The Messiah Virus

A month ago millions of people were discovering the allure of Barack Obama's charisma, and it made for a heady change in politics as usual. Caught on the wrong side of the charisma gap, Hillary Clinton applied the only remedy she knew -- more politics as usual -- and it seemed to work. Her wins in Texas and Ohio shifted the emphasis to toughness. The notorious "3 AM telephone call" ad gave voters second thoughts. Among those voters who made up their minds in the last day or two before the primary, a solid majority went for Clinton. Fear, deception, and innuendo have their uses, as we know all too well.

This looked like the predictable collapse of idealism when the going gets tough. Now on all sides Obama's toughness is being called into question. This is another predictable phase in the electoral process -- taking the gloves off. Americans love a good fight, and they want their president to be first of all a commander-in-chief. Except that this time the pre-written scenario has hit a snag, because those millions who fervently believe in Obama want a messiah more than they want a fighter or commander-in-chief. The Clintons must realize that, and they must also be deeply worried. If Hillary wrests the nomination away from Obama by using spoiler tactics, in-fighting, smears, and cronyism (which looks like the only way she can win), she will be shooting Santa Claus in front of the children, to quote a witty remark making the rounds.

There are two opposing views about Obama as a political messiah. On the one hand his supporters are typed as immature whiners who need to grow up and realize that politics is nasty business. On the other hand, his idealism is seen as the real thing, and forcing him to counter the Clintons' get-down-in-the-mud tactics would fatally compromise his integrity, the very soul of Obama's campaign.

I think the idealists have more truth on their side, and yet the messiah virus isn't entirely benign. If Obama loses the nomination, his followers could be so devastated that they will renounce political participation, and lack of political participation is the very thing that gave us the right-wing regimen of the past eight years: idealism was stifled by cynicism and corruption. It should be pointed out, however, that the Clintons aren't trying to crucify a savior. They resort to fighting tactics because it's what they know, and above all, it's how they defeated the right wing. Ironically, the tables have turned, and the toughness that quashed Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America is being portrayed as fatal to the Democratic cause.

The impasse between idealism and pragmatism seems to have only one way out that will benefit the country as a whole. Obama needs to be chosen, not primarily to defeat Hillary -- although she might see it that way -- but to redeem the political process. Of course the realists are right. Obama will face tough fights as president and may be outwitted by tough old warriors in the House and Senate, not to mention the virulent right-wing ideologues. But he won't lose all the time, and there's a chance that his presidency could put the entire country back on the right track. It's happened before, and the cynics need to keep that in mind. The messiah virus won't affect everyone, just the discouraged, the disillusioned, and those who feel they have no voice. What more can be asked?

Click: www.intentblog.com

www.deepakchopra.com

Comments

[Sundialsvc4]

I think that you hit the nail on the head when you said that these candidates are running for the office of Savior. The disenfranchised, the disaffected, the "people who feel they have no voice" are a powerful voice ... one that these candidates' backers strive to turn in the direction of Their Candidate. This move presupposes that these people can be convinced to look for Salvation, instead of Change.

Change is much harder to achieve.

But Change is what we need, and that Change must occur -- not in the White House, but in the halls of Congress ... exactly as the framers of this government intended. Virtually the entire authority in this Government is vested in one place, the Congress, and not one (wo)man, the President.

Most disturbing to me is the fact that Congressional races DO NOT EXIST in this campaign. No one, it would seem, is running for the House or the Senate at all. Yet if you study the voting records (as anyone can do at http://thomas.loc.gov), you will observe that each and every crime that has been committed has been committed by and with the consent of Congress. The infection lies with about six hundred men and women, not One.

We are at a turning-point not only for our nation, but also for our understanding of our political process, the flaws in that process, and how those flaws can and have been exploited.

