Delusional Hope: The Obama Rapture

Delusional Hope: The Obama Rapture

Joel S. Hirschhorn

Never have so many hoped for so much because of rollicking rhetoric and pulsating platitudes. A tsunami of hope has plunged America into electoral euphoria. In its path is the wreckage of critical thinking about what ails the US and what bold, revolutionary actions are needed. Barry Obama has accomplished semantic alchemy, turning justified but grim distrust and outrage with government and politics into hallelujah hope. But most hope never materializes and is a terrible predictor of reality.

Think about the prevalence of hope: sports teams heading into a championship game, research scientists envisioning a Nobel Prize, people in the criminal justice system awaiting trial, entrepreneurs starting a new business, people starting off on a long-awaited vacation, American Idol contestants, college seniors dreaming of becoming superrich, and all those supporters of Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and other presidential candidates that will not reach the White House.

Hope produces far more losers than winners. Hope is enjoyable until failure hits. But most people do not give up on hope, just move on to the next hope.

Obama hoped that he could tap into the national desire for change from the awful conditions produced by the Bush administration by selling hope to voters rather than his experience and accomplishments. Like a political medicine-man he has succeeded as a compelling seller of hope, better than the best infomercial charlatan.

Like a self-fulfilling prophesy, his proof that hope works is his life story and political campaign. This resembles a con man selling a real estate scheme by showing pictures of his yacht, estate and Rolls Royce. Millions of consumers succumb because of their hope that riches can be obtained by following the quack’s advice and formula. Such false hope succeeds because people buy into wrong or deceitful information. False hope can be revealed through objective examination of the facts, assumptions or promises used by the hope purveyor.

Delusional hope is much more insidious. The trick behind delusional hope is that recipients of the hope message supply their own justifications and rationalizations for taking ownership of the hope. As much as delusional hope comes from the hope messenger, it is also self-inflicted to a large degree. In fact, the hope messenger may be honest and authentic, like Obama, truly believing in his hope message. Those who embrace the hope message have many possible reasons and motivations for doing so.

It may be therapeutic by offsetting depression, stress or anger. It makes people happier, feel good and have something positive to look forward to in an otherwise dismal world. It provides comfort and some sense of security. Delusional hope is exactly like a placebo medicine, producing an apparent positive result without any valid reason for doing so, except satisfying the desire for a positive result.

Obama has produced an epidemic of contagious delusional hope for a population rightfully disgusted with ordinary politics and politicians. Like an excellent magician, people are mesmerized by the trick of promising to turn YOUR hope into HIS success.

What happens if president Obama does not actually deliver any real, substantive changes and reforms in government and public policy? Who will be blamed? Hope-happy Obama or a nation of hope-losers for electing him?

This mass delusional hope befits our delusional democracy with its delusional prosperity. Rather than the usual lies, Obama offers hope for change, as if the ruling plutocracy will fade away and stop using their considerable influence over government to funnel an obscene fraction of the nation’s income and wealth to the richest Americans and corporations.

Money is key to seeing Obama for what he really is – an insider politician. He has backed away from his clear promise to use public financing for the general election, as John McCain also promised to do. His broken commitment results from his ability to raise enormous sums from hope addicts. Besides many small contributors, he has received enormous financial support from a number of business sectors. He provided about $700,000 to other politicians in the past year to get their support. When it comes to money, Obama seems much too much like an ordinary politician.

What is the audacity of hope? The confidence that most Americans will eat the political narcotic – hook, line and sinker. Welcome to the Obama rapture.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bah

He's got people excited about politics and suddenly all the liberals who were saying "If only we could get people involved!" are now slurring his supporters as a delusional cult.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

…………

Cato has a write-up on Obama

in today's Cato Daily Commentary .

I must say, I question my judgment on the man all the time. For every reason to support, there's a compelling reason not to.

But, luckily for him, when viewed in the context of other possibilities and world circumstances, I subdue my apprehension....yet again.

