Charisma & Altered States
Submitted by ms in la on February 10, 2008 - 2:51am.
Democratic politics | Religion
Dorma's "Just Freaky" blog propelled me to further research the murky topic of crowd psychology - I set a Googling, and stumbled across this decidedly academic paper that I thought might help shed some light on this mysterious subject of charisma, collective 'effervescence' and how it relates to the current phenomena Obamena. It's a fascinating study in any case.
Snips from the document:
CHARISMA, CROWD PSYCHOLOGY & ALTERED STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS
~ by Dr. Charles Lindholm, Dept of Anthropology Boston University
---------------------------
It is appropriate to begin with Max Weber, who is the predominant figure in the pantheon of modern American sociology and anthropology.
In its simplest form, charisma is defined by Weber as "a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities".
Individuals possessing charisma are portrayed by Weber as above all else emotional and vitalizing. Whatever the charismatic leader says is right not because it makes sense, or because it coincides with what has always been done, but because the leader says it. Orders can therefore be completely whimsical, self-contradictory and even lead to death or destruction for the follower, demonstrating the disciple's inner emotional compulsion to obey without regard for coherence or consequence.
The charismatic appeal therefore lies precisely in the capacity of a person to display heightened emotionality and in the reciprocal capacity of the audience to imitation and corresponding sensations of altered awareness.
Thus for Weber, what is essential and compulsive in the charismatic relation is not its meaning, though explanatory meaning systems will certainly be generated after the fact. Rather, it is the participatory communion engendered by the performance of the charismatic which experientially and immediately releases the onlookers from their mundane sufferings. "For the devout the sacred value, first and above all, has been a psychological state in the here and now. Primarily this state consists in the emotional attitude per se;" an attitude in which the following could momentarily escape from themselves by dissolving in "the objectless acosmism of love".
Charisma occurs, Weber says, when tradition has lost its hold and people no longer feel compelled to repeat the old patterns, obey the old orders.
Charismatic revolutions themselves are destined to be short-lived, and necessarily have a new tradition nascent within them; ritualization and bureacratization inevitably appear as the prophet's original vitalizing revelation is repeated and institutionalized by his self-interested followers, who wish to cloak themselves with the sacred transformative quality originally imputed to the personal aura of the leader himself. This type of charisma supports the new traditions born of the original prophesy; but now the crown, the throne, the robe, instead of being the accoutrements of the ecstatic prophet, may legitimize a moribund time server. Charisma in this instance becomes co-terminus with tradition, justifying and validating the habitual obedience of the masses.
Weber's favorable portrait of charismatic relations was completely overturned in the early 20th century by the crowd psychologists Gustave Le Bon and Gabriel Tarde. These two French theorists were tremendously influential in their time and were the founders of the present-day practices of political polling and media consultation as well as the esoteric study of group psychology. From their perspective, men and women, insofar as they are members of a group, are "in a special state, which much resembles the state of fascination in which the hypnotized individual finds himself in the hands of the hypnotiser"
In this vision, even the most rational individual ran great risk of being quickly and irresistibly reduced to the lowest common denominator when immersed in a crowd, and consequently of acting in a savage, childish, and, in short, irrational manner that would never be condoned by ordinary standards of behavior. Rational consciousness is portrayed and appreciated by these thinkers as a feeble refuge from the torrents of passion and destruction that seethe within the collective; a torrent that drowns all who are drawn into its vortex.
For the crowd psychologists, the mechanisms that stimulate the crowd are simple. Once a mass is gathered, any strong action excites immediate imitation and magnification in a cycle of intensification that eventually dies down, much like the ripples that appear after a stone is thrown into a pool. Only through such stimulation can human beings attain "the illusion of will".
In postulating the need for a leader to galvanize the group-- a mesmerist who is capable of expressing in his person the electrifying excitement and volition that awakens the sleeping crowd, providing the masses with an irresistible command that solidifies and motivates them under his thrall. The crowd psychologists argue that it is precisely the leader's obsessive self-absorption that appeals to the crowd [...] the feeling person, overwhelmed by nameless anxiety, immersed in the vortex of a mob, or irresistibly drawn to a charismatic figure like a moth to a flame, is hardly a rational calculator.
The individual participating in this experience is likely to attribute his or her feelings of expansion to the doctrine and the leader. The 'perfect self' that is then revealed when personal identity is stripped away is, more often than not, a self modeled after the charismatic exemplar. A new identity then replaces that which has been abandoned as inauthentic - an identity legitimated by the intensity of the emotion generated in the altered state of consciousness of the ecstatic group context -
- In other words, despite appearances of pragmatism, the world-affirming group is likely to develop into a node of collective effervescence that stands in opposition to the larger rationalized social organization, which is experienced as 'dead' and alienating. (or 'old' and '90's'!) ;)
The next step is to try to make the world replicate the group;
This is the road toward Messianism and paranoia.
http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/faculty/lindholm/ASCCharisma.html
===============================================
Yes
We
Can
"maybe distress activates it"
Definitely!