[Balloonman]

'It should be pointed out, however, that the Clintons aren't trying to crucify a savior. They resort to fighting tactics because it's what they know, and above all, it's how they defeated the right wing. Ironically, the tables have turned, and the toughness that quashed Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America is being portrayed as fatal to the Democratic cause. "

The CLINTONS did not defeat the right wing. True, special prosecuter KENNETH STARR, and or right wing zealots did not dislodge him from office, either by election or impeachment. But GINGRICH's CONTRACT WITH AMERICA and the sweeping invasion of REPUBLICAN REBELS new into '94 CONGRESS forced BILL CLINTON to absorb--meet the enemy and become it--much of the Republican Agenda in order to save himself and arguably the democrat party.











































































-

[honeybee49]

In order to buy the idea of Obama's idealism, you first have to believe that Obama's an idealist. He's not. Do the research, people. Find out how we won his first race for the Illinois state senate.

Obama's a politician. Really. I don't think he's ready to be president, but he seems decent enough, as politicians go (or maybe that should be "likeable enough"). And for me, it's actually a plus that he's a pretty conventional left-centrist politician after the rally winds down. Just as, for me, the messianic aspect of his campaign is a huge minus.

As for his devotees, I'm disturbed to see that so many of them would be ripe for the picking if a truly cynical demagogue were to come along. That's something that should worry all of us far more than it seems to worry some of us.

[efranklin]

I see less of a downside to the energy of the Obama campaign. I really see nothing distinctly *dangerous* about his supporters. How is it that enthusiasm -- unprecedented large scale participation in the political process -- has transformed into something we are supposed to be afraid of? It's better to have more people actively involved in the process than it is to have fewer. In France, the government fears the people. In America, the people fear their government. I welcome the day when this script is flipped.

[monique]

"The impasse between idealism and pragmatism seems to have only one way out that will benefit the country as a whole. Obama needs to be chosen, not primarily to defeat Hillary -- although she might see it that way -- but to redeem the political process?"

Funny, I had always assumed that you were probably very wise. To the right of the screen, your book was being advertised -- on "Buddha" -- and I was about to click and order it, but then I read your post. I changed my mind.

Your reasoning for endorsing a candidate for the presidency is more than weak, but extremely misguided. An impasse between idealism and pragmatism? Hopefully, when we make decisions, even ones not as major as this one, we open our minds and weigh many factors. The smartest people are not stereotypes or one-dimensional, and can personify many things, with one characteristic complimenting the other, not cancelling each other out. A wise person is more complex than any one simple label can define.

I want my President to inhabit idealism and pragmatism. I want my President to be wise, experienced, and tested without being cynical. I want my President to be hopeful without being juvenile, immature, or deluded.

Obama needs to be chosen to redeem the political process? I don't think it is cynical of me to recognize that the republicans, and if not their candidate directly, but their support groups, will smear Obama -- rightly or wrongly.

Idealism has its proper place and importance, but if one deludes himself into thinking that Obama will defeat McCain without fighting, they are wrong. And to believe that after a failure by the press to properly vet him, that the republicans will not vet him -- and vet him harshly, to the point of dishonesty -- is not idealism, but naivete.

Your statements of a "virus" pretend that everything is lovely, that a beautiful, contagious idea has spread throughout the land, that will heal all wounds. That is quite the oversimplification. You belittle and fail to recognize the problem that his candidacy shines a bright light on. His candidacy and this virus you speak of is another symptom of our society's fixation on celebrity, and its refusal to think past first impressions.

I loved hearing Obama speak at the Democratic convention years ago. And while he obviously has a bright future, I don't think he is ready. Be idealistic all you want -- that will not enlighten him or give him a crash course in how to be a lawmaker. The facts don't change. Washington is Washington. And money is money. And that is not cynical -- that is factual.

If change is to happen, it will be hard won. And so far, Obama seems to have sidestepped all the difficult fights, putting his personal desire to be President ahead of a desire to really see change take place. His record does not tell of one who has put himself on the line, willing to sacrifice popularity in order to see change happen. His steps were not ones that led to head-on battles with special interests. In fact, he bailed on the difficult fights, deserting his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Show me someone who has taken on the hard fights and gone toe-to-toe with the special interests. Show me someone who has put personal ambition and the desire to be liked aside and fought unpopular battles.