His health care plan sent a chilly vibration up my spine when I looked at some of the details. Namely:

Obama would mandate that all employers provide their workers with insurance.

As I read the above quote, a loose paraphrase of what follows flashed right before eyes.

That proposal would almost certainly end up hurting workers. An employer is indifferent as to whether compensation comes in the form of wages, taxes, health insurance or other benefits. Employers will therefore have to find ways to offset the added costs. This they can do by raising prices, lowering wages or reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits such as pensions, or hiring fewer workers. As always, employees will be the net losers, with the low-skilled suffering most.

………… parent

The offset in his plan

(to some degree, anyway) is picking up the tab for catastrophic coverage.

Most of the points mentioned by Cato have led to Obama being criticized before... from the left! For example he expressed openness to vouchers (Edit: link ). The willingness to consider a SS cap led to charges that he was buying into "right-wing framing" about SS being in crisis. He's also been slammed from both sides for his votes on abortion issues, something I hope to write about later.

I do fully agree with the general idea that a fiscal conservative will find little to like in *any* Democratic candidate. Also in most Republican candidates =) As you say it comes down to comparison to the competition and weighing which issues matter most and which ones a President would actually have a large impact on.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

I simply don't like the idea of mandated employer coverage

Not only for the reason that it isn't fair to the employer but also that it isn't fair to the employee....on many, many levels.

Having health insurance tied to your employer is something we should be moving away from, not more towards.

A lot of the stuff just goes over my head in the Cato article. More spending isn't really anything earth shattering. DC spends money like it grows on trees and see no problem with it. No news there. But that wrinkle in the health care area is something that doesn't sit well with me.

However, if catastrophic care would covered under a different plan and thus lowing insurance rates accordingly, it's not so bad...but the employer mandate is still something that we could do without. After all, if the plan is to make it more affordable so people will buy it....then DO THAT. LET PEOPLE BUY. Ya know what I mean?

………… parent

Yes. I do. I also think we need to decouple

insurance from employment. To some extent all of the proposed plans (Clinton, Obama, McCain) take a small step towards this by establishing pools unrelated to employment.

All of the proposals currently on the table are compromises that please nobody but should still incrementally improve the system (yes, I say that about McCain's too). Obviously Obama and Clinton go further by involving the government more in health care through regulating insurers and providing an optional government plan.

I see the employer mandate thing (which has exceptions for small businesses, of course) as a compromise aimed at helping to cover costs. Long-term, it's inconsistent with how health care should be structured. Short-term, maybe it's necessary, I don't know exactly how much of what employers spend on health care is paid for by lower salaries. I certainly don't want government forced to pick up the tab because neither business nor employees want to pay for coverage that between them they can afford.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Honey, it's time!

Just kidding.

But you should get back to work. ;)

………… parent

Oh wow

So not funny!

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Huh?

Are we running off to the hospital, Brendan?

………… parent

No no

That was just to get my attention, I guess.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

I'll bet it works like a charm!

:)

………… parent

So where do we draw the line?

I see the employer mandate thing (which has exceptions for small businesses, of course) as a compromise aimed at helping to cover costs.

How do we define this? What's small? What's large? As you can imagine, such matters are hard to conceptualize in a correct manner.

I can see companies who fit the "mandate" category who actually can't bear it changing their company around to avoid the mandate. It could be messy.

It's easy to say Exxon and a Joe's Pizza are easy to tell apart. But it is really that simple in most cases? No. Too many variables.

………… parent

Yup, especially when Joe's Pizza

is a national chain.

I'm sure that once the lobbyists and politicians get done lots of lawyers and accountants will be happy to sort it all out... for a nominal fee =P

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

well I meant

when Joes is just a generic mom and pop outfit with 8-10 employees.

………… parent

You mean you would let

someone else's opinion (Cato) sway you? :)

Have you done the in depth research of the stats. Bringing the price down is the first priority. I thought prices was the starting point of good economic policy!

