The Cult Tag is both a Bum-Rap and a serious observation

[rodeodance]

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject The Cult Tag is both a Bum-Rap and a serious observation
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4479571#4479571
4479571, The Cult Tag is both a Bum-Rap and a serious observation
Posted by Kurt_and_Hunter on Fri Feb-08-08 11:49 AM

I have considered the deep-core support and the psychological methods of the Obama movement to be some sort of cult since last summer. I did not come to that conclusion because I don’t support Barack Obama. I don’t support Barack Obama primarily because I came to that conclusion.

I am sorry to see that the cult tag has become a partisan football. There are probably some Hillary die-hards who are throwing the word “cult” around as just the latest nasty thing to say.

But the fact that some may be disingenuous or under-informed has no effect on my personal sense, as a free-thinking individual, that the deep-core of the Obama movement is quasi-religious, paranoid and devoted to an individual, rather to a set of principles.

That does NOT mean that everyone who supports Obama is a cultist! And the cultish character of the Obama movement does not obligate anyone to vote against him.

ALL elections are about the lesser of two evils. I don't think Barack is a crazy cult-leader, I think he is a gifted politician using some effective, but somewhat dangerous techniques. If I believed that the Obama movement would defeat McCain and the Hillary campaign would lose to McCain then I would vote for Obama. (My distaste for the Obama movement is not decisive. My opposition is based on my analysis that a vague emotional movement is subject to catastrophic deflation when the media turns on it.)

The Reagan campaign in 1976 was cultish. It spurred the modern conservative movement, which was, and is, cultish. But most of the people who voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 were not cultists.

It is possible and even NECESSARY that we are able to talk about the nature of a political movement without implicating every individual supporter.

Some of us secularists know a lot about religious cults, personality cults, paranoiac political movements, televangelism, the “Revival” movement, and self-help cults. I would not throw the cult label around lightly, because my intellectual integrity is worth far more to me than whatever fun might be found in tossing brick-bats at people on the internet.

I would suggest that Obama supporters should not try to ironically “take ownership” of the cult label, because you are playing with fire. Even if you think the cult tag is silly and over-the-top, you are wrong to think others will view it that way. Whether or not the Obama movement is a cult, it has many cultish aspects and it’s foolish to essentially defy people to find anything cultish there. It is there to be found.

And for heaven’s sake, please stop saying, “I am not a cultist.” The statement contains no information whatsoever. 100% of non-cultists say they are not cultists and 100% of cultists say they are not cultists. (The first essential dogma of any cult is that it’s not a cult.)

And another point: When someone says the Obama campaign is a cult, and you take it personally, you are identifying as an individual with the Obama movement. Blurred identity between the movement and the individual follower is the heart of cult behavior.

I would suggest that Clinton supporters (or other Obama detractors) should not call everyone who supports Obama a cultist. They’re not. Some are, yes, but most are not. And using “cult” as a slur merely hardens attitudes and hurts people who are sincerely merely supporting a candidate, rather than following a messiah.

Anyone who has CHOSEN to adopt the cult meme as merely the latest spat talking point should knock it off.

But it is unreasonable to demand that people who sincerely see the Obama movement as uncomfortably religious and/or cultish, and have seen it as such for six months, long before it was ever noted in the press anywhere, to stop acknowledging what is right in front of their noses. For some of us it is not optional. It is a sociological observation of long-standing. The ugly fact that it has become a DU spit-wad can not change reality one way or another.

[goodgd_yall]

1. Good thoughtful post by K_and_H

Just some observations: I've been uncomfortable with the personality cultishness of some of Obama's supporters. I've had an up-close encounter with it when listening to a friend of mine who sees Obama as a prophet. She hasn't been observing this "phenomenon" as long as I have, but I have the feeling if she did, she might think differently.

On the night of Super Tuesday primaries, as I listened to Obama's speech, I became very aware of the sameness of the message. It actually was the first time I thought that there was manipulation of the audience going on. Things were being said knowing just when and where the audience would react. I've admired Obama's oratory, but it sounded very hollow that night. I had my own sense of deflation toward the Obama campaign at that point.