Any Washington veteran knows that you have to be a fighter when you are fighting special interests. And he has not shown himself willing to do that. Yes, Hillary Clinton lost her fight for health care many years back, and it was probably due to her idealism, her burning desire to see universal health care come to fruition, at a time when the public was not dedicated enough to the idea to stand with her in her fight. Special interest groups and the republicans who love them brought her down. This time around, I believe the public is finally fed up enough that they will stand with the leader who pursues health care reform. And if that leader is Hillary Clinton, she will be a much more seasoned leader than she was back then, having gained the widom that many hard fought battles brings. Her idealism will be tempered with realism and pragmatism.

But she will still be as tenacious as ever. That is how she will get things accomplished. That is how change will happen.

[Guitarsandmore]

At 3:00 A.M in the morning the last person I would want with their finger on the button would be John McCain. That dude is just itchin for a fight. (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran).

I would trust both HRC and Obama before McCain.

The other thing you must remember is that Obama and John Edwards started picking on Hillary first by complaining about her campaign contributions from PAC and other sources. They both grilled her and that was OK with everyone. Now that the heat is going the other way no one seems to like it much.

[indie17]

Beautiful, poignant, and true. Thanks Deepak!

[jdm58]

The "followers" have already shot themselves in the foot. By voting only for the figurehead, and ignoring Senatorial, Congressional, and Judicial ballots, they will doom him to a miserable failure at passing anything remotely looking like change, should he be elected. The repubs know this, and are avidly throwing money at Senatorial and House seats up for grabs. This has hurt McCains ability to fundraise, since the overall Republican view is that he is doomed, and they better all focus on regaining the Congress and strengthening their judicial seat stronghold, which no one seems to pay attention to.

[OwenScottIII]

I guess that's the reason Bill Foster lost his race for Dennis Hastert's old seat in Congress? What is obvious to persons observing Obama's campaign through the lens of his cyber-roots internet-work of supporters is how swiftly it mobilizes and focuses the legions of motivated workers to achieve the objectives that form a path to the goal. I received an email from the Obama net and clicked on a link to BIll Foster's web page to make an immediate contribution. President Barack H. Obama will need to keep his network operating but he will also have to be accountable to it, or else these supposedly naive and trance-induced Obamatons will decide he has defected to the System and start looking for a new leader. This really is a revolution brought to you by the do-it-yourself, Indie music, You Tube voters. As Bobby Zimmerman once said, "You better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone..."

[jdm58]

Bill Foster won his primary in ILLINOIS, Obama's home state. Hardly a fair comparison. I am attaching articles of interest on both Foster's win, and also the phenomenon of folks voting solely for Obama in Texas, in case you're interested:

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/hastert_seat_loss_foster_win_b.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/topstories/stories/030908dnpoldemvoters.3a5249f.html

[ndolomar]

it cannot be helped that the deplorable "leadership" by the current adminstration by comparison has made the previous one and the idealized, potential administrations that much more attractive. however, the obamas are quick to point out continuously that barack is not a messiah -- nor is he promising any revolutionary upheaval of current washington politics. he's doing his best, as a teacher, to encourage and embolden the electorate to effect change themselves. he can't help it if his message is so strong that his supporters have fused his rhetoric with the man himself; that's just fallout from eight years under an administration that has brought us such a divergence from president bill clinton's white house. however, barack and michelle make pointed statements at every stop that he is human and flawed just like everyone else. my belief is they do it knowing there's a double edge to having many people admire the person with less regard for the message. and whether or not the clinton campaign is playing that up a bit to set him up for a fall is relevant, but it shouldn't eclipse the realness of what barack is saying, which is abundantly clear: we are responsible for our destinies, and we don't have the right to put the choice in someone else's hands then complain about the outcome later.

[TruthStar9]

What the citizens of this country must do is "grow up".

It is not about "a leader", but what "resonates" with one, on the inner. There is no leader who will "save us". There is not leader whom should be looked upon as Savior or as mommy or daddy. That is not the point. Senator Obama is a man. Senator Clinton is a woman. Plain and simple.

The question for those whom want to participate is, "With whom do you resonate?" That is all there is to it, folks.

