Paul Krugman writes in his NY Times Op-Ed, Hate Springs Eternal, “Supporters of each [Democratic] candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod. Why, then, is there so much venom out there? I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.”
I simply disagree with Mr. Krugman’s assertion that supporters of each Democratic candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other. He assumes that those who are voting for Sen. Obama are doing so because they agree with the senator’s positions on the issues, most of which correspond to Sen. Clinton’s (and most other Democrats). But that’s not it at all.
Mr. Krugman places a negative connotation on the concept of the “cult of personality,” but isn’t that just a negative way of framing of the concept of leadership? What else is a leader but a person who inspires others to follow him/her? If Sen. Obama does not get the Democratic nomination, there is no commandment that says his followers must get in line behind Sen. Clinton. You don’t become a leader by default.
Here’s what Mr. Krugman seems to be forgetting. Obama’s supporters aren’t loyal Democrats. They are young, they are independent, and in some cases, they are centrist Republicans. They are people from all parties and from all walks of life, and they find hope in Sen. Obama’s message. It’s his personality and his style of leadership that have given them a reason to find their political voice. He is perhaps the first (and only) politician that they have been proud to follow. And there’s no reason to think they will follow Sen. Clinton because other people have told them to. If not the leader they have chosen, then they may prefer no leader at all.
In which case, the President will go on being a force in their life, just like death and taxes.
Here’s the thing. Those of us who have responded to Sen. Obama have done so because he gives us hope, because he makes us believe that something else is possible, that the reality of political world we all have have grown up with — the political world of Richard Nixon, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and yes, Bill and Hilary Clinton — is but a negative blip in the history of our democracy.
Are we naive to think so? Perhaps.
But without that hope, all we have is complacency and apathy. And what are those but the symptoms of a dying nation?
9 Comments
or maybe it’s because the new york times has endorsed hillary and just decided to spin a story that paints hillary as just a victim of the “clinton rules” while the venomous obama supporters breathe fire and paint little pentagrams on their toenails…
fox news anyone?
Such is the pain of party politics. Krugman is giving us the same tripe that reelected Bush in ‘04. Establishment heads are conceited in their belief that they own everyone left of center. What they don’t realize is, Obama is my man not because I feel obligated to vote for him, but because I want to vote for him. I am eager to vote for him.
I will vote for Hillary if need be. I think she would be a thoroughly competent executive. But to confuse that with authentic support is a pollster’s fallacy.
I don’t buy it, Dave. This is the Op-Ed page, and there’ve been plenty of positive op-eds for Obama.
Krugman’s articles, however, usually go with Clinton…or rather, they go against Obama.
So it’s not the NY Times who is disappointing me, but Krugman.
that doesn’t change the fact that the new york times has endorsed hillary for president… - even if they save their spin for the op-ed pages… - it’s still printed with a seal of approval… - they can’t just blatantly say “f@ck obama”… - so… - they put a pretty little bow on it with a fancy name like krugman…
throwing obama a little support every now and then could be a smoke screen… - i’d like to know how many articles have been printed by the new york times in support of obama vs. the number of articles printed in support of hillary…
Addendum: I like your point, Kyle, that many of Obama’s supporters are not loyal Democrats. Especially if you judge who’s a loyal Democrat by who will vote for whomever the New York Times tells them to.
Wow, the New York Times biased I have never heard such a thing. I have always said that they only report impartial, objective information. Especially politically.
By loyal Democrats, I meant those who will vote for the party’s nominee, regardless of who it is.
Because of all the uproar about the NY Times’ article on McCain, the editors decided to answer some of the questions that people had about their decision to print the story. Among them was a question as to why The New York Times strongly endorsed Senator McCain to be the Republican Party nominee in January, if at the same time the paper was well aware of and continuing to investigate what it considered to be front-page, damaging, “un-presidential” charges? The editors responded:
I’m quoting this here to address Dave’s comments above.