Posted on 02/21/2008 4:21:53 PM PST by shrinkermd
On a recent show, Rush Limbaugh opined that the Obama phenomenon was a “cult” and would shortly wear off as people really examined his record and positions. Perhaps, but this debunking will not happen without an awareness of how Senator Obama has achieved so much in so short a time.
The phenomenon is obvious. A few examples are:
A crowd invariably selects a leader. We look for a leader and then give that leader affection and power. How we make this selection is a crucial dimension of understanding. While we may recognize the importance of having a leader, we seldom bother with reflecting on “how” this occurs.
Lisa Lerer from Politico: "This is not a campaign for president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world," he said as he introduced Obama last week in Baltimore. "You do not get 13,000 people in this auditorium with a campaign." As over the top as it may have sounded, Cummings' sentiments weren't all that unusual. Because when it comes to Obama, hyperbole seems to be the rule, not the exception.”
Barbara Simpson from World Net Daily: “Longtime liberal actress Susan Sarandon gushed about her support of Barack Obama, saying she definitely would vote for him for president. Then she added the capper: "I can't wait to see what he stands for."
Introduction
But “how” and “why” Obama?
The “how” part is discussed under transference and the “why” is discussed from Shelby Steele’s point of view. Following this there is a brief discussion of religion and human nature as it applies to the Obama phenomenon.
Over 100 years ago Freud in his Postscript (1905) to The Interpretation of Dreams Freud laid out the essentials of ”transference” .Later (in 1912) he wrote The Dynamics Of Transference. These two papers summarized Freud’s conclusions as to how transference operates in individuals.
Transference is generally defined as set of expectations, beliefs and emotional responses that a patient brings to a therapist-patient relationship. These expectations are not based on what the therapist is like but, rather, on what the patient experienced with previous authority figures. Usually, the transference is positive and includes both affection and over-idealization of the therapist. Sometimes a negative transference occurs manifested by undeserved mistrust and contempt. In insight oriented psychotherapy the doctor submits this transference to rational, intellectual assessment.
Usually, the psychoanalyst manages and interprets the transference since it acts as a resistance to actual understanding. In a certain sense psychoanalysis can be defined as the analysis of transference. The limitations of psychoanalysis are well known. If nothing else, the average psychoanalysis requires 2-3 visits per week for several years or more.
Early on, Freud recognized transference was a universal phenomenon and not something that just occurred in the doctor-patient relationship. In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921), Freud dismissed the idea that groups suffered from a mental contagion or acted as they do because of group instincts. Instead he offered quite a different view.
Freud argued that transference was a universal human attribute and that, “man has an extreme passion for authority and wishes to be governed by an unrestricted force.” People give up a portion of their individuality in order to have a sense of participation. They transfer child-like obedience to their parents to a leader; they slavishly follow this leader. Their seemingly mindless dependence is actually a desire to be governed. By means of transference they also attenuate their feelings of smallness, helplessness and fear of death. They have something bigger to believe in.
Fromm, Jung, Rank and Becker later expanded these thoughts even further. According to them, we seem to crave a magic helper. We crave someone who we can “tune in to” and so we can have meaning to our life. Transference is common in everyday life. We worship and fear the very power that we and the others have given to a leader.
Like the transference experience in psychotherapy, people develop an intense attachment to their leader. The leader becomes, at times, the center of their lives, is given rock star status even by those who picture themselves as self-sufficient, self-determining and possessed of independent judgment and choice. All of these approaches to a leader are automatic and unconscious once a threshold of acceptance is achieved.
Once this transference to a leader takes place, the leader becomes the conscience of the group. The leader can carry out or demand actions that are contrary to the individual consciences of the group members. This is particularly true when the leader offers an opportunity to become a hero in transforming the world as well as oneself.
Transference permits a meaning to life and trumps being isolated and alone. Losing a portion of one’s individuality, then, gives meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence.
The leader must also give up his individuality. He loses his individuality in the process of becoming a leader. Leaders need followers as much as followers need leaders. To be a leader requires tailoring one’s persona to fit the demands of the group being led.