There will be a winner and there will be a loser. And whatever the outcome, it is much more important to decide or to determine how each one of us will show up for our lives and the responsibility of being a citizen of this country. To hold our employees -- those in elected office -- accountable.

It is not merely about posting, whining or complaining. Each one of us comprises the Soul of this nation. That is the beginning and the end. There is no one coming to save us.

It shall and forever more be: We are the ones we have been waiting for.

[vanessa04]

TruthStar9: "It is not merely about posting, whining or complaining. Each one of us comprises the Soul of this nation. That is the beginning and the end. There is no one coming to save us."

Now THAT'S a grown up post. Far too few of those here on HuffPo.

This business about "We are the change we've been waiting for"... is such horse pucky. Why the hell have we been waiting then?

I say, "Quit yer bitching, whining, and whinging, and BE the change. Quit sitting around waiting for someone to save yer ass."

Your post should be a HuffPost Pick for all time. It should be permanently affixed to the Home page.

[cynara]

You know, this blog is very interesting. Especially, coming from Deepak Chopra, since he has given very generously to the Clinton campaign. (Over $5,000 according to the Huffpo fundrace...).

I've been worried about the blowback if Clinton manages to secure the nomination without winning the delegates or the popular vote. There are a lot of enthusiastic Democrats for Obama and if they feel that this primary was decided on fraud and dirty politicking, the Democratic Party will suffer their disillusionment and possible defection.

But heck, I voted for Obama, so I was a bit wary of my own objectivity. Hearing a similar view from a Hillary donor confirms my fears...

[danceswithyids]

I think the party actually will face two great hurdles in the next five plus years.

The first hurdle will be once we have a nominee for the democratic party, what will the others supporters do.
I for one think it is juvenile on both sides to decide to walk away and not vote, as you would then contribute to the very thing you really really dread.
Unless you actually have more in common with McCain than the Dem nominee then you should vote for him.
At some point there needs to be some pragmatism embraced as well as idealism.
To quote Sienfeld, "A George divided cannot stand"

The second hurdle will be just as big, in my opinion. I do not believe that either of the Dem candidates will actually withdraw troops from Iraq in any significant amount.
What will those who believed we would withdraw do then?
This is where I think the biggest chance of actual backlash will come.
What happens then when those you gave the opportunity to correct things, does not?

[LeeFromVA]

I think the most important thng is to restore integrity to the White House. You have to start with the leader. We're a nation that needs to be united. The obvious person to do that is Barack Obama, but if for some reason the race is between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, then the next best choice is McCain. Hillary has disqualified herself. And if the Democrats can't get this obvious choice correct, then they don't deserve to continue as a party. I have never voted for a Republican in my 45 years, but if Hillary becomes the leader of the Democratic party I will register as a Republican, vote for McCain, and vote for every Republican on the ballot. The Democrats cannot continue to make mistakes and expect to keep their base, or any other Dem for that matter.

[Idytme]

"The messiah virus won't affect everyone, just the discouraged, the disillusioned, and those who feel they have no voice. What more can be asked?"

This sounds oh so beautiful on paper, but the statistics say that it is the elite well-to-do that are supporting Obama while the lower middle class is voting for Hillary, as well as many immigrant populations. The young are voting for him, but they aren't old enough to be discouraged and disillusioned, although you could not have convinced me of that when I was 20 and thought I knew everything.

I do understand how idealism would attract the young, when you are young you do believe you can change the world, just by believing it and "knowing" what you know, - if only people older then you would listen! (there was even a post on this board where someone argued that all Obama had to do was sit in the oval office and "inspire" because that is what even great generals do, never understanding all the working qualities needed in a leader) But what has captured my curiosity is how the Obama-as-victim-of-bullies has appealed to the upper middle class types. I, for one, liked the "I'll fight for you" meme presented by Edwards, but Obama has resonated by all these rescuers who want to protect him from all the perceived meanies in the world. I never thought a President could win with this undercurrent (what we people say when a world leader says something "mean" to this man they-now-protect?).

