Posted by
Andrews on Friday, February 22, 2008 12:50:48 PM
As so often happens lately, arguing politics with my very liberal mother has inspired me to write another short essay.
We were discussing a number of topics when she accused me of "taking everything so literally". As I expected she claimed that literal meaning is the "lowest" way of interpreting statements. At first I simply responded that without a literal meaning words cannot convey anything, that unless we have an agreed upon literal meaning, we can't talk, that concepts such as logic are based entirely upon an inflexible, consistent meaning existing for all the terms used, that if we simply make of words whatever we want, then anyone can say anything and the listeners will each draw their own meaning, and no real communication will take place.
And then it struck me. "That's why you like Obama!"
Thus did I find the answer to a question that had troubled me, why would people, liberal though they may be, be so easily taken in by such shallow platitudes and meaningless phrases. While they may be swayed by appeals to emotions or arguments that something is "just the right thing to do", the left has still not shown an inclination to buy into a candidate who had NO platform, and nothing to offer but a smile and platitudes. It is truly frightening to see the cult-like adoration that so many shower on Obama.
But my mother's aversion to literal meaning showed me the reason.
Obama's followers don't actually hear his meaningless platitudes. When he starts speaking about "hope" and "change" his followers no longer hear his words, instead they project upon him whatever they wish to hear. For some reason they choose to not hear Obama as he really is, but they create the Obama of their dreams, an idealized candidate of their own making.
That also explains how Obama can get away with taking no stand on most issues, while the few stands he has taken are either idiotic in the extreme (invading Pakistan) or contradictory (the 2d amendment creates an individual right, but states may restrict it as much as they want). For any other candidate a lack of position, or contradictory positions, would be a cause for alarm, or at least open him to criticism, but it is a strength for Obama. By saying nothing, or by taking every position, Obama allows his followers to read into his generic statements whatever they want to hear. It allows him to literally be all things to all people.
I still have no idea why Obama has become this sort of living inkblot*, a blank slate upon which cult-like followers project their hopes, but at least I think I now understand why he gets away with saying so little. He MUST say little for his trick to work. If he takes a stand he will be tied to a specific belief and some of his followers will have to confront the reality that he is a flesh and blood being with whom they sometimes disagree. So he must say nothing, to allow his followers to make of him what they will.
It is frightening that so many feel the need for a secular savior upon whom they can project their own beliefs. Of course, it is even MORE frightening that such a huckster has come so close to becoming the president of the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------
* I know some liberal adoration of Obama has to do with their obsession with "racial healing", but that is no explanation. No one is seeing a savior in Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Nor is it enough that he is a good speaker, as many great speakers have held no such appeal. Nor is it that many find him attractive, as most handsome men do not gain such a following. I think the most likely explanation is that, in addition to being a handsome man and a good speaker, all while promising liberals some sort of racial catharsis, he is also willing to be a nothing. He is willing to remain silent on absolutely every topic, precisely because it allows people to see in him what they want. In short, I think he has carefully crafted this "inkblot" persona as a tool to advance his career. And that may be the most frightening idea of all. Does anyone want such a manipulator to hold the highest office in the land?