--- In [email protected], "martyboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem with the word "cult" is that it is a highly loaded > term: it casts an irrevocable pejorative connotation on the > person with whom it is being associated and it therefore not > factually descriptive of this particular situation.
Actually, in politics the phrase "cult of personality" has a specific meaning that is only distantly related to the common meaning of "cult." It's also only distantly related to the *original* meaning of the phrase, which referred to Stalinism. The phrase has been applied not just to Obama but to FDR, Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. It refers to a politician who gains a following not for his/her policies but his/her charismatic personal appeal. It does *not* mean his/her policies are necessarily bad ones, simply that they aren't being closely examined. > In today's lexicon, it is invoked for manipulative not > descriptive- ends. Using the term "cult" belies an attempt > to paint an indelible stain on the candidate, and falls short > of invoking the name of Adolph Hitler. Nowhere *near* any of this. > The implication that any candidate who generates enthusiasm in > young people must have turned their brains into mush is mean- > spirited, manipulative, and self-serving. Maybe all those young > people are really onto something? The implication is that in Obama's case, they *aren't* onto something, that the appeal of Obama's personality is so strong that they're not paying attention to whatever his policies and style of governance may be. If you Google "personality cult" or "cult of personality" and Obama's name, you'll get something like 600,000 hits. That doesn't prove his campaign *is* a personality cult, of course, just that *whether* it's a personality cult is an active topic of discussion on the Web and in the media. It's not just the guy I quoted who has used the term about Obama, in other words, not by a long shot. Perhaps they're really afraid of the world we > have delivered into their laps! I hope so! Would you rather > people voted for someone who generates no enthusiasm? If the person they're voting for is likely to do a better job in office without generating enthusiasm than someone who *does* generate enthusiasm, yes indeed. > If the worst thing Mr. Obama gets accused of is generating > enthusiasm, I will be pleased to provide him with my vote! The question is what he's going to do *besides* generating enthsiasm. Enthusiasm and $5 will get you a double latte at Starbuck's. What happens to all those enthusiastic young people if Obama wins the White House and doesn't accomplish his promised magical transformation? We need to look at *whether he has what it takes* to do what's needed to get us out of the mess we're in.