So what is going on with the "elite" highly educated upper middle class in our country that they will elect a person who needs to be protected? And yes, this is more of an esoteric, archetypal type question.
Obama is going to let people down when he becomes President. It is inevitable. One cannot maintain the kind of image he is portraying and keep it up in the real world. Even most spiritual leaders could not keep it up.
I do not know how anyone can achieve the vision that many want without fighting for it. I cannot believe that one would not describe Gandhi without some word that equates to "fighter".
For those who say they will never vote again - I cannot empathise with their "trauma". I've been voting since I turned 18, now in my early 40's, several candidates I wanted never made it into office. It is part of life and to stop voting all together, makes it sound more like the petulant child that people are saying the new generation has turned into. Give them everything they want or they will quit. I just wonder how quickly they will quit on Obama when he doesn't give them everything they want.

[GoreyFantod]

You and I are about the same age, and I couldn't disagree with you more.

Age is one measure of wisdom, and a fairly small one at that. Or are you suggesting that John McCain, Dick Cheney & Donald Rumsfeld are better qualified than either Democrat? There are a great many ways to achieve wisdom & it is also possible for a young person to be, "discouraged and disillusioned." Try listening to those who are poor, young and brown-skinned in America or Brazil or South Africa or Haiti, or any number of places - otherwise you have no real idea of what discouraged and disillusioned looks and feels like.

You describe yourself and your feelings as a young person & then commit the fallacy of projecting them onto "young people" as though they were some sort of homogenous group, then proceed to conflate them with the, "highly educated upper middle class." You seem to have some resentments going on that transcend the choice between Senators Clinton & Obama. Perhaps it's time to examine your own motivations for the bitterness you seem to feel for Senator Obama's supporters...

Dr. King hadn't reached his fortieth birthday when he was murdered. Bobby Kennedy was forty-three, Malcolm X forty, Medgar Evers thirty-seven. Bob Dylan was in his early twenties when he wrote some of the most peace anthems we have & Woody Guthrie was younger than thirty when he wrote "This Land Is Your Land." Rosa Parks was thirty when she joined the NAACP and forty-two when she refused to give up her seat - some of us might wish she hadn't waited so long.

[Idytme]

I've read this a few times but I haven't figured out exactly what you are trying to say.
The age of which I was speaking was of the voters, by which has been extensively reported. The quote of the "discouraged, the disillusioned, and those who feel they have no voice" popped out at me because this was most certainly who Edwards was campaigning to and fits more with Hillary than Obama. A lot of people say that Obama is becoming what-ever people want to project onto him ("Obama is my bicycle") and this seemed to me to be another one of those quotes.
I love the stories about young people getting involved in voting, but have been very turned off by the fanatical, threatening posts by Obama supporters on several lists. I have been trying to put myself in their place, which is why I write it off to exuberant idealism, but I am not the only person to find what is being said worrying.
I agree that age doesn't equal wisdom, but I am much more wise now than I was twenty years ago. Experience doesn't coincide with age, but one of the more telling side stories of Obama to me was him telling a voter about how bad the food was in England after he found out she had just been there. It peeved me because there is an incredible food scene going on now in England, then even more when I found out that he had only been to England once - on a stop over in London for 24 hours. In a small way it encapsulates how he is a lot more talk than substance - it was a stupid comment to make in front of reporters when talking about one of your top allies when you want to be President. Look at how he ran away from the Iran vote and didn't talk about it (before, during or after) until he saw how the political wind was blowing. He has not even been a governor, and he hasn't led any great social movements that would put him on par with Dr. King.
All he has said, as Bush did when running for President, that he is going to bring respectability to the White House, will bring change to the White House and is going to make everyone "get along".
I am upset how the Progressives have completely given up their stated agenda for the Obama campaign. With Hillary they did whatever they could to get her to see their point of view and centrism was her downfall, with Obama they are giving up everything they want to get him elected and centrism is his "strength".
I do not like that his economic advisers are University of Chicago Freidmannites. (see "The Shock Doctrine").
I also do not see him as Messianic, nor do I think that is a good thing in a President (note, the religious right sees/saw Bush as Messianic).
I want to know that the next President has the knowledge to end the war, has the balls to face this huge economic crisis that we have only seen the beginning of (and that means government regulations that is going to make Wall Street squeal), and can get Universal Healthcare. Edwards was my guy and I still think he would have been the best of the three, but speaking out against the corporate influence in America was too "radical" for the status quo.

