infuses and informs every aspect of life. Or else what's the point? On the other hand, I can support a political candidate with a clothespin on my nose, and have done so on too many occasions when it was a lesser-of-two-evils sort of decision.
So when people get all worked up about whether to vote for Obama or McCain, I just find it difficult to relate to it, especially if they are saying that their feelings got hurt by intemperate remarks posted by anonymous commenters on some political blog.
Obama and McCain are so different, in virtually every way that could possibly matter, that anyone who claims to be unsure of whether they'd prefer Obama or McCain is either egregiously uninformed, or is being disingenuous, or has some emotional issues that I'm uninterested in helping to sustain by sympathizing with them over perceived sleights by anonymous comments on the intertoobz. Let them try to endorse McCain, and see how long they can sustain that view. They'll be switching back to Obama before long, even if they have to wear a clothespin on their nose. Or not, but if not then they weren't ever seriously going to consider Obama in the first place.
And comparing this to a religious commitment seems to me such a bogus analogy that it's hard to make any sense at all of it. Does anyone say they really dislike Christianity and Islam and Judaism and all the rest, and think there just isn't really a good choice of religion out there, but then "hold their nose" and commit their life to Jesus?
So, former Hillary supporters, please just move on in some direction or the other, without all the whining about how your feelings have been hurt. Call everyone who ever hurt your feelings a troll, if it helps, and then make up your mind not to let trolls decide how you're going to vote. (Does the idea of letting trolls determine how you vote help you see how stupid this is? Then good, call me and everyone else who didn't coddle you and treat you with kid gloves a troll, or bucket head, or whatever you want. Geeze, I don't care what you think of me. I don't even know you. Get over yourselves already.)
And then just get on with it, even if that means you go off and support McCain and his views on using American military force to whip the middle east into shape, and his kowtowing to the religious right on supreme court selections, and so on. Or support Obama reluctantly, and with reservations, and without enthusiasm, and with three clothespins on your nose and a long hot shower after you vote. Anything but the continual bullshit whining about how anonymous comments on the intertoobz have made it oh so difficult for you to support Obama.
June 11, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall any whining. Simple observations. Don't be so emotional, you'll rust.
June 12, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need to read Stephen Toulmin's Cosmopolis. The supposed "super-logic" on which you probably believe your comment is based was debunked about, oh, 40 years ago.
June 11, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was for Frog Leg...
June 11, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's reliance on empathy, as most clearly exemplified in his emplathy for both black and white racists in his speech on race, is a challenge with no end. In my ministry and psychotherapy practice, as well as my personal life and my views of politics and international relations, I've been committed to reliance on empathy. But I fail to be empathic as much as I succeed. Empathy is like that. It's beyond us. It's completely against the grain of prevailing morality by which we are raised and by which our society is ordered. No one can be consistently empathic, especially if they did not have the kind of deeply empathic mother Obama had.
What I envision for Obama supporters, including me, is a rising tide of empathic methods in the social sciences, psychotherapy, and even in international relations. He will embolden many of us to speak and develop along empathic lines, and he will lead us into this unfamiliar way of thinking and relating. Meanwhile, many people will identify only with the standard progressive causes he represents and not this underlying metamessage. They will hate Hillary and Billy Glad, much less McCain, and even the most empathic among us will slip and fall into disempathic rhetoric. I believe. Help thou my unbelief.
The testing and infusion of empathic methods and spirit will take much time, and part of the message is to try to empathically understand those people on our side who can't stand their opponents. For if empathy means anything, it must apply to everyone.
June 11, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're on the same page, Preach!
June 11, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. Recommended.
As a professional Christian (much of the work I do as a conductor and composer happens within a particular denominational context that employs me), I tend to be more cynical about those who are true believers. And yet I've met folks like the missionary described, people who realise that the lives they live and the congruity between their words and actions may be the only Gospel tract some people will ever have the chance to read.
Still and all, I regularly recommend Eric Hoffer's little gem, The True Believer. To quote my oldest son, who read Hoffer before going off to seminary, "I love Jesus and I love Elvis, but their fan clubs sure creep me out, sometimes."
June 11, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you explained what a "professional Christian" is. Thanks.
If you ever come back, will you please explain what exactly is creepy about true-believer fan clubs? I've always had a visceral reaction to them, ever since I was a kid, but I've never figured out why (granted, I was humiliated in Sunday school at the age of 5, but I don't think that's it). I'd be interested in any insight you might have from your experience.
June 12, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Insightful post. Keep 'em coming - thanks.
June 11, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your problem is that you don't understand why I believe in you more than Obama.
But I'm not running for office, so believing in me is rather pointless when it comes to questions about who you might vote for in November.
You I can debate.
It would be my pleasure to debate with you on any topic you might choose. I would do my best to try to keep up, but you'd probably be disappointed.