Also I think when a society slips into a spiritual black hole- it's the most vulnerable time to be taken over by some charisma monger with an agenda, who- as the article points out- is 9 times out of 10 out for themselves and not for the greater good.
who exist only make sure that the "Charisma & Altered States" phenomenom reaches everyone who might otherwise not be exposed to it. They have been blanketing the African-American communities in Maryland for some time now.....mobilizing their vote for the promised messiah, Barack Obama. Nevermind that Obama has said that he rejects any help from PACs. That's just a ruse, doncha know?
Here's a little background info from the PowerPAC site:
Constituency Mobilization
PowerPAC is committed to increasing voter participation among traditionally underrepresented and marginalized communities, in California and across the country. We believe that we will only have a true democracy when the electorate is engaged and representative of the population. Below is a summary of some of our work in this area:
African Americans. The statewide success of PowerPAC in California has given momentum to the expansion of the organization's reach and activism regionally and nationally. The imperative of a political organization specifically geared to supporting and strengthening the electoral voice of African Americans is long overdue. PowerPAC activities nationally are undergirded by the institutional mission for sustained and vigorous activism leading to democratic reforms. It has taken on this challenge because no other organization has stepped up to do so.
In the 2008 election cycle, PowerPAC is committed to an unprecedented campaign in eight African American vote-rich states (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) during the Presidential Primary Elections. These states collectively represent more than half of the national black electorate historically disenfranchised and excluded from the electoral process. Even today, the voice and political power of African Americans throughout the southeast have not been fully realized. (poster's note: So far, BHO has won in every state but TN, with MD & VA voting on Tuesday, February 12. Hmm.....)
PowerPAC's goal is to activate, educate and inspire African American voters - often forgotten and taken for granted during primary elections by both major parties - to flex its considerable electoral muscle. This is being realized in a range of on-the-ground activities including leadership development, non-partisan get out the vote drives and public education. The leadership development includes support and training to local community organizers who need tools to engage and mobilize voters. Public rallies, town hall meetings and paid and earned media will help to amplify their activities. PowerPAC will also support the presidential candidate who most represents the interest of African American constituents.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Candidate Campaigns
In 2006, PowerPAC began working on candidate campaigns that we believed would further our goal of increasing voter participation and turnout among our targeted communities of young people and people of color. The California work is based on demographic research PowerPAC conducted. Below is a summary of past and current campaigns:
Barack Obama: Barack Obama's campaign for president of the United States in 2008 is historic in many ways, including the potential order bringing millions of new voters into the political process. PowerPAC supports Obama as a candidate of conscience, and because his exciting candidacy and message furthers our goal of increasing voter participation in California and across the country.
Obama eloquently represents a voice of progressive change, uniting people of all races - but especially the African American community - around new economic and social policies that challenge the status quo and provide real opportunity for justice and prosperity for all our people. As momentum builds going into Super Tuesday primaries, PowerPAC will independently support Obama through media and grass-roots efforts to increase voter participation in several Feb. 5 states, including California, targeting African-American and young voters.
~~~~~~~~~~~
from what I understand, many AA voters don't like being addressed so race-specific, clumped into some mythical voting "block". Don't like the assumptions foisted upon them that they are monolithic in their voting or that somehow their race makes them 'all the same' in that respect. It is kind of insulting. If I were approached by some "concerned" PAC seeking to foster more Caucasian electoral participation I might balk too. :)
And as I mentioned this at my other post, candidates should give a brief introduction of themselves, quickly say what they are planning to do (ideally, just do it), and give out their resumes to the crowd and go home; It will save time, money, and voters will have lesser chance of being brainwashed by only words and allow the voters to focus on the reality and important issues that need to be seriously (not just emotionally) dealt.
You do need some charisma to be an effective leader but a leader shouldn’t lead his country only on charisma, that is dangerous as we can see from the past how bad leaders disguised themselves with "good" charisma but at the end did more damage, or their intentions were good and positive but self absorption won them over and lead to uncompassionate and irrational decision making. This is why I like Hillary, she has a leadership charisma but always talks about facts and reality; she is a leve-headed minded person and knows how to balance issues and reality.
If Obama uses charisma for good attention then good for him, but I still think he needs to prove himself that he can deal with issues such as foreign policy, economy, healthcare, and if possible, everything that a poor to middle class needs.
How much charisma is too much? Or just enough? If you're charisma-driven and it's comprising 90% of your appeal... you're probably better off leading people to a rock concert or religious revival than a political movement. History has not been pretty in its pictures of charismatic political 'movements'...
it's what it's used for. I've met Archbishop Tutu and he oozes warmth and charisma (and has a killer sense of humor), but he's also rooted in a deep sense of obligation and humility, of making peoples' lives better.
Oddly, I also got the sense that he's a bit tired of his own image, that he'd like someone just to chat with him without all the, "Ooooooh, Archbishop TUTU!" starry-eyed behavior.
