Media Can't 'Ron Paul' Barack Obama

As my colleague, Denise Williams, reported this weekend in an excellent piece entitled "The Cult of Obama?", the latest talking point against Barack Obama's candidacy is that his followers are "creepy" and "cult-like." Almost immediately, these same types of arguments were being copied and pasted all over our message boards by Hillary Clinton's supporters.

The same smear was used successfully against Ron Paul's candidacy, albeit combined with a seemingly willful determination by the mainstream media to completely ignore or glibly dismiss Paul's many successes. It worked because, for Paul's supporters, the argument was an inescapable trap. The only way to spread the message of their underdog candidate was to evangelize. The more they fought against the zealot label, the more zealous they seemed. The more they tried to point out the "Paul Blackout", the more paranoid they sounded.

This latest in a collection of smears against Obama feels similarly elegant, at first blush, but it is doomed to failure. After the jump, I'll explain why, and examine the true cult that exists in American politics today.

Update: Response to comments at the end.

A friend of mine, interestingly named Rod Paul, produced a TV movie called "Blinded by the Light" in 1980, long before I knew him, but the film made an indelible impression on me. When I found out Rod had produced it, I was astonished at the coincidence. The film tells the story of a young woman's attempt to free her brother from a quasi-religious cult, and the thing that fascinated me was the set of methods used by the cult to manipulate new members that the film's "deprogrammers" described.

In the film, Kristy McNichol infiltrates the cult, armed with this foreknowledge. The first thing they do is shower her with attention and affection, telling her what she wants to hear. As the long tour of the compound continues, they continually delay her from eating a meal or resting, the first steps in gaining a measure of control through subtle deprivations. When these things are finally provided, a dependence on the cult is established.

As the cult gradually provides and controls more basic necessities, a feeling of gratitude is fostered. This is the portal by which the subject is convinced to share all of their worldly possessions. It's a frighteningly simple method. From there, the cult isolates the subject from the rest of society, controlling and providing information, and therefore, truth. Adherents will hold these truths unquestioningly, in the face of all rational opposition.

Now, Obama is undeniably telling a lot of people what they want to hear, but that's pretty much where the comparison ends. In the case of Ron Paul, the comparison was equally spurious, but buttressed by the zealotry and small size of his following. The cult comparison completely falls apart for Obama when you view the size and breadth of his following. A key characteristic of cults is a relatively small, isolated following.

Also hurting Ron Paul in that argument was the fact that his ideas, whether you like them or not, are out of the mainstream of political thought, making them easier to marginalize. Obama, on the other hand, has tapped into an electorate that has figured out that Universal Healthcare is more than a good idea, it's a moral imperative, and that the Iraq War must end, and that waiting for economic benefits to "triclke down" makes for a parched existence.

What this "cult" smear really is, is an attempt to re-encrypt the coded racism of other smears that failed to gain traction. From Denise's article:

And a lovely wrap-up from The WaPo's Charles Krauthammer: ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience -- to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek."

This is a rehash of attempts to characterize Barack Obama as a fiery black gospel preacher, with his followers jumping up and "catching the Holy Spirit". Comments on our forums speak of chanting and swaying. It's just another way to remind people that Obama is black, and "they" aren't like "us." News flash: We know he's black, and we're fine with it.

There is a politician today who merits a stronger comparison to the cult model, one who has a small but diehard following despite evidence that their material sacrifices are not benefiting them, whose policies have led to deprivations of sleep and food, whose followers depend on an isolated source for all of their information. Luckily, that cult's mothership arrives on January 20, 2009.

First, let me say, Kristen, you are obviously the smartest and best person on this thread, congratulations! OK, David G write:

Tommy,

Show me a positive Ron Paul story and we can go from there...or a negative Barak Obama story.

And No, Obama girl losing her way to the polls is not a negative story (although we can only hope it happens to the rest of his Obama girls).

I do not believe I am being unfair at all, but I do believe the aol bloggers have been grossly unfair to Paul, Clinton and anyone except Obama (you being the least offensive). Have you read the others?

Let's see that neutral body of work re Paul or Hillary. It could be I have just missed it and focused on the bad. If so I apologize, but I don't think you are going to find many examples.

Now, DavidG is an avid reader of The Political Machine, so I found it really hard to believe that he hadn't read examples of my writing that fit his bill, as they are among my most popular stories ever. Still, David, you deserve an answer. I cannot answer for my fellow bloggers, but I, myself, have made an extreme effort to treat all of the candidates, even Rudy Giuliani, fairly.


First of all, I have ripped Obama on Healthcare in several stories since the South Carolina debate. I also spoke strongly against him for failing to quash the furor over the "MLK/LBJ" remarks. I have written countless articles in defense of Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney, because despite my policy differences with each of them, it was apparent to me that they were being treated unfairly.

