April 8, 2008Posted by Jay LivingstonHow can you account for the Obama effect, especially the enthusiasm he generates among the young? Accounting for the reaction against Obama and his supporters is it a bit easier. It’s that old parental ambivalence. We encourage our kids to be independent, but then we feel uneasy when they actually behave independently of us.
The New York Times has a front-page
story today, “Obama’s Young Backers Twist Parents’ Arms.” The tone is ambivalent-affectionate – those gosh darned kids again.
Often, the reactions are nastier. Typically, they accuse the kids of not being independent enough; that is, the kids have become dependent and mindless followers, in a word (the word much favored by the anti-Obamists), a cult. From the left-hand side of the Times op-ed page, Paul Krugman points a finger and says that the Obama campaign is “dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.” (Historical note: the phrase Krugman chooses for Obama came into currency when Khrushchev used it to refer to Stalin.)
On the right-hand side, David Brooks slips into a character so that he can dismiss Obama as “the Hopemeister” doing “schtick,” a “messiah” whose supporters are like Moonies: “soon they'll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings.” The “Yes We Can” video shows celebrities in “escalating states of righteousness and ecstasy.”
Joel Stein in the LA Times is worried that he felt moved by an Obama speech. “Did I want to be some dreamer hippie loser?” The title of his article is “The Cult of Obama.” That word again. Here’s Charles Krauthammer: “ABC's Jake Tapper notes the ‘Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities’ of ‘Obama worshipers.’” (Historical note: Helter-Skelter is an allusion to mass-murderer Charles Manson.)
Stalin? Manson? I hadn’t realized how dangerous it is when young people get involved in mainstream politics. This is the Democratic party we’re talking about, not Lyndon LaRouche. And these are the same young people whose apolitical apathy scribblers – perhaps some of these very same scribblers – were wringing their hands about just a few years ago.
The Obama phenomenon is real, and of course it’s about Obama. But it’s also about the people supporting him. We need to look at the demographics. I don’t have the data, but it appears that the people Obama has energized are young middle-class whites, who have the luxury of idealism, and blacks of all social classes.
I also wonder if there is a generational factor, whether the historical circumstances and experiences count for much of the energy. C. Wright Mills said, sociology is about the link between biography and history. But I’m not sure how you get data to show how historical events affect people. We assume a connection. The conventional wisdom is that the Depression and World War II shaped the consciousness and behavior of “the Greatest Generation.” Stories of the 1960s feature the Pill, drugs , and Vietnam, though perhaps demographic facts – cohort size, suburbanization, economic prosperity, etc. – also counted for much.
What historical and demographic forces shape the consciousness of those who are now in their teens and twenties? We assume that 9/11 is important, but do we have any good evidence of how? The same goes for other obvious possible factors: Eight years of George W. Bush and five years (and counting) of Iraq and all the stains these have brought upon the idealized image Americans might have had about their country – Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, “intelligence” (a.k.a. lies) about WMDs. Awareness of global warming. The widening gulf between the very rich and the rest of us. The Internet.
These are the sorts of things a David Brooks can toss off a 750-word column about before breakfast and not have to worry too much about systematic evidence (something like the first paragraph of this blog entry). But how do we do real research about the effects of unique historical events?