Obama also is loaded to the guns with charisma - the different, for me, is that this "movement" is centered on an election for secular power, to an office that requires compromise, collaboration, "working the system" and a host of task-centered, administrative stuff to get anything DONE. I don't see him being at all comfortable with that - and, more importantly, his followers support him BECAUSE he's not like that - so I see a vast collision.
(Hey, is that an iceberg over there?)
what I am 'afraid' of, I think I'll just keep a print out of this handy.
I've always been wary of the next big thing. Swept up in a crowd or a wave has never been comfortable. I've yet to meet anyone (and yes, that includes Wes Clark) that grabs hold of my core and psyche in this manner. Humans that exploit a talent for this sort of thing, and use it to any self serving end such as political power, are in my eyes, charlatans of the worst kind.
Thanks for this, ms.
have learned to perfect this craft to a real art form.
And have made a fortune in doing so.
What if Ghandi or Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandela had created catchy ad slogans, printed them up onto millions of colorful placards, then had people chanting them in hypnotic unison at their "appearances". Heh... funny thought.
...is holding up the icing. Conversely, with regard to Hillary, I'd like some more icing on that cake.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Too chicken to diary over there!
They are like a massive swarm of hypnotized wasps. I'm afraid of mob rule and the eventual soccer fan stampedes that follow. I would be crushed to death, and you would miss me. :)
I only hope (!) that something real comes of it, rather than the vaporware we've seen so far. I hope (!) I'm proven wrong that the whole thing is just a house of cards. I hope (!) all the young people and others will vote. I hope (!) they will do more than just vote - our country needs involved, active citizens, not a bunch of people who are looking for someone who they hope (!) will fix everything for them. I hope (!) to see a list of concrete goals somewhere by Sen. Obama's supporters holding him and themselves accountable for the list of goals during his time in the White House. You know the kind of goals I mean - SMART goals:
S-pecific
M-easurable
A-tainable
R-ealistic
T-imely
http://www.topachievement.com/smart.html
Proud to be an American.
I hope you aren't serious about this. I haven't really wanted to comment at CCN that much lately because of the sensitivity of the primary season. It's interesting now to see that all those supporters of Senator Obama are seen as brainless zombies hypnotized by the self absorbed prohphet and all the Hillary supporters are the rational people trying to resist the irresistable pull of the gripping paranoia. I like both of them very much but have rational, supportable reasons for backing Obama. Not everyone who disagrees is irrational, I know many brilliant people who support Hillary and I know many brilliant people who support Obama.
Don't know what else to say....I like both of them too. I can come up with the positives and negatives on both but this is just so far over the top.
that doesn't jive with your agenda. It's just a study, but an important one, as most politicians try to emulate this in some form or another. The idea is to get in sync with your audience and play to their reactions. Some are better at it than others, and Obama is a master. There have been very few that are really adept at it and I'm not knowledgeable enough to name them all. I think Wes can do it; I've seen Teddy Kennedy do it when he was young; Martin Luther King was another master; JFK could rouse a crowd; possibly Stalin, and of course the absolute best in modern times was Adolf Hitler. Note that none of these are women; don't know if it's the timbre of their voice or what exactly it is that doesn't seem to lend itself to this type of verbalizing.
I know it's not Hoyle to mention Hitler, but much of our advertising techniques and political propaganda is based on psychological studies, theories, and practical use pretty much invented by the Nazis. Mussolini picked up on it and was pretty good as well. I've been to conferences on propaganda and some of the best stuff after WWII was conceived by the East Germans - also based on earlier german techniques.
If you get a chance, I hope you can look into this further, as it's fascinating stuff - and, like it or not, the advertising psychology is the meat of American society. Sell the sizzle, not the steak - still the best ad adage.
Does that remind you of anyone?
NOBAMA! There's no there there.
I'm upset with the implication of the diary, and the implication is clear: Obama supporters are zombies and Clinton supporters are rational. It's a generalization. I think that propaganda has an extremely powerful effect on the mind -- i'm not refuting that. What I'm saying is that it is convenient when things aren't going your way to point to the other side and basically say, "they are all irrational zombies" if they don't agree with me.
I know TONS of people who have no valid reason for supporting Obama. Seriously, I do. I know lots of people who just think he's a charismatic guy, so they like him. That's not ok.
But I know TONS of people who have no valid reason for liking Hillary either. My girlfriend's mom basically likes Hillary because she is a woman and because she liked the 90's. That's not ok either.
is that you're reading too much into something; nowhere does the study or MS say that Obama supporters are zombies and Clinton supporters are rational. It's saying beware of what is being said and being done; several people on this blog have bad memories of a similarly skilled person, that's all, and those memories are strong and still hurt.
Right now, Obama can be classified as a highly skilled salesman and many americans, based on their credit card bills, can be sold almost anything if the presentation is good.