As mentioned, leaders can lead the group into moral transgressions. Paradoxically, the guiltier the individuals become, the more they are bound to the leader. Gradually, with a morally transgressing group, individuals see the leader as the principal meaning of their lives. An example is Germany and Hitler. The more Hitler persecuted the Jews, the more the Germans were bound to him out of guilt; eventually, the Germans gave Hitler unlimited power.
Freud saw that transference to a leader or a cause was universal. He saw this transference as permitting individuals to relate to large groups. He also noted that those with less confidence and ability were the most likely to completely submit to a leader or a cause. Finally, he noted the universal, irreconcilable conflict between the urge to stand out and the urge to belong to a larger cause and to merge with a powerful other.
Psychological transference as it relates to politics is also discussed in this Free Republic post: HERE..
The answer to this question if two fold—Obama is an “iconic negro” and he is also the prototypic modern liberal. A discussion of the “iconic negro” follows.
In Shelby Steele’s book, A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win, one can find an explanation of the this term.
Shelby Steele writes, “by definition an “iconic negro” is someone who embodies the highest and best of both longings of both races. In such people one can see the historic shame of their races at last overcome.(Page 86 of the Steele Book)
As Shelby Steele sees it, “Bargaining and challenging are the two great masks that we blacks wear when we seek success and power in the American mainstream.” These broad means of interaction can also be thought of as quasi-identities. Of course, those who predominantly use one of these approaches will, from time to time, use the other as well.
Bargainers make a specific deal with whites. The bargainer does not hold the history of white racism against whites if they do not use race against blacks. By taking this approach bargainers give goodwill and receive goodwill. They give before they ask. Bill Crosby and Oprah Winfrey are bargainers. Basically, bargainers give racial innocence (remove the stigmata of racism) to whites; hence, the whites are both relieved and grateful. Their gratitude is such that many talented, black bargainers receive not only white recognition but riches as well.
Challengers confront whites. Challengers put all whites in the position of having to prove their racial innocence (not racist). Challengers assume all whites are racist and whites need to do something to prove otherwise. Among blacks, challengers usually have no power; however, once they interact with whites they gain great power. The black skin gives them moral authority in a society where being labeled a “racist” is one of the worst sins imaginable.
”Iconic negroes” only arise in racially divided societies. Oprah Winfrey and Nelson Mandela are good examples. By dispensing with the sense of “otherness” it can be replaced with warmth, familiarity and racial goodwill. Racial tension appears nonexistent. The big problem with being an iconic Negro is one must wear the bargainers mask and the prerequisite for becoming an iconic negro is a great ability to maintain this mask and appear absolutely natural.
All leaders and celebrities must have something that makes them stand out. Only then will the masses respond with transference. Once they do this they incorporate the selected person and respond to him or her like a real person in their lives. So much so, they may have more knowledge and feeling for the one selected than they do for the real people in their lives.
Barack Obama offers racial absolution and a sense of brotherhood to people desperately craving to be accepted as “not prejudiced.” This is a powerful motive and not easily met with and denied. Being accepted, respected is outweighs logic and reason. Looked at from this point of view what Susan Sarandon said makes sense.
The political brain is an emotional brain.
Shelby Steele’s book is reviewed on Free Republic here. The book is brilliantly conceived and it is written in crystal, clear prose.
Senator Obama’s second claim to fame is his political philosophy and all that it entails. Many have suggested that modern liberalism is a form of religion; one such example can be found here. And still others suggest modern liberalism has a psychology bordering on pathology; an example of this can be found here.
Such debates could go on for hours; however, what is germane is the psychology of religion and how it applies to modern liberalism.
The psychology of religion is nothing but the attempt to integrate one’s life with what is larger than oneself. Looked at it this way environmentalism, humanism and modern liberalism surely meet the test. It is true most liberal voters do so only tentatively and out of a desire to appear noble, self-sacrificing and good.. But the true modern liberal believers cannot be shaken from their beliefs by reason or logic; after all, it is a liberal faith and like all faiths cannot be logically disproved.
Modern liberalism is the most popular, secular religion of our day. It is widely believed, celebrated and remains impervious to actual reason even though reason is touted as being an essential accoutrement of modern liberalism.
