John Cox, on the salivating glee with which people like Todd Gitlin and E. J. Dionne look forward to the fascist tactics that will be enabled by President Obama’s identity cult:
Gitlin becomes almost giddy with the prospects of how a cult of personality, fluent in Web dynamics, can exploit “his more than 3 million names – disproportionately young and energetic.” They “remain a political force as long as he satisfies them that, once in office, he can deliver.”
But Obama doesn’t have to “deliver” in conventional political terms in order to “satisfy” his netroots. In a “political landscape where passions outweigh ideological clarity,” as Gitlin himself puts it, Obama’s self-centered movement need only satisfy those passions. And Gitlin makes it clear that the Web technologies are ideally suited to do just that.
Obama can “deploy his supporters to muscle reforms through.” One gets the distinct impression that for Gitlin it’s the muscling even more than the reform that’s so satisfying. As president, Obama can get them to “bombard Congress with phone calls to break filibusters and [my favorite catch-all] otherwise stir them to action….”
As he asks at the end, into what are they are so eager to see democracy “transform”?
3 million names who are “disproportionately young and energetic?”
Yeah, right. He forgot “disproportionately flaky, impatient, and prone to turn their enormous energies into boffing each other at raves.”
What a silly person. As if it wasn’t already apparent that The One doesn’t give a hoot about his useful idiots.
It has been true since the Summer of Love and it’s true today. Scratch a Democrat, find a totalitarian.
Why don’t they “transform” their address to one inside a country that is already socialist / communist / ant-freedom?
Mr. Simberg..
WAY O/T…
Is your blogroll coming back?
Best regards,
Is your blogroll coming back?
Probably, but not immediately (I hope by the end of the month). In the meantime, you can go to the old index page to use it.
Sounds like Obama has re-invented democracy as mobocracy of the worst form, where representatives are brow beat into line by unruly masses who are a minority of the people, but a large majority of the noise. And if representatives don’t fall into line, perhaps threats of uncivil disorder, or even cries of ‘crucify him’.
It’s obvious. They’re transforming us into a progressive country. And progressively what? Why, progressively transformative, of course!
Although “change” is truly a value-neutral word often falsely understood as always positive, “progress” is understood as positive only when properly used.
Today’s “progressives” may think they’re using it properly, but when the “progress” is toward populist mobocracy, I think they’re understanding of “positive” must be different from mine.
I goofed. There should be no “they’re” their.