What I'm saying is, beware of the traveling salesman. Check out the goods, his references, his credit standing and his police record before you buy.
NOBAMA! There's no there there.
Someone elsewhere round these parts raised the question of valid criteria for choosing a president. (It's really a task that I'm not sure, given our collective stress and dismay over the past 8 years, that we're really up to with any real sense of rationality. But that's another discussion.)
If we had a way of approaching the hiring (electing) the person for this position who was most suited, how would we prioritize the job description?
Well, my pocket Constitution of the United States of America tells me:
From Article II; Sec. 1 - "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States."
Those are pretty flexible criteria. As long as you're human, born here, 35 and stuck around at least 14 years, you can be President. They didn't spell out if this person should have a record of public or civil service, didn't tell us how much money they should spend campaigning, didn't seem to care what race, creed or color (or gender) a person was, didn't tell us that the person had to have a clean record as far as criminal acts were concerned; in other words, they sort of left us hangin' here on our own. Which was, I suppose, the point of the whole stunning exercise of democracy. I'm fairly certain they never would have envisioned us. (Those darn Founding Fathers; they should have been more careful.)
And I don't need to tell you about us. Americans. Those of us truly engaged in this process are such a small percentage, but we each get a vote when we turn 18. We have changed so much since that document was written; I dare to wonder how many of those first United States Citizens would have laid down their lives defending the Bill of Rights and Constitution compared to how easily it could just diminish before our very eyes today. We aren't those people. And that makes me so sad. Because frankly, I would. I am that committed to what we were and what we can be again. And for these reasons, I'm not easy to please. I'm not easy to convince. I need to trust.
I trust what I can see, not so much what I simply 'feel.' With Clinton, I can see her accomplishments. Obama has let me down as my Senator. If it just came down to that piece of criteria - actual accomplishments that mean something for the greater good, based on our inalienable rights - that alone would put me in Clintons camp.
But back to my original topic; (I have so got to learn to hold onto one thought at a time) criteria for the (s)election of a President.
How would you prioritize the attributes and accomplishments/resume necessary to fill that job? There's a question.
(And msinla, this is kind of off topic for your post, I know. But you know me - it comes up, it comes out, and it just sort of...lays there.)
Dorma dear- you NEVER have to apologize for being off topic on any of my blogs, OK?
There are no on topic blog police who will arrest you and cart you away to two fruits. I actually encourage the off topic, it adds creative flow to the room. :)
What do you mean "when things aren't going your way"??
Things are going our way as far as I can see. Close but we're still in the race and still in the lead by a hair. And we picked up over 10 million new dollars this week.
And I am voting for Hillary for a valid reason. I am into pantsuits.
We live in a society that is absolutely crafted using pop psychology, fearmongering, PR principles, advertisting- it's an art, and a science. It's the business of America. It's a dessert topping, and a floorwax. It's chocolate in your peanut butter & peanut butter in your chocolate. PR / entertainment / "news" is a big, big industry- bigger than Big Oil, bigger than Big Tobacco.
It moves, it shakes, it makes movers & shakers & like the country of Dubai, it's impact is perversely huge & outsized. It is inherently a bullhorn, and one that creates recruits, who then evangelize & recruit others. For all the surface trappings, we are approximately as alike as snowflakes & as conformist as a blizzard, though we'd like to think otherwise- I'm a flaming red maple leaf caught by accident in this snowstorm. I'm a quaking, shivering aspen leaf floating on an alpine breeze. I'm a pine needle dripping with sap.
I'm making cultural references about floor wax, desert toppings, peanut butter & chocolate which you may not understand if you are currently a young college student. One from Saturday Night Live, the other the way Reese's Peanut Butter cups were advertised way back in pre-history, possibly the late 80s- when there was also... history.
It seems a little perverse to make O! so big that he blots out the sun & this little wisp of language flickering somewhere in cyberspace must be viewed through the lens of how it may impact the great Barack Obama.
The "advertising industry", buzz, fashion, churches, cults (sometimes identical, in my opinion) is the way things get done, it always has been. Groupthink is a persistent feature of human civilization. Too much of it is a terrible thing, and too little of it, the same. There was life before Barack Obama, there will be life after Barack Obama. And Hillary Clinton. And Wes Clark. And all of us. But groups & fashions will still play through public consciousness in much the same way, I suspect.
It's really not all about the O!
"I know it's not Hoyle to mention Hitler, but much of our advertising techniques and political propaganda is based on psychological studies, theories, and practical use pretty much invented by the Nazis."
