November 09, 2008


Last night on TV, Stephen Moore said that Obama is the Democrat's Ronald Reagan. I think that's absolutely right, though it's the first time I've heard anyone say it.

Posted by Sarah at November 9, 2008 09:21 AM | TrackBack

At first I thought Moore's equation was on target, but the Obama phenomenon goes further than anything I remember from the Reagan years. I don't recall anything resembling the quasireligious aspect of Obamania. There's an entire blog devoted to it. I fear that Moore may be underestimating his opponents.

Posted by: Amritas at November 9, 2008 03:29 PM

What I took Moore to be saying is that Obama is the embodiment of all that Democrats want. Like Reagan is for conservatives. That he is the ideal Democrat candidate.

Posted by: Sarah at November 9, 2008 04:42 PM

Yes, he is. Thanks for the clarification.

Obama and Reagan are so different. What do people's ideal candidates tell us about them?

Not every Obama voter was a mindless wOrshipper. There were many reasons to choose him that had nothing to do with messianic nonsense.

Conversely, many conservatives who mocked Obamania idolized Palin. Was their "Palinsanity" really any better?

I think many, if not, most people are susceptible to charismatic figures. This trait is not unique to one side or another. Yet I don't think Palinsanity or Reaganuttiness ever reached the heights (or, if one prefers, lows) of Obamania. No Rightists regard Palin or Reagan as godlike. Why?

A guess: Religious conservatives already acknowledge God and want a leader on this earth. Secular liberals, on the other hand, see in Obama a divine substitute for the God who plays little or no role in their lives.

But there are probably many more religious Democrats. Are they less susceptible to Obamessianic thinking?

Posted by: Amritas at November 9, 2008 05:28 PM