Set the Way-Back machine for an earlier time, say middle Europe in 1938. There was a very advanced country, known for its technological prowess, great literature, art, advanced culture in which people addressed each other by first invoking their fidelity to the leader of this great country by hailing his name.
I will not mention its name of its leader, but the fate of this country was intimately tied up with the fate of its leader. This leader had rescued his people from a great economic catastrophe, restored his people’s crushed pride, provided an unprecedented level of government services, restored the country from pariah status to great nation status and was adored by most of his people, especially the women because while certain of his features were caricatured by his enemies he was good looking by the standard of the times. Race was one key of his success. He was spellbinding speaker and specialized in symbols and public theater. The press was firmly on his side. His leadership was predicted to determine the course of his nation and the world for the next millennium.
Unfortunately it all came to a very bad end. Which is why, while the young do not have memories of those times, the oldsters are troubled by what seems to be the repetition of a theme. Charismatic leaders are a risk. Leaders who have adherents that use symbols representing the leader instead of the nation bring back disturbing echoes of the past.
Perhaps it’s nothing … people hope. The Fuhrer principal died with the Fuhrer, nicht wahr? So when adherents of a modern charismatic leader use that leader’s personal symbol instead of national symbols we hope it means nothing, or at least not a repeat, in modern dress, of the past.
I will not mention its name of its leader, but the fate of this country was intimately tied up with the fate of its leader. This leader had rescued his people from a great economic catastrophe, restored his people’s crushed pride, provided an unprecedented level of government services, restored the country from pariah status to great nation status and was adored by most of his people, especially the women because while certain of his features were caricatured by his enemies he was good looking by the standard of the times. Race was one key of his success. He was spellbinding speaker and specialized in symbols and public theater. The press was firmly on his side. His leadership was predicted to determine the course of his nation and the world for the next millennium.
Unfortunately it all came to a very bad end. Which is why, while the young do not have memories of those times, the oldsters are troubled by what seems to be the repetition of a theme. Charismatic leaders are a risk. Leaders who have adherents that use symbols representing the leader instead of the nation bring back disturbing echoes of the past.
Perhaps it’s nothing … people hope. The Fuhrer principal died with the Fuhrer, nicht wahr? So when adherents of a modern charismatic leader use that leader’s personal symbol instead of national symbols we hope it means nothing, or at least not a repeat, in modern dress, of the past.
Still, we can’t help but have this slight shiver run down our spines to see the Obama Youth display the leader’s personal symbol.
Note the Obama supporter symbols at 2:40 and t-shirt at 2:57.
And see that personal symbol incorporated into national programs.
It’s troublesome to some … but only to some, which is equally troubling.
UPDATE: PJTV has a great video on Obama's symbols: The Power & Danger of Iconography
It occurred to me this morning that discussions of national issues generally involve national icography, like the flag. many celebrities on the Left - like Sean Penn - denounced it, or said, like Robert Altman "When I see an American flag flying, it's a joke." No one thought of denouncing a large "W" becaue that was not a national icon. Today we are developing a national symbol that is an icon of one man. How are we, who dissent from the policies of that man, supposed to relate to that icon?
For a laugh, view this video by Susan Sarandon ... she no longer lives in fear because Obama reigns ...
2 comments:
At least we aren't seeing armbands.
Yet.
Hey Susan,
Have you asked Obama why he doesn't want to use that nasty word "victory" in the "good war" in Afghanistan? And how about those soldiers that are being sent there and dieing for something less than victory? Like what is the purpose, what is the mission? And are we hearing much about the loss of life in Afghanistan? Who is keeping the breathless count like they did in Iraq?
Post a Comment