===
Actually, Goering closely studied the techniques the US used in WW I and refined them:
Wilson hired a publicist, George Creel, to head the "Committee on Public Information" (CPI) -- a propaganda ministry with the sole purpose of "selling the war." CPI produced films, pamphlets, curriculum guides -- all designed to "paint Germany in a bad light." Wilson's propaganda ministry encouraged businesses to spy on their employees, parents to spy on their children, and neighbors to spy on neighbors. Most importantly, the CPI urged Americans to report "disloyal" pro-German sentiments. Creel himself stated that he demanded, "100% Americanism." The teaching of German was banned in schools; German folksongs, such as "Oh Tannenbaum" were torn from children's songbooks; German street names were changed; and sauerkraut was renamed "victory cabbage." Posters were produced urging Americans to report anyone "who spreads pessimistic stories, divulges -- or seeks -- confidential military information, cries for peace, or belittles our effort to win the war."
http://chicora.org/woodrow_wilson.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information
information on the Committee on Public Information. Wikipedia isn't viewed as a reliable source, and I'm not familiar with the Chicora organization.
http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/063.html
Proud to be an American.
however the Germans, under Goering, raised it to an art form. I see no comparison to what Creel did to the mass Nazi spectacles organized, I guess, by Goering, and performed by Hitler.
NOBAMA! There's no there there.
"And it taught a lesson: State propaganda, when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect. It was a lesson learned by Hitler and many others, and it has been pursued to this day."
- Noam Chomsky
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/chomsky03.htm
(article in its entirety is very enlightening)
It was Goebbels. A short history that has nothing to do with the original post.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/propaganda_in_nazi_germany.htm
Propaganda within Nazi Germany was taken to a new and frequently perverse level. Hitler was very aware of the value of good propaganda and he appointed Joseph Goebbels as head of propaganda.
Propaganda is the art of persuasion - persuading others that your 'side of the story' is correct. Propaganda might take the form of persuading others that your military might is too great to be challenged; that your political might within a nation is too great or popular to challenge etc. In Nazi Germany, Dr Joseph Goebbels was in charge of propaganda. Goebbels official title was Minister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment.
As Minister of Enlightenment, Goebbels had two main tasks:
to ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party.
to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible.
To ensure success, Goebbels had to work with the SS and Gestapo and Albert Speer. The former hunted out those who might produce articles defamatory to the Nazis and Hitler while Speer helped Goebbels with public displays of propaganda.
To ensure that everybody thought in the correct manner, Goebbels set up the Reich Chamber of Commerce in 1933. This organisation dealt with literature, art, music, radio, film, newspapers etc. To produce anything that was in these groups, you had to be a member of the Reich Chamber. The Nazi Party decided if you had the right credentials to be a member. Any person who was not admitted was not allowed to have any work published or performed. Disobedience brought with it severe punishments. As a result of this policy, Nazi Germany introduced a system of censorship. You could only read, see and hear what the Nazis wanted you to read, see and hear. In this way, if you believed what you were told, the Nazi leaders logically assumed that opposition to their rule would be very small and practiced only by those on the very extreme who would be easy to catch.
Hitler came to power in January 1933. By May 1933, the Nazi Party felt sufficiently strong to publicly demonstrate where their beliefs were going when Goebbels organised the first of the infamous book burning episodes. Books that did not match the Nazi ideal was burnt in public - loyal Nazis ransacked libraries to remove the 'offending' books. "Where one burns books, one eventually burns people" commented the author Brecht.
The same approach was used in films. The Nazis controlled film production. Films released to the public concentrated on certain issues : the Jews; the greatness of Hitler; the way of life for a true Nazi especially children, and as World War Two approached, how badly Germans who lived in countries in Eastern Europe were treated. Leni Riefenstahl was given a free hand in producing Nazi propaganda films. A young film producer, she had impressed Hitler with her ability. It was Riefenstahl who made "Triumph of Will" - considered one of the greatest of propaganda films despite its contents.
What was seen in the cinemas was controlled. "Hitlerjunge Quex" was made in 1933. This film told the story of a boy brought up in a communist family in Germany who broke away from this background, joined the Hitler Youth and was murdered by the Communists in Germany for doing so. "The Eternal Jew" was a film that vilified the Jews - comparing the Jews in Europe to a hoard of rats, spreading disease etc. "Tarzan" films were banned because the Nazis frowned on so little clothing being worn especially by women. One film that celebrated the might of the German Navy was not screened as it showed a drunken German sailor. However, the cinemas were not full of serious films with a political message. Goebbels ordered that many comedies should be made to give Germany a 'lighter' look.
The ensure that everybody could hear Hitler speak, Goebbels organised the sale of cheap radios. these were called the "People's Receiver" and they cost only 76 marks. A smaller version cost just 35 marks. Goebbels believed that if Hitler was to give speeches, the people should be able to him. Loud speakers were put up in streets so that people could not avoid any speeches by the Fuhrer. Cafes and other such properties were ordered to play in public speeches by Hitler.
Goebbels and his skill at masterminding propaganda is best remembered for his night time displays at Nuremberg. Here, he and Speer, organised rallies that were designed to show to the world the might of the Nazi nation. In August of each year, huge rallies were held at Nuremberg. Arenas to hold 400,000 people were built. In the famous night time displays, 150 search lights surrounded the main arena and were lit up vertically into the night sky. Their light could be seen over 100 kilometres away in what a British politician, Sir Neville Henderson, called a "cathedral of light".
