Ing made me read this article from the LA Times.
Joel Stein says that he thinks it's embarrassing to be among the fanatics of a relatively mainstream presidential candidate.
I don't agree.
For one thing, only a candidate who is popular has a chance of actually getting elected. It might be cooler to support someone with a smaller fan base, just as it's cool to the fan of a band no one but you are your friends have heard of. But if you want your guy to have real impact I guess you need to be prepared to share him. And even share him with people less cool than you.
Stein thinks Obama's followers are embarrassing themselves in making 'We are the World' type videos, and overusing the word inspiration. He quotes his mother, a therapist, who says that people are projecting an awful lot onto him.
I am not so sure. Isn't that what we do in politics, in a democracy, pin our hopes on somebody?
And I think the reason people are projecting a lot is that they, sadly, need a lot. They need things they haven't had in American political life for a long while. Cheesy embarrassing things like hope, and inspiration.
PS. I feel a little bad because I am consciously misrepresenting Joel Stein's views to make a point here. So, in the interest of transparency: I am leaving out the fact that Joel Stein is a fan of Obama. He is. I am sorry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Lotta, it must be that I'm a greater cynic than you, I thought Stein was very funny and pretty much to the point :-)
And I don't think that Stein finds it embarrasing to be one among very many Obama fans - obviously you need a lot of supporters to become elected. I think Stein simply finds it a little embarassing that Obama's supporters - including Stein himself - are a little too fanactic, chanting a few too many "Yes we can" and projecting perhaps a little too much hope on a man that, as Stein puts it,actually is fairly mainstream.
I don;t know Ing, I think Stein's 'Oprah is safe' comment is a little revealing. Of course she is. But she reaches people and they take her seriously. Earlier this winter I took a few of those online tests to compare your political views to those of the candidates', and never did I match with Obama. I am far too left wing for him. But I do appreciate the appeal that he has, and that Oprah has too. It might be 'safe', but for the past 8 years I have taught bright 20 year olds who have no interest in politics. If a politician can make them feel more connected to society, I am not going to laugh at the videos they make. (That's my focus here, actually. I have talked politics with hundreds of students over the past few years and it has been very depressing.)
I agree, the fact that Obama has the ability to make people that used to not care about politics actually feel a little more hopeful is all good. However, considering the enthusiastic (you might notice I avoid Steins word fanatic) crowd one might have thought that his political agenda would be a little closer to yours (and mine, probably). A little more revolutionary perhaps. Anyway, I hope you have many much less depressing talks with students lately and if that's because of Obama that's just another good reason to vote for him.
It seems to be all about the emotion? Which may explain why people previously uninterested now are interested: they don't have to consider the issues.
On the other hand, I watched 'Bobby' the other day, the movie about Bobby Kennedy. It was eerie. Same words, same passion. Would we (Stein, but he has a point) have called the Kennedy, or Dr King, supporters fanatic, had we lived in the 60s? It;s always easier in retrospect to see what is right and wrong, and we forget, I think, that progress is never inevitable. It has to be sought.
Post a Comment