Whenever I’m stuck and can’t figure out why I believe what I actually believe as a conservative, there’s only one thing I can do.
No, don’t be silly. I don’t sit down, carefully and systematically analyzing the underlying assumptions that make up my beliefs, testing them against the available facts, buttressing or weakening my arguments as the case may be and arrive at an intelligent, intellectually coherent position.
Instead, I ask Lambchop.
Conservatives love to claim that Obama supporters have excess reverence for their candidate and see him as some sort of transcendent messiah figure. There is a small minority of Obama supporters—as is true for most candidates and political movements—who probably expect more from Obama than it is healthy to expect from political leaders generally.
But listening to this objection from the right-wing movement is the ultimate irony. There has not been a political figure in a long, long time who was revered, worshiped and transformed into a grotesque Icon of Transcendent Greatness the way the Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush, has been. For years and years, the Right sustained itself as little more than a glorified Cult of Personality around the Great, Conquering War Hero.
Mr. Ellison’s post is entitled “Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign scary?” Unfortunately, the World Famous Sock Puppet never quite gets around to answering that question. This proved a huge disappointment to me as I am always interested in bettering myself by having my fears allayed by someone whose stock in trade is portraying conservatives in the scariest, the lowest, the most hyperbolically evil manner possible.
No matter. Instead of telling me why I’m scared of Obama, Lambchop gravely informs me that I harbor the same messianic delusions about George Bush as millions of Democrats and liberals believe of Barack Obama.
This is very comforting – if it were true. The fact is, although George Bush is a handsome fellow (in a “Bushy” sort of way) he could be said to have the charisma of a goat and the rhetorical gifts of a Macaw. He does not engender the same fawning, fainting, chest heaving, breathless, hyper-sexual responses to his presence as Barack Obama.
But does that singular fact stop our favorite sock puppet from reaching for the stars in trying to compare the reaction of supporters to the two men?
Don’t bet on it:
When introducing the Commander-in-Chief at the 2004 GOP Convention—that Orwellian orgy of unprecedentedly creepy, relentless hero worship—Gov. George Pataki said: “He is one of those men God and fate somehow led to the fore in times of challenge.” The righteous Gen. Boykin said: “The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.” Rudy Giuliani added: “I say it—I say it again tonight—I say it again tonight: Thank God that George Bush is our President.”
Politicians are funny, aren’t they? They can dress a pig up in a prom dress and swear on a stack of bibles that Porky is the belle of the ball. Lambchop’s problem in evaluating the relative enthusiasm and love directed at Obama and Bush appears to be one of (big surprise) proportion. For one so hysterically inclined to exaggerate, to denigrate, to posit the most outrageously ignorant motivations for conservative actions, our man Mr. Ellison simply lacks the ability to evaluate anything in an adult manner. Instead, he reminds me of a teenage girl in the way he dramatizes the most insignificant events and statements from conservatives as sinister and evil. A true drama queen of the left, he is incapable of the kind of balanced, nuanced judgement ascribed to most grown ups who write about politics and politicians.
Lambchop cannot tell the difference between political hyperbole as given by politicians above and the raw, emotional, slavish, worshipful, and fervent idolatry that millions of Obama supporters demonstrate on a regular basis. They can’t tell you why they are for him. They can’t tell you why they faint and weep in his presence. They can’t tell you why they believe he can “change the world” when he can’t even change the politics of Chicago.
All they can tell you is that they love him and will follow his “movement.” Does this sound like something George Bush supporters would be saying?
Describing various encounters with Obama supporters, she writes, “Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity â€“ the Obama volunteers speak of ‘coming to Obama’ in the same way born-again Christians talk about ‘coming to Jesus.’...
Even someone as juvenile as Lambchop – James Wolcott – can tell the difference between party loyalists and those who genuflect at the altar of Obama:
The always interesting James Wolcott writes that “(p)erhaps it’s my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can’t picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don’t look to politics for transcendence and self-certification.”
No one has ever accused George Bush of being a rock star. No one has ever said that Bush causes the hearts of women to palpitate uncontrollably thus causing them to pass out.
And yet Lambchop, in what can only be described as one of his more desperate leaps of illogic, tries to assign equal value to the Obama phenomena and the small number of Bush-bots who I’ll bet never thought any impure thoughts about George.
It’s silly, of course. It proves that Lambchop is a very silly man with the singular inability to be rational in discourse and temperate in his analysis.
Why this continues to qualify Mr. Ellison as a lion of the left escapes me.