Why was so much effort put into propaganda?
At no time up to 1933, did the Nazi Party win a majority of votes at elections. They may have been the largest political party in 1933, but they did not have a majority of support among the people. Therefore, those who had supported the Nazis needed to be informed on how correct their choice was with an emphasis on the strength of the party and the leadership. Those who opposed the Nazi Party had to be convinced that it was pointless continuing with their opposition. The fact that Goebbels had so much power is indicative of how important Hitler thought it was to ensure that the people were won over or intimidated into accepting Nazi rule.
"The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it." Goebbels
"Propaganda is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. If the means achieves the end then the means is good.........the new Ministry has no other aim than to unite the nation behind the ideal of the national revolution." Goebbels
NOBAMA! There's no there there.
I hadn't seen your post when I did mine just now.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
The lesson you have learned here will serve you well as you navigate life's waters.
My best to you as you continue your studies at The University of Washington.
We see what we see. We read fawning and over the top reports about Obama sightings, we hear about fainting, crying at speeches, we glimpse "we are the world" type tribute videos based on o's speeches (which we hear, cause people to cry), we see endless chanting, "hope! hope! hope! yes! we! can!" at over produced rallies and it reminds us of things we have seen before.
All this is rather disturbing when seen from our perspective. For various reasons and life experiences, many of us are disturbed (and some flat out frightened) by such an over the top, emotional reactions to a candidate for President.
We found Wes because we appreciated no nonsense discourse, plans, strategies, and speaking truth to power. Sure, we love the guy. I got hella emotional over that Memorial Day video someone produced, the one where he was walking through the snow at Arlington looking at the graves of the fallen.
But those tears had to do with his love of country and the heroism of the troops and my love of the country and indebtedness to those troops. It wasn't about Wes. It was about America.
Sure, we get a version of 'truth to power' with o. But it's kind of obfuscated by the adoration. This adoring frenzy by the crowds - "Fired up! Ready to go!" Fired up to elect HIM, ready to go to elect HIM.
I don't know how to make you see what we see. And believe me, I'm not saying this because I'm over the moon about Clinton. I greatly admire her work, her work ethic, and what shes accomplished over the years. But I'm not blinded by any of it, and I understand the larger realities the true work of governance.
In any case, don't take this personally. We're just concerned. And I think our various experiences with this sort of thing are valid. You don't know us. Sure, you blog with us, and I love seeing you guys. But there's some deep nasty stuff in my own past that I don't have to or want to tell you about, but that this kind of group think was a big part of it.
And I voted for him to go to the senate. And he hasn't done his job. So...that's another subject entirely, but it's something to think about. At least for me it is. I think that's valid too.
I've had enough of this. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, and you shouldn't take it personally. This is observational.
"Whatever the charismatic leader says is right not because it makes sense, or because it coincides with what has always been done, but because the leader says it. Orders can therefore be completely whimsical, self-contradictory and even lead to death or destruction for the follower, demonstrating the disciple's inner emotional compulsion to obey without regard for coherence or consequence."
Do you "observe" his kind of behavior out of Obama supporters? No, you don't. If you did, he could say crazy things like "We are going to invade Korea and Iran because they are evil!" and all the Obama supporters would say "Yah!" just because he said it. Read what this diary says. It implies that Obama is one of these types of figures, and that commands of these figures can lead to "death or destruction of the follower", like a sucicide bomber or something.
If you have a problem with people being inspired and crying at over produced rallies, then that is fine. If you think it's over the top, that's fine, I respect your reasons. But that is not what this diary says. Read it again. It is shockingly over the top in it's implications in trying to link Obama supporters with a zombie mentality.
There are irrational people on both sides of this.
and charismatic leaders.
Anecdotally: I actually have seen two, good, thoughtful, talented veterans of civil service (both former speechwriters and advisors to elected officials in Ohio and Chicago) tell me their reasons to support Obama had very little to do with the issues, as they pretty much consider Obama and Clinton's stances to be fairly close. What they like is the following and the marketing. That's why they're on board. They're not "Obama or No one!" supporters, they actually like Hillary, and insist that they'd gladly vote for her in the GE. But they love the symbolism of the Obama brand. (They're a wee bit jaded, but not yet quite as cynical as myself.)
More: People I have asked about Obama's accomplishments, the "what has he proposed or done that causes you lend him your support?" question. I keep getting the "feel good" words - inspirational, hope, change. It's about feelings. It's about him. Not a one of them has offered me an answer (other than the ambigious "he wants to do things to make the country better") that tells me anything he has done or specifically plans to do to work through the spate of problems that we face. (There was also one guy who said, "I think it would be good for Chicago, cause he's from Chicago.")
Sure, you have rational and irrational on both sides. But the only ones I've found thus far (besides yourself) on the rational side of things, gave me such a jaded answer - the symbol bit, that I've become quite concerned.