You are the incarnation of his views.
Not even remotely true. Not by any stretch of the imagination. You don't even know how much or how little my views overlap with Obama's -- less than you might expect, actually. I can't very well be the incarnation of views I don't agree with, can I? I'm not even sure what it would mean to be an incarnation of someone else's views in the first place.
When someone talks about reforming welfare, I don't take the ideal - I look at the actions in practice.
I don't know in any detail what Obama's views are on reforming welfare, so I don't know how much I agree or disagree with him on the topic (I'm more of a libertarian than most Obama supporters, I expect, so the disagreement might be substantial). And when it comes to the actions in practice of reforming welfare I doubt that Obama will be asking for my advice. So if you're using me as a substitute for the candidate himself on an issue like this, it really doesn't make much sense at all.
June 11, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for that matter, there are Obama supporters who decided to vote for him based on things completely unrelated to Obama's views. Some may not even have the foggiest idea what any of Obama's views are. Such supporters aren't incarnations of his views, are they?
There are no doubt Obama supporters who decided to vote for him based on false beliefs about Obama's views. Would they be incarnations of Obama's actual views, or incarnations of views that are actually not Obama's views at all?
Or Obama supporters who disagree with Obama on essentially everything, but still find him less objectionable than John "hundred years" McCain. Surely these aren't incarnations of Obama's views in any meaningful sense?
You could debate any of the above on various issues, but what would that have to do with Obama? It's not like, say, expecting that people who describe themselves as practicing Catholics will have theological views that are at least substantially (if not entirely) in agreement with the basic teachings of the Catholic church. That might be a reasonable expectation, generally speaking. But a political movement is not like a religion in this sense. There's no creed that defines it, no definition of what it means to join it. It includes those who are deeply involved (posting on message boards doesn't count as involvement in any meaningful sense), and those who won't do anything but show up to vote in November, and lots in between.
June 11, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
you, sir, are far more reasonable, polite, and pleasant than your avatar would lead any unknowing passersby to believe.
i bet you'd even say "lustrous metallic posterior."
:-)
June 11, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Desi, the human face of the movement is not in a blog.
It's the face we bear in the world that matters more.
Neither is our participation in blogworld in anyway a reflection of how we behave in the world.
Also, TPM is a small part of a huge blogotopia. I'm not sure that Obama or his supporters, en mas, can or should be judged by us, who prance around this blog.
June 11, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious, in which country did you meet this Christian missionary. Will you reveal?;)
June 12, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious too.
June 12, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Albania.
June 12, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most of our attitudes are shaped by small unrepresentative samples, whether Peter Jennings or Wolf Blitzer, something someone says waiting in line at the mall, an email from a friend you trust, an interview, a press release, a picture, a chaotic blog...
We piece these bits together and form a judgment. There's always more info that could be had, and false data in our sampling. Some people are very good at drawing conclusions from limited data, some need more, some get data overload and go indecisive.
If you think this blog as a bad representation of reality, what is a good one? And does that good one give better information or worse? Sometimes highlighting the odd data points is more important than putting them in perspective. Other times highlighting the odd data points makes for a hysterical view of the whole. You have to look and see for yourself.
June 12, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mindless robots in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9IldaegAB0
June 12, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ghost Who Walks:
Interesting post. I wish it could stay on the list longer.
I'm reminded of going to East and West Germany in 1980. In East Germany, the children ridiculed our obviously-American group. I'd never been mocked for being American before; I'd never recognized indoctrination before. In Berlin (Friedrichstraße station, I think), we had to get out of the train and wait while dogs searched it. Armed guards were everywhere, even in the rafters, it seemed.
In West Germany, my host father told me about his family's escape from Poland.
Nine years later, I couldn't believe it when the Wall came down.
June 12, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look. Des. Just finish the story for me, willya? What happened when the Sad Monk met the Glad Monk?
No. Wait. I got it. The Sad Monk... IS the Glad Monk!
No huh. Well.... there ya go. I never could handle Albanian koans.
June 12, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're not "koans" in Albania, they're "qumpias", and don't handle them - they're very dangerous, kind of like a mental landmine. Blow the back of your head off, it ain't pretty.
June 12, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sad monk was in a bad funk
Cause his adjunct was a tad drunk
So the cad stunk like that drat'd skunk
In his plaid trunks nearly spat chunks
If a grad punks show the lad spunk,
Don't be a staid hunk, that's a bunch of mad bunk.
June 12, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking this conversation could benefit from some discussion about what a movement is and so I offer the work of an excellent labor "shit disturber", Wanda Pasz in the following two articles.
http://www.m-f-d.org/article/general/acfyv14hvfm.php
http://www.m-f-d.org/article/general/h1uzhasf9xy.php
June 12, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink