Great last paragraph. I just want to add that it's the conveyence (however falsely) of principle and emotion, but of strength that makes these style of politicians so powerful right now. Being a "strong" leader has a lot to do with explaining Bush's popularity. It has a lot to do with why Arnold is governor. And, in a very similar style (though they thankfully haven't used it towards the same ends) it's why Hitler was powerful. It's not PC, but the volk love being told what's right and what's wrong, and what to do and what not to do. Bush does that. And he's so powerful at it because he says things regardless of any reasoning. ok, that's my rant.
I've been avoiding the term "strong" because I think it says too much and doesn't quite explain the phenomenon. The interesting thing about the American volk is that they're at least freedom-loving enough to resent people who are explicitly telling them what to do. The American president has to be "strong" and "humble." Spelling out what those words mean in the practice of politics is much harder than it seems.
I think the popular ideal of humility in our politicians is very selective. Humble to other Americans? Sure. Present oneself as coming from Humble roots? Of course. Humble before god? Most definately. But hey, totalitarian and fascist leaders have presented themselves this way before. But think about when Bush said Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out. People liked that. Hell, they loved it. Bush's "clarity," his very arrogance, his unwillingness to compromise or be wrong attracts people.
So I'm going to disagree with you. I think people get excited when they're President tells them exactly how things are and what they're going to do. The reaction is, "hey, I don't need to think! I'll just place my trust in this guy..look at him, so confident, he knows what he's doing. He'll lead me right." Like or not, it seems to me that people find that kind of thinking comforting.
This is getting long, so I'll close by adding I watched Triumph of the Will in one of my classes last semester. People still found the film to be enticing. A common reaction was, "I know it's wrong, but, I want to join." The film, of course, just presented the fascist style of leadership,with all good outcomes. That's is what I think Bush does. Fascism can be a kind of single-minded determination. And that's the kind of strength that I am afraid people find so appealing. Although I gladly admit this isn't 100% of the population, maybe not even a majority. But I see it as a growing trend, strong enough to keep Bush's numbers up, which worries me.
I think this is an excellent demonstration about how people get excisted over leaders displaying strength. Now, there's a difference between convictions and closed-minded, unthinking determination. When people are thinking, they do see a difference between the two, but I think of Bush as in the second category, and it seems obvious that his kind of strength is nonetheless exciting and attracting a lot of people.
Great last paragraph. I just want to add that it's the conveyence (however falsely) of principle and emotion, but of strength that makes these style of politicians so powerful right now. Being a "strong" leader has a lot to do with explaining Bush's popularity. It has a lot to do with why Arnold is governor. And, in a very similar style (though they thankfully haven't used it towards the same ends) it's why Hitler was powerful. It's not PC, but the volk love being told what's right and what's wrong, and what to do and what not to do. Bush does that. And he's so powerful at it because he says things regardless of any reasoning. ok, that's my rant.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-20-03 8:50 PM
I've been avoiding the term "strong" because I think it says too much and doesn't quite explain the phenomenon. The interesting thing about the American volk is that they're at least freedom-loving enough to resent people who are explicitly telling them what to do. The American president has to be "strong" and "humble." Spelling out what those words mean in the practice of politics is much harder than it seems.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-21-03 1:14 PM
I think the popular ideal of humility in our politicians is very selective. Humble to other Americans? Sure. Present oneself as coming from Humble roots? Of course. Humble before god? Most definately. But hey, totalitarian and fascist leaders have presented themselves this way before. But think about when Bush said Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out. People liked that. Hell, they loved it. Bush's "clarity," his very arrogance, his unwillingness to compromise or be wrong attracts people.
So I'm going to disagree with you. I think people get excited when they're President tells them exactly how things are and what they're going to do. The reaction is, "hey, I don't need to think! I'll just place my trust in this guy..look at him, so confident, he knows what he's doing. He'll lead me right." Like or not, it seems to me that people find that kind of thinking comforting.
This is getting long, so I'll close by adding I watched Triumph of the Will in one of my classes last semester. People still found the film to be enticing. A common reaction was, "I know it's wrong, but, I want to join." The film, of course, just presented the fascist style of leadership,with all good outcomes. That's is what I think Bush does. Fascism can be a kind of single-minded determination. And that's the kind of strength that I am afraid people find so appealing. Although I gladly admit this isn't 100% of the population, maybe not even a majority. But I see it as a growing trend, strong enough to keep Bush's numbers up, which worries me.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-21-03 1:43 PM
Check out this quote from Clark. The comments over at Eschaton are very revealing. A lot of people are super-excited, others are condeming this tough-guy talk.
I think this is an excellent demonstration about how people get excisted over leaders displaying strength. Now, there's a difference between convictions and closed-minded, unthinking determination. When people are thinking, they do see a difference between the two, but I think of Bush as in the second category, and it seems obvious that his kind of strength is nonetheless exciting and attracting a lot of people.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-22-03 3:19 AM