I don't see any Presidential candidate satisfying Cato's purist demands. Ever.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

What a difference....

between you and Brendan. What a difference.

………… parent

I think the problem, Brendan

is that some of Obama's supporters are not interested in politics so much as the particular politician. If Obama loses the nomination they will go back to channel surfing.

That shallow approach to politics is hardly new. Reagan garnered the same benefit. Look how well that turned out.

the "cult" thing is a separate issue-
I would certainly not slur all of his supporters as a delusional cult by any means. There are significant reasons to support him. But you can't deny that there is a segment of his base that treat him in a disturbingly messianic way. It's not as bad as the worst of the Ron Paul supporters but it's in the ballpark.

As I see it Obama has three main factions to his support-
1) Lefties with no where else to go because Clinton is very center-left
2) Johnny come lately independents who cream their panties over him but have zero clue about what he stands for, and
3) The personality cultists

Group one I sympathize with. Group two are moderately contemptible and utterly untrustworthy. Group three scares the bejeebus out of me. We've seen what happened to the right when they replaced any shred of principle with an authority cult. I don't need to see something like that happen on the left as well.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

That's pretty unfair Tlaloc

especially since there are a lot of Clinton Cultists who cream their panties over the thought of a woman President. As if being the first woman nominee is the only necessary qualification.

There is no guarantee as to what either candidate would do once President. Just a general idea a sense of record and on balance the scope of their character. In my view Barack has been more consistent.

It saddens me that you buy into this cult BS, as if somehow getting people excited about participating in their democracy again is delusional.

I wonder what the numbers participating in the democratic primaries would be IF Obama weren't running. Would folks be turning out in droves to vote if Clinton was the inspiration. I doubt it.

The Bush cult was more the beer drinking, lower income type, or the same constituency that some say Clinton appeals to. The irony.

Enthusiastic young students and college educated supporters of Barack, might be quite insulted with your charge that they are being 'duped' by Obama's message.

The irony that Clinton's ex- campaign manager now supports Obama. A cultist?

The irony that the lawyer that defended Clinton during the impeachment trail now supports Obama. A cultist?

I could go on, but I won't bore you.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

There are certainly people

who have an unhealthy fixation on having a woman be president just for its own sake. I haven't personally seen any that I think veer off into cultist territory. I haven't read anyone who treats Hillary in the same kind of fawn worshipful tones as some Obama supporters.

There is no guarantee as to what either candidate would do once President. Just a general idea a sense of record and on balance the scope of their character.

True. As you know I think we haven't had enough time to get a good sense of Obama. You disagree, and that's fine.

It saddens me that you buy into this cult BS, as if somehow getting people excited about participating in their democracy again is delusional.

The point is that that subset *isn't* excited to participate in democracy- they're excited to worship Obama because he's charismatic. And that subset would be just as eager if it were Generalissimo Obama instead of President Obama.

Personality cults are always a thing to be wary of.

I wonder what the numbers participating in the democratic primaries would be IF Obama weren't running. Would folks be turning out in droves to vote if Clinton was the inspiration. I doubt it.

I don't disagree. But now ask yourself this-
If Obama was a republican, and espousing the same crap that Bush espouses but with Obama's charismatic delivery, do you really think the people currently turning out for Obama now wouldn't be showing up as Reps? Of the three categories I outlined one the first has any interest in the issues.

Enthusiastic young students and college educated supporters of Barack, might be quite insulted with your charge that they are being 'duped' by Obama's message.

When did I say duped? Of the three groups I outlined the first is choosing Obama over Clinton because they believe that Obama will do a better job of enacting liberal policies. That's fine. The other two groups don't give a damn about the message, only the messenger.

The irony that Clinton's ex- campaign manager now supports Obama. A cultist?

I've been explicit that not all of Obama's supporter's are cultists. I haven't even said the cultists make up a majority (I don't think they do, I suspect that, as with Ron Paul, the freaks are disproportionately loud and so seem more numerous).

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent