Struggling to understand the messiah
Paul GoodellAristotle defined man as a political animal. That is, to Aristotle, one of the defining characteristics of humanity is its drive and capacity to come together to form complex, ordered hierarchies which govern complex, ordered societies. In college one of my professors taught that, deeper even than humanity’s drive to create social and political order was its urge to worship. People, my professor said, are by nature religious animals. That is, they are driven to identify, appease, or praise some kind of supernatural force. Archaeology and anthropology seem to confirm my professor’s theory repeatedly. As long as genus Homo has existed, it seems to have been religious. (This increasingly appears to be a fact. The reasons behind this fact are, of course, open to interpretation.)I was reminded of this side of human nature earlier last week, after looking through several videos and blogs in support of Barack Obama.
My wife and I live in South Korea. Living overseas creates an information buffer. Unless we constantly stay on top of all the news online we’re usually only aware of major headlines. The general atmosphere of the US presidential campaign is something we’re fairly separated from here. Because of this, I’ve missed a lot of the hype surrounding the Obama campaign. While I’d heard a lot about it, I hadn’t looked at much of it until last week. What I saw disturbed me.
I started off by watching a music video called “My American Prayer“. The not-so-subtle message of this video is that now is the time we can change the world, if only we vote for Barack Obama. Several celebrities make this statement in different forms over and over again for four and a half minutes, while a woman sings, “This is my American prayer!” in the background.
I read quasi-hagiographical accounts of Obama’s speeches:
Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.
I read other accounts that suggest that Obama has superhuman powers of inspiration. And I read the words of supporters close to Obama (in this case, his wife Michelle) speaking of him in terms normally reserved for a deity:
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
Now, it’s clear that Barack Obama is inspiring. I see nothing wrong with a politician being inspiring. In fact, I think it’s better for a leader if he is inspiring. But there’s inspiring, and then there’s being the center of what increasingly appears to be the most intense messianic personality cult in America in living memory. Perhaps most surprising is the political affiliation of most of those devoted to Barack Obama: they are Democrats. Such devotional behavior among modern Democratic voters is unusual, to say the least, and can be fairly interpreted as evidence that humanity is by nature religious. Allow me to explain.
The Democratic Party today is an overwhelmingly secular party. While a large number of Democrats are either themselves religious or have religious sympathies, a larger number do not. They at best express discomfort with, and at worst regularly ridicule, other people singing hymns of praise and supplication to God in church. Over the past 40 years, the Democratic Party has fairly well stripped itself of the substantive forms of worship which have been ubiquitous in American politics over the last 200 years. This decision among Democrats to cut themselves off from both deeply rooted American tradition and their own natures has, I believe, built up in them an urge for some kind of transcendent force to identify, appease, or worship. This urge has led many of them to completely and totally devote themselves to Barack Obama in an almost unprecedented fashion. These same people, many of whom are either antagonistic or apathetic towards religion, use essentially religious language to praise Barack Obama and explain why he must be president.
This, to put it mildly, is not good. Leave aside for the moment the fact that looking for salvation through political means is a chimera — that it has only brought heartache, disappointment and destruction in the past. No person — no matter how amazing or charismatic — is worthy of worship. The only proper object of worship is divinity, not humanity. Barack Obama is just a man, yet a disturbing number of his supporters seem to willfully disregard that fact. An alarmingly large number of then don’t know his actual positions, they only know about his background and that he represents “hope” and “change.” For them, Obama’s appeal ultimately comes down to him, not to what he will do once he becomes president (his policies), or even to what he wants to do (his political views). Obama’s message for them is “Trust me. I will make everything better.” It’s a message that makes sense if he’s a god talking to his followers, or if he’s a parent talking to his children. Otherwise it’s not something anyone should feel comfortable with.

September 4th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Paul
Great essay, you hit the nail on the head, especially your closing remarks.
However, I think you ought to consider a Ronald Reagan exception to the following line:
No person — no matter how amazing or charismatic — is worthy of worship.
I don’t view the Great Communicator as a “god” (close, but not quite) but certainly consider him as someone I “regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion” which is an alternate defintion of worship according to the American Heritage Dictionary.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Well Keith, I’m a big fan of the Gipper, too. His was certainly a transformative presidency, and he had a lot of qualities to admire. (Of course, he also had several glaring flaws — like an absent-minded and distracted parenting style and a pathological need to avoid confrontation.) But I stand by my statement. The Church teaches that Christian saints are worthy of veneration but only God is worthy of adoration. And the saints are the best of people. While I think very highly of Ronald Reagan, he was likely no saint (in the specialized sense of worthy of canonization). A big problem with the modern Conservative movement is that they tend to view Reagan as either a saint or a god. He was neither. He was just a man, and so is Obama.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I’m with Paul. Why does Reagan get a pass?
“Almost none of the dozens of Obama supporters I personally know offer Obama’s policies or political positions as the main reasons for their support.”
