Anonymous on In the same vein ...
Anonymous on In the same vein ...
Anonymous on Et tu, FOX?: ...
scaramouche on Cramming ...
Anonymous on On Hasan the ...
Anonymous on Cramming ...
Anonymous on There’s a ...
Anonymous on On Hasan the ...
scaramouche on Mail call: A ...
Anonymous on Hold me closer, ...
Belmont Club
Blazing Cat Fur
butterflies and wheels
City Journal
conservativeinthecloset
Daniel Pipes
David Warren
Dhimmi Watch
Five Feet of Fury
Flaggman's Canada
Free Mark Steyn
Front Page Magazine
Honest Reporting Canada
Israel Pundit
israelinsider
israpundit
Jerusalem Post
Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy
Martin Kramer
Media Backspin
Melanie Phillips
Real Clear Politics
Steyn Online
stopahmadinejad
The American Thinker
The Optimistic Conservative
Tim Blair
VDH
today
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
visited *loading* times
Oh, grow up!: There’s no doubt that Bambi has tons of “charisma”—but so what? Charisma is a lot like anti-freeze: it tastes sweet, but it’ll kill you. And, as Michael Knox Berman writes in City Journal, Bambi’s “charisma,” which is about all he has going for him, betokens a disturbing “immaturity” among the electorate:
In the patois of punditry, “charismatic” has come to mean little more than “like a rock star.” But the striking thing about the charismatic leader is the extent to which his followers regard him as a healer of wounds, an alleviator of pain. In this sense, surely, Senator Barack Obama is charismatic. The carefully knotted ties and the dark, conservatively tailored suits only accentuate the exoticness of his shamanism; he has entered the American psyche not as a hero but as a healer.
The country, or much of it, has longed for such a figure, a man from the once-oppressed race whose rise to power will atone for the sins of slavery and racial stigmatization. But Obama’s rhetoric encompasses more than a promise of racial healing. He is not the first politician to argue that politics can redeem us, but in posing as the Adonis who will turn winter into spring, he revives one of the more pernicious political swindles: the belief that a charismatic leader can ordain a civic happy hour and give a people a sense of community that will make them feel less bad.
In his unfinished treatise Economy and Society, Max Weber defined charisma as “a certain quality in an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” Weber was able to do little more, before he died in 1920, than give a pseudoscientific élan to an idea that had been kicking around for centuries. Most of what he said about charismatic authority was stated more cogently in Book III of Aristotle’s Politics, which described the great-souled man who “may truly be deemed a God among men” and who, by virtue of his greatness, is exempt from ordinary laws.
What both Aristotle and Weber made too little of is the mentality of the charismatic leader’s followers, the disciples who discover in him, or delusively endow him with, superhuman qualities. “Charisma” was originally a religious term signifying a gift of God: it often denotes (according to the seventeenth-century scholar-physician John Bulwer) a “miraculous gift of healing.” James G. Frazer, in The Golden Bough, demonstrated that the connection between charismatic leadership and the melioration of suffering was historically a close one: many primitive peoples believed that the magical virtues of a priest-king could guarantee the soil’s fertility and that such a leader could therefore alleviate one of the most elementary forms of suffering, hunger. The identification of leadership with the mitigation of pain persists in folklore and myth. In the Arthurian legends, Percival possesses an extraordinary magic that enables him to heal the fisher king and redeem the waste land; in England, the touch of the monarch’s hand was believed to cure scrofula.
It is a sign of growing maturity in a people when, laying aside these beliefs, it acknowledges that suffering is an element of life that sympathetic magic cannot eradicate, and recognizes a residue of pain in existence that even the application of technical knowledge cannot assuage. Advances in knowledge may end particular kinds of suffering, but these give way to new forms of hurt—milder, perhaps (one would rather be depressed than famished), yet not without their sting. We do not draw closer to a painless world…
For more on the subject, read Diana West’s not-to-be-missed The Death of the Grown-Up.
Mention of "the carefully knotted ties and dark, conservatively tailored suits" reminds me of some other knattily-dressed dudes who follow a similarly-attired shamanistic leader (although he often favours a bow-tie). One of them approached me at the Bathust subway station recently, requesting a "donation" in exchange for an innocuous-looking "Black History Month" newsletter (which, unbeknowst to the unsuspecting--like me--included a message from his fearless leader). I admit it--I was taken in, even though the dark suit on a hot afternoon should have been a dead giveaway. Fool me once, shame on you...