Like Obama becuase they believe he had better judgement to oppose the war. They like him because of his stance on talking to our enemies. They like him because he makes an effort not to take money from lobbyists. They like him because of his background as a community organizer and his understanding of the plight of the poor. Many people are also resentful of Hillary's tactics in trying to get the Florida delegates seated when they broke the democratic party rules and resent Bill Clinton's comments in which he tried to equate Obama to Jesse Jackson. Many people resent the fact that Hillary said terrorists like to test new leaders, and she is the only one who will be ready on day one. Regardless of whether or not you agree with them, these are all legitimate, not-vague reasons to support Obama. The fact that you have talked to people who aren't very well informed doesn't mean that all --- over even MOST Obama supporters are uninformed. Several women in my immediate family like Hillary simply because she is a woman. At the same time, I know many informed and brilliant people (like those on CCN) who support Hillary for very legitimate reasons. It's fine to be concerned though, just don't generalize based on a few experiences.
And considering the context of where we are in this primary and the stance of most people on this site, I do think this diary is at least pointed in the direction of Barack Obama. It's dishonest for people to say I am overreacting because "it's just a study" about "charismatic leaders" and it's no big deal because it's not meant as an attack on Obama supporters. Then what is it meant as? The implication seems pretty obvious to me.
God, I'm tired. We're just trying to understand what the buzz is about. We've been discussing this for ages. It's ongoing. No one is painting all o supporters as zombies. (Although I did write a pretty funny post yesterday about a "Class 3 Invasion" but that was just part of the usual blowing off steam CAD stuff that goes on.)
Once again, we're just trying to figure out what's going on. Maybe we're just too old, or don't get out enough. But no ones attacking anyone. O's a phenomenon. Many of you guys admit as such (as do my acquaintances, who are actually quite informed, but have chosen to support O for the reasons I stated.)
In any case, I'm pretty sure that someone will come along and in a 'gentle reader and o supporter' way, point out their opposite take on war judgement (he wasn't in the senate in 2002, he's based his whole candidacy on that speech at the dem convention in 04 but upon getting to the senate has voted exactly the same way as Clinton on war votes, except for Kyl-Lieberman which has been debated ad naseum, let's leave that one for another thread, and anyway, O didn't even show up for that one) his stance on talking to enemies (some of us have problems with an untested guy going to visit some real experienced critters who may or may not be state sponsors of terrorism - especially without getting a team of expert diplomats doing regional diplomacy to figure out a basic set of principles first - sound familiar? Wes' words - Hillary's embraced them) and making an effort to not take money from lobbyists (they all do, some more than others, I'm sure someone will point you to the site - truthy counts, or whatever it's called that can show you the money from where to who, and no one, I don't care who, get's to ride the moral superiority bus on this one - for the record, I'm in Chicago, no one comes out of here squeaky clean, trust me on this one) and background of community organization for the poor (don't get me started, since I don't have the linky's handy, but I really don't think Hillary comes out on the losing end of this one either...)
I'm too tired to go over FL, Jesse and when the hell did Hillary say "terrorists like new leaders!" like, what, they're a gooey new tasty treat or something? (Sorry, that was snarky, I said I was tired, and oh boy, I'm so tired. See, Jordan, I'm pushing 50 and work two jobs so it's waaaay past my bedtime.)
Anyhow, no ones attacking. We're just completely freaked out by the fervor. Cause some of us have had bad experiences with fervor and politics rolled into one.
TWO JOBS???
What are you doing arguing with a college student?? I stay up till 3 every night!
;)
See...I TOTALLY respect your criticisms on all of those points. That's what I'm saying. This diary just gets at me because it seems to imply that Obama is nothing more than a self obsessed messiah with a zombie army behind him. If that's not what is meant --- then I don't know what is. Is it possible that this could be happeneing because he is actually a very good candidate? I think so. But if it's not meant as an attack...then I'll stand down I guess. Only as long as you GO TO BED!
cjboog@gmail.com
if you want to discuss it further (tomorrow!). I love this open discussion between people who don't see eye to eye. It brings out all the relevent information so that nothing is deliberately left out. Wes Clark said it best right here
I really do encourage you not to color inside the lines of the coloring book you are being handed. All he said was:
Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned. Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."
------
Was it not merely a fact? And if you or others wish to draw inflammatory conclusions based on that fact about African American demographics & the reality or unreality in a fact based way, great. But at least understand you've swallowed their frame. And at least start to understand that if the rightwing picks our nominee, it isn't because they want him to suceed- as the nominee, or worse, in office.
But if you are choosing to repeat a vile talking point, I think you should at least know that that is precisely what you are doing. Here's something else Bill Clinton said recently:
--transcript---
Clinton: I never heard a word of public complaint when Mr. Obama said Hillary was not truthful, no character, was poll-driven. He had more pollsters than she did.
When he put out a hit job on me at the same time he called her the senator from Punjab, I never said a word. And I don't care about it today. I'm not upset about it.