Barack and Hillary do not differ in their liberal convictions. Some have noted that Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate. No doubt, this is a claim to fame as seen by the true liberal believer.
Senator Obama offers forgiveness and inclusiveness to whites, an example for blacks and worships at the church of modern liberalism. He gives leftists of all stripes an opportunity to feel good and do good by their liberal faith--a potent combination.
The majority of his supporters cannot be dissuaded from supporting him. There is only one way to approach these matters. Senator McCain has already started it. The strategy will be to point out the glittering generalities and lack of substance to his speeches.
But there are problems. First, no one has ever accused Senator McCain of being charming or charismatic. Second, he appears old, tired and does not give tub thumping speeches.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we must fight with the candidate we have not with the ideal one we would prefer. John McCain’s biggest strengths are he is “straight shooter” and not a rigid, conservative ideologue.
If I were Senator McCain I would have a packet of 4x4 cards along with me at all times. On these cards would be listed Barak Obama’s campaign and other claims and statements. When I spoke I would then openly pull a card from my pocket. I would then read the card. The facts would speak for themselves. And no one could question their truth or pertinence. Endless queries by the media would be stymied.
A tactic like this would implement the strategy of debunking Senator Obama. This tactic would cement in the public mind that the “straight shooter” also bases his shots on straight data.
This tactic would take courage. Nietzche once said there were three broad theories of courage—overcoming feat, having the correct balance of fear and courage and “having an overflowing of assertiveness and desire to prevail which overwhelms fear.” As I see Senator McCain this latter definition of courage is part and parcel of his life style. He wants to win and should be given every opportunity to do so.
In a paradoxical way, Senator McCain’s shortcomings are strengths when it comes to upending a slick presentation—straight facts from a straight shooter may carry us all to victory.
Scary stuff.
A long-winded way to simply say STOOOOOPID
what’s scarier is most followers of this cult have the “I don’t CARE what he stands for” attitude..they follow him and his “speeches” resemble a Benny Hinn get together..
Many rivers of “post modern” thought are converging on this moment. There is a great desire among the formerly Christian cultures of the world to let go of the past. What if Obama at some point publically embraces Islam?
Many rivers of “post modern” thought are converging on this moment. There is a great desire among the formerly Christian cultures of the world to let go of the past. What if Obama at some point publically embraces Islam?
Say what you will and whistle in the dark:
People don’t vote for position papers. They vote for (or against) personalities.
“I like this guy” will always trump, “Heck of a plan for monetary reform vis a vis our import/export balance.”
I agree, in part. If i was undecided, I'd ask you "why do you like so and so". Then you would have to provide a rational answer in terms of issues.
Saul Alinsky... Hillary and Obamas mentor
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39a1bb090251.htm
Antonio Gramsci... Hillarys mentor
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4c610569be.htm
Frank Marshall Davis... Obamas mentor
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=2008-02-20&ID=228129
why did people like jim jones? charisma, charisma, charisma..the message was lost simply because people liked him..obama is the same way..he has the oratory skills, “hope” for “change”, a new day, yes we can, etc..etc..etc..not included is the “white guilt” factor..IF he’s the nominee, he will have to be questioned, questioned and questioned again on specifics to his “hope” for “change”..will it work? who knows..but one thing is, we’re in serious trouble if he’s elected..IMHO..
I have listened to him. He sounds like a preacher, preaching liberalism. The unwashed masses soak it up. I can really understand their emotional pull to him, but pulling back and using your brain SHOULD trump all that BS he spews.
Great links. Thanks
The key is that some, hopefully enough, people feel uncomfortable with a person like this. Unfortunately, history has shown that these charismatic leaders can rise to the top despite formidable opposition.
agreed..
Very well conceived write up. However, I’m still stickin’ with “fetish,” when describing the phenomenon of Obama obsession.
Perhaps, in some weird way, McCain is the best candidate to go up against 'Svenjolly' Obama.
Yes, but... I WANTED a rigid, conservative ideologue!!
Anyone read the Left Behind series?
“HYPNOBOMA” in common words covers the whole subject of the CLOSET MUSLIM.
Perhaps. But the inquisitive mind should not shirk from hypotheses of the structure of stooooopid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.