I guess it all depends on your definition of "negative" or "positive." My aim is to be fair. In fairness to you, the phenomenon you observe is real, but I am not the guy you want to target for that criticism. You can click on the little blue "Tommy Christopher" under any one of my stories, and read what I've written. I will provide you with a few examples here. With the exception of the last one, which I include because it is my favorite, these are all stories you have commented on, David.

The Greatness of Hillary Clinton

Will Indie Vote Break For Ron Paul?

GOP Debate: The Ron Paul Show

Shh! Ron Paul Places 2nd in Nevada

Will Black Voters Desert Obama?

Don't Dismiss Ron Paul or John Edwards

Ron Paul For President...of What?

Clinton Presidency Would Be a Disaster

To those who quibble with my assertion that Universal Healthcare is a moral imperative, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but let me know if you have a problem with your money being taken and used to pay for someone else's police protection. Oh, and yours.

Update 2: Jade, yes I do. Thanks for asking.

David G, I'm glad you read my response, and yes, I think I said more positive things about Ron Paul than anyone who disagrees almost completely with him can be expected to. Keep this in mind, though. Our job is to provide analysis of the news. That means we say who we think is better, and why. If one candidate gets more "positive" coverage, that alone does not indicate bias. If the writer cannot support his or her conclusions, then you can have that conversation. This isn't a 5th grade class, where we try to make everyone feel good by giving out "Honorable Mention" trophies.

Denise is a good writer who supports her conclusions, and writes with humor and charm. Her piese on the "Cult" smear was dead on, as evidenced by the fact that she got crap from both sides about it.

I've read a lot of your comments, David, and I have to say, while your job here is different from ours, and you are under no obligation to be fair, listening to you complain about our objectivity is a little hard to take. Disagree with us, fine, make your points, fine, but don't attack the writer.

You are our bread and butter, David. We live and breathe to be disagreed and argued with. But, since you're such a regular around here, why not keep it friendly?

Update 3: 2-24-08: Sorry, the comments have been out of control, it is hard to keep up.

Matt Lake writes:

Mr. Christopher,

I am opposed to Universal Health Care for the simple reason of the inappropriate redistribution of wealth.

I believe that you however make a reasonable point about the provision of police protection from public funds.

My gut, yet considered response to this is that public funds protecting the public statistically from the public are quite dissimilar from public funds protecting individuals from their own health impacting decisions.

I will however acquiesce that replacing police protection with fire protection does make me question the entire model of civil services but it still does not change my mind on Universal Health coverage.

Respectfully,

Matt Lake

Matt, I like your open-mindedness. I don't expect everyone to change their minds, just to give it some real thought. You have done that. I would like to point out, though, that healthcare is a public protection issue on many levels. From a cost perspective, uninsured people who get most of their care at Emergency Rooms cost you a lot more than UHC would, not to mention the public health and productivity impact of uninsured and underinsured people who walk around sick instead of paying to see a doctor.. Surely, you can see the benefits of having everyone get access to preventive care.

I haven't weighed in with my own healthcare plan yet because the subject is too large to tackle and still do my other jobs. Rest assured, though, that there is a way to accomplish what you want and what I want.


DavidG writes:
You know Tommy, I've really tried to be friendly and every time I do, I get another snarky reply.

Maybe my little piece of the bread and butter should just go somewhere else.

If you can't see the bias in the collective work of the aol political machine, there is just too much of a gap of understanding or rationality. It's not been fair, it's not been good, it's not been funny, it's not been clever, it's just been biased.

There has to be somewhere else one can express an opinion. You can't argue with people who do have the forum but refuse to admit they are ever wrong.

Thanks and good luck. I'll try to break my habit, or maybe just go to TMZ when I feel the need to express my apparently crazy opinions.

David,
I really do hope you stick around. You are right, you have been very friendly toward me, and I appreciate that. I did acknowledge the phenomenon you mentioned, but I don't think it applies to Denise. When I said "keep it friendly", I was referring to her.

Again, with regard to bias, your observation is correct, but I am not convinced of the characterization. Certainly, each writer's point of view has an effect, but then a certain percentage of it is event-driven. In fairness to you, yes, there has been an anti-Paul slant here, but do you think it is more or less so than in the larger MSM?

I would ask the same about Hillary Clinton, but if I'm being honest, I have observed a disproportionately negative slant to her coverage, though not by much. The MSM is very hard on her, and easy on Obama, as we are.

To clarify, I guess I object to The Political Machine being singled out, and I would point to the exceptions that you have noted as points well in our favor.

Again, I hope you stick around, and I hope you view this as a discussion, and not an attempt to "win an argument." As you pointed out, who wins if you don't read us anymore?

Tommy Links

Tommy Christopher Uncut l TomMySpace l TommYoutube