Paul, read TOO rule 2. a.) on anecdotal evidence. I think you broke a rule here. You need to come with some data here.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Seconded. With all the polling data out there, you ought to be able to find something.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I’m surprised more people don’t discuss Reagan’s pathological aversion to confrontation. He was a real wimp with those Cold War and Berlin Wall things. And “bring down this wall” is practically panty-waisted.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Reagan is to the Conservative Party as Johnny Carson is to late night television or Jiff is to peanut butter. In the context of conservative thought, Reagan is a saint. The fact that he was a “distracted” parent is as irrelevant as Johnny’s multiple marriages is to his status as late night king.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, since Jeremy already addressed it, but pathological need to avoid confrontation? Wow. What are your other criticisms of the Presidents? Howard Taft too skinny? W too much of an egghead? Calvin Coolidge too wordy?
September 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Since we’re embracing overt sarcasm here, I thought I’d highlight some of Reagan’s particularly conservative moments:
*Grenada
*Iran-contra
*Skyrocketing the federal deficit
*Being the first president to tap the SS trust
*Handing us the modern war on drugs fiasco
Classical Conservatism, sadly, died with Robert Taft.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:19 am
You guys caught me with the anecdotal evidence. Mea culpa.
When I mentioned Reagan’s pathological need to avoid confrontation, I spoke of it in his relationships with people. He refused, for example, to resolve conflicts in his own administration because he detested personal confrontation. He had strong personalities on his staff who often clashed intensely, but he refused to act like a leader and rein them in or sit them down and make sure everything got hashed out or let one person go. In the context of a presidency, a person who won’t manage his staff is someone with problems. Also, as Tom’s mentioned, Reagan’s fiscal heresies (I think in 1985 or 1986 the budget for the Dept. of Agriculture exceeded the combined incomes of all farmers in America, for example) should make the case for any sainthood of Ronald Reagan more doubtful.
Because you’re right, Keith. In the context of modern conservatism, Reagan is a saint, and that’s a big problem. Besides enshrining a man who probably doesn’t deserve it, it ensures that conservatism will always be looking for “the next Reagan” the same way that the NBA’s looked for “the next Jordan” for years. It ensures that lesser talents (like George W. Bush) who might have been appropriately praised and appreciated in their own rights are so ridiculously hyped and built up (in the same way that players like Grant Hill were over-hyped, to the detriment of their on-court performance) that conservatives find themselves drinking the Kool-Aid to support “the next Reagan”’s destructive policies.
Witness, for example, how modern conservatism has been nearly ruined by eight years of the latest “next Reagan”’s presidency. It has become beholden to an ideology committed to spreading democracy to countries the world, often over the protests of the people in those countries — a perversion of the original American commitment to being a beacon of freedom and democracy for other countries to learn from (if they so chose). It has twisted itself into knots in a failed effort to approve of Bush’s immigration policies, which would permanently alter America, and not for the better. (The attempt at cognitive dissonance regarding immigration will split the party if it’s not repudiated, but the GOP has made sure it will continue by nominating McCain to replace Bush.) The conservative movement has prostituted itself in service to a bloated, overgrown nanny state and a proto-security state because both the nanny state and the security state were commissioned by “the next Reagan.” “The next Reagan” has ruined the conservative brand for a decade at least, something he probably wouldn’t have been able to do had he simply been viewed as a politically promising governor from a big state. But who would want to stand against “the next Reagan” … except actual conservatives concerned about actual conservatism? Thankfully, however, “the next Reagan” made sure that those folks were marginalized pretty early on.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Rather than engage in a lengthy rebuttal of clearly erroneous logic, my response is best summarized by a quote from My Cousin Vinny - “Everything that guy just said is bull—-. Thank you.”
September 7th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I don’t see any “clearly erroneous” logic in Paul’s post. If I recall “My cousin Vinny” correctly, that particular attempt a cross-examination landed him in jail. We’re not so harsh here, but it would definitely help if you expanded on your grounds for disagreement.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Seconded. It also doesn’t help your case to implicitly compare yourself to a bumbling, semi-incompetent novice.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:45 am
“I can’t really verbalize exactly what it is about him,” says [Ross] Avila. “Part of it is just beyond explanation.” (Paul’s article = explanation)
Perhaps most disturbing is the presumptuous, and rather facetious and superficial comparison that both Obama and his supporters make to MLK. Yes, Obama is a decent speaker, in comparison to many other nearly illiterate people governing our country. (Notwithstanding, McCain happens to be quite the intellectual, quoting classical mythology I am told.) But to even put him in the same category of speaking-talent as MLK is preposterous. And to compare them by the color of their skin, rather than their moral coloring, is… banal.
I am sure you are aware that while on the Illinois Senate, Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, established a wall-papered ‘Comfort Room’ at hospitals where babies– despite having been injected with KCl while in the womb had been born alive– could be placed in a rocking chair to die. (As opposed to a stainless steel bin alongside biohazard waste.) And in court, Obama told the L&D nurse who started the case, that since she criticized his ‘Comfort Room’ idea, she obviously wasn’t interested in health-care for mothers and babies.
Dr. Alveda King, MLK’s niece, says:
“Oh, God, what would Martin Luther King, Jr., who dreamed of having his children judged by the content of their characters do if he’d lived to see the contents of thousands of children’s skulls emptied into the bottomless caverns of the abortionists pits?
“My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., once said, “No one is going to kill a child of mine.” Tragically, two of his grandchildren had already been aborted when he saved the life of his next great-grandson with this statement. His son, King once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.