[SamThornton]

HuffPost's Pick

One of the most penetrating examinations of the followers of messianic leaders was made years ago in "The True Believer," by Eric Hoffer. (http://tinyurl.com/2zt54t)

Hoffer argued in part that movements based on the supposed leadership of a great figure are interchangeable and that fanatics will often flip from one of these movements to another. Fanatical Christian to fanatical conservative, for example. Or fanatical pan-Arabist to fanatical jihadist, for another.

What's important, Hoffer said, was not the specifics of a mass movement's ideology, but the sorts of autocratic demands it made on its adherents and the psychological comforts it offered in return.

It seems to me a difficult task to fit either Sen. Obama and his political supporters or Sen. Clinton and her supporters precisely into this frame, although I'm sure many attempts will be made. The distinction, it seems to me, is in a messianic leader's insistence that each follower have exactly the set of beliefs the leader prescribes, and behave in exactly the way the leader prescribes, and nothing more. I don't see that in either Democratic campaign.

Of course, I'm not an expert and I could be wrong.

[timm0]

I think the variable missing from the concept you offer is credibility of the leader. What characteristics convince the "true believer" to follow one leader or another? Clearly, both Dems share many of the same priorities and general policy goals. They differ primarily in personality and record. What has so many people entrenched behind one or the other?

For me, to put it in one sentence, the Clintons have a long track record of skulduggery and shadiness... just like the bush's. There are too many common traits. I'm not looking to Obama to be a hero or savior - just break the cycle of 'peasant-hatred' from DC. It appears that you could lump many of the HRC supporters into a similar profile, though I really don't know what that profile is. I do know this, it'll be significantly more reasonable to expect a sizable constituency of HRC followers to support Obama in the General than vice versa.

[Guitarsandmore]

The true believers that fall into line behind their leader and do as he says are called Republicans!

No, the Democratic tent is big and wide and welcomes all. It is always difficult to get such a variety of people to agree on a laundry list of issues that should be championed by the leader, but this time around I know we have done it.

So, let's all stay focused on the issues and stop the infighting!!!!

[chombo]

When exactly did the Clintons quash Newt Gingrich & the Contract for America? Did I dose off and miss that?

Republicans controlled the House & Senate for the last six of Clinton's eight years. The Lewinsky scandal pretty much rendered Clinton's second term pointless (and without accomplishment). The fact that Gingrich's own hypocracy led to his resignation did not stop the Republicans from holding the country hostage with the Starr investigation and impeachment circus. The only real reason that most of the Contract for America was not put into place was that the Republicans weren't that serious about them to begin with. It one thing to talk big about ethics reform when you're in the minority, but when you have the majority you realize how inconvenient those rules are.

[danceswithyids]

Dude that was Deep...ak
thanks for all of your writings Mr. Chopra

[AjicNYC]

Two things on Obama supporters 1) they are too readily defending him without knowing the facts 2) they will leave politics if they dont get their way. America is large and diverse. I was able to vote in too elections so far and I lost them both!! But I would never walk away from my right to vote.

[thebirdstheword]

"I was able to vote in too (sic) elections so far and I lost them both!!"

If you've only been able to vote in two (the correct spelling, I usually don't correct spelling, but two- you can't spell two, come on) elections so far, then the math says you can't be any older than 29 or 30. Wow, you've sure seen it all.

"1)they are too readily defending him without knowing the facts 2)they will leave politics if they don't get their way" -These are the arguments that the baby-boomers make against Obama supporters because they are supposedly young and fickle. But you're under 30, and have no right to use that attack.

You should be appalled that supporters of your candidate contend that someone your age is too young and stupid to form an educated opinion.

[thebirdstheword]

Since my last post the thought came to me that you may be a naturalized citizen and if that's the case, then I apologize for assuming that you were under thirty.

But still, don't act like all Obama supporters are uneducated concerning politics. It is offensive to every one of his supporters, including me (who's voted in six presidential elections so far).