The only thing I pointed out was that there was substantially no difference in her record and his on Iraq, and that he had said in 2004 there was no difference between his position and President Bush. And he said that was somehow dishonest, but he never answers how it's not accurate. So this is crazy.
This rhetoric is getting a little carried away here. And let me remind you, my ultimate answer is this -- there are still two people around who marched with Martin Luther King and risked their lives, John Lewis and Reverend Andrew Young. They both said that Hillary was right and the people who attacked her were wrong, and that she did not play the race card, but they did.
So I don't have to defend myself from Dick Harpootlian. I will just refer you to John Lewis and Andrew Young. And let him go get in an argument with them about it.
Let him go get in an argument with Dolores Huerta, one of the founders of Farm Workers, against what happened in Nevada. There is a fact here -- this is almost like once you accuse somebody of racism or bigotry, or something, the facts become irrelevant. There are facts here.
And the final thing I would like to say is, you're asking me about this, and you sat through this whole meeting. Not one single, solitary soul asked about any of this. And they never do. They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover. This is what you live for.
But this hurts the people of South Carolina, because the people of South Carolina are coming to these meetings and asking questions about what they care about. And what they care about is not going to be in the news coverage tonight because you don't care about it.
What you care about is this. And the Obama people know that. So they just spin you up on this and you happily go along. The people don't care about this. They never ask about it. And you are determined to take this election away from them. And that's not right.
That is not right. This election ought to belong to those people who are out here asking questions about their lives.
QUESTION: Do you think the Obama people are...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: Well, you ask me questions based on Harpootlian calls me Lee Atwater. I spent all my life fighting those people.
And he wasn't in Nevada. So he's having a fight not with me, but with Dolores Huerta, who founded the Farm Workers with Cesar Chavez. He should ask her. She was there.
He doesn't care what happened. He just knows he can call you a name and you guys will cover it.
They did not ask about this, and you don't care what your own people care about. They care about what happens to the American people.
That's one thing John Edwards was right about in the debate.
QUESTION: But do you think the Obama people...
UNIDENTIFIED: Got to go. Appreciate it.
CLINTON: One more story. Shame on you.
UNIDENTIFIED: Thanks, guys.
CLINTON: Shame on you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OK it's late and I was surprised to see all this activity over here-- but I'll try to respond to what I can now even though it looks like a slew of other Clarkies have done a good job in my absence.
You've not been around much lately, but there's been a growing worry about the frenzy and hysteria that seems to be arising from many of the Obama rallies lately. Everyone loves the feel good elements- who wouldn't? Our concerns are stemming from that mix of the intoxicating factors alongside the critical acumen that we feel is so vital this year in making up our minds about a candidate. Well, most of us here have already made up our minds, but I think I can speak for many when I say it was NOT an easy task this time. If Wes had not tossed his vote into the equation - it still would have been difficult, but not as bad.
So given a few Rumsfeldian "knowns"... We had the tough decision of who to support, many here never having been big Hillary fans to begin with - We had an historically critical era in our country's (and planet's) lifetime staring us down the barrel of a loaded gun - We had the pressures of splintering Clarkies with barbed animosity hurled at us and at General Clark's candidate from all directions.
So that's the set up. In the middle of that scenario - we here at CCN, feeling only marginally cozy and protected in our little Clarkdom, started to share fears about the "movement" nature of the O campaign. You may have seen some of the posts over the past months. As we took notice, so did other writers, journalists, bloggers and pundits. Not much mainstream- but a few touched on the phenom aspects and what that could imply to the politics, and to the psychology of the voters. Time passes, the discussion evolves and we end up here on this blog posting of the Boston university crowd study documents.
You seem to have filled in so much between the lines of the Dr's study here... The research presented was based on several other academicians from past decades-- as far back as the 19th century, the earliest recorded studies of this stuff. I was actually cautious when I posted it, snipping out parts that might have been misread or offensive (see the link if you wish to) about the obvious hot button issues of Nazi Germany etc. Additionally, I decided not to do as I normally would - meaning not to write any accompanying analysis with it, just a one or two sentence intro. If you'll look back you'll see I didn't say a thing about Obama followers as zombies - (!) - but I offered that this study might help shed light on crowd psychology in how it might relate to the Obama Phenomena. It's like the difference between similes and metaphors. Might seem gentle on the surface, but really a horse of a different color.
To read each and every word the Dr writes here as written about Obama or "implied"- as you say - to be about Obama is taking your interpretative privileges a little too far. This paper was posted to continue the discussion of the same subject presented earlier at dorma's "For some of us it's just freaky" blog... as I said in that little intro. It was kind of the scholastic version of the same topic. What I usually do on blogs is inject little commentary between the paragraphs and lines, interspersing my own snark inside the cut/pasted material. I made a choice this time not to do that, but to let the piece stand on its own instead. Funny thing though-- you went ahead and read all this commentary into