Link
Could it really be true, Harrogate often finds himself excitedly wondering, that "we are who we've been waiting for"? Harrogate dares anyone to listen to what Barack Obama actually has to say, to consider the challenges he poses on the level of the moral imagination: Yea, indulge this, and then reflect for a moment about the current occupant of the White House. If an ache doesn't soon follow, then you are a bizarre soul indeed, by Harrogate's measure.
So why all this cult business?, Harrogate's critics might wonder. Harrogate was, after all, one of the first on the blogosphere to use the word.
It is partly Obama's own tendency to overstep the compelling suggestion of transforming how we imagine government, to cross over into a Twilight Zone wherein he and his have actually transcended contemporary politics altogether. Verily, Obama alone, and those drawn to/awakened by him, are indeed "above it all." Listen closely to the rising chorus and ye shall hear:
No longer does Party affiliation matter, it is in fact passe. What matters is that we get behind this particular human being at this moment in history, and follow him down the path of Truth and Light.
Should he not get the nomination, it is not worth investing in the Democratic bid for the White House. And then, when empirical things like a continuing Health Care crisis dovetailed with a robber-baron tax code; like escalation in Iraq and Bombing of Iran, these will be no matter either, it is not for us to sully our hands with such things. It will instead be for us to honor his memory then, and wait for him to come again in 2012.
Oh yeah, and also to ignore his lack of actual impact in the Senate.
5 comments:
Harrogate, go write your dissertation! :)
Please, take time to note the irony of your words...
A cult denies the agency of those who choose to follow him or does agency not matter.
Party affiliation is actually declining. People choose candidates they feel are best for a position. Of course, if we play by your rules of the extreme, then isn't supporting the party line "fascism," or doesn't liberty matter?
Follow me... um... if a person were to read the campaign discourse by the candidates, then you can see that Senator Clinton relies on a strategy whereby she can solve the problems of the people (health care, Iraq, fight republicans); on the other hand, Obama employs the language of empowerment whereby people act to accomplish tasks and serve the community. It is a subtle shift, but important, especially when you accuse Obama of asking people to follow him.
But, truly your last comment is most precious. "To ignore his impact of the Senate..." I mean, he could have voted for a war that may never end...
The choice of action and inaction certainly depends on what the action is. Context matters. Strategies matter.
Hopefully it is understood that the Cult thing is part fun, part serious. At the same time, Harrogate has been clear about the things he likes most about Obama.
That said, Harrogate has never had the sense during this current primary run, that Hillary Clinton has positioned herself as larger than the Democratic Party. He cannot, to be mild, say the same for Obama.
And while unrigidly supporting the Party line might resonate with fascism, there is a reason Parties coalesce. There are a hell of a lot of people invested in this Party, people who will remain invested whether he gets the nomination or not. If he is not in touch with that he should be running as an Independent.
Harrogate is not so extreme as to say All Agency or No Agency, for it all depends on The Rhetorical Situation. There is after all a mix of determinism, free will, and absolute chance (which often gets the last word) ever at play in this life.
Two other things for this thread, solon, both of which Harrogate does not feel you have spoken to thus far.
1)One or two times Harogate has suggested that both Obama's Rhetoric, and increasingly your Own, sounds far too much like contemporary Republican Rhetoric for Harrogate's taste. Now, in the above comment, you write the following as a defining distinction between Hillary Clinton and your candidate:
"Senator Clinton relies on a strategy whereby she can solve the problems of the people (health care, Iraq, fight republicans); on the other hand, Obama employs the language of empowerment whereby people act to accomplish tasks and serve the community"
Hmmm. Are you prepared to say, unironically, that the Rhetoric you celebrate in Obama is not what ALL Republicans employ when it comes to addressing issues like the Health Care crisis and poverty more generally? The answer is not government programs, for "the people" (i.e. the upper 1%) know better what to do with their money than the government does.
The thing to do is to fetishize a figurehead a la Reagan, call him "optimistic" cause he talks real purty. Fill people with community pride, watch them take care of the problems themselves.
Such saccharine talk always made Harrogate throw up a little bit, in his mouth. Typing it here is having said effect, so he'll move on. And now that Harrogate thinks about it, what you just wrote demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that any "Edwards voter", including Edwards, with any sense would have swung to Hillary Clinton the moment he dropped out of the race.
And second question:
You're of course right that he has consistently opposed this trainwreck of a foreign polcicy, and Harrogate saulutes that. So what he has NOT done, does matter. But do you deny that, outside reminding everyone he opposed the war, Obama has done little of note in his capacity as a Senator beyond run for the Presidency? For all his claims to Leadership Virtuosity, has he been a Leader of any kind in the Senate? Has he Sponsored, or even impacted, any Legislation we should be excited about? Inquiring minds want to know.
1)Hey Harrogate (stepping out of a locker as if we are on You Can't Do That on Television with Alanis Morissette).
Did you ever notice that Obama's slogan is "Yes We Can!" and Hillary's slogan is "Yes She Can!"
All plagiarism aside, this is the difference between empowerment and usurpation.
2) Beside the guilt by association arguments, yes I believe in some concept of "the people." Transformation can occur though the people-- examine the struggle for Civil Rights.
However, I do not think that noting the need for some level of personal responsibility to themselves, their family, or their community is a "Republican idea." This is just silly.
And yes, there are times when the people would do better spending their money than the government. Iraq comes to mind. So does Vietnam. One of the problems with Social Security is that the government stopped being fiscally responsible and spent a lot of the money people needed on other projects. If governmental figures adhered to their own beliefs then SS would not be so much a problem. I do not think this is too much too ask for the government to be responsible when they use public money.
2) During his time in the Senate, Obama has contributed to Ethics Reform, immigration, gun control, and global warming. As for your question, "Has he Sponsored, or even impacted, any Legislation we should be excited about?" you need to think about how the Senate works. You do not need to be a leader in the Senate to get work done. Sometimes, being a leader backfires...Just ask McCain and Senator Edwards.
Think about the institutional arrangements and how the institution needs to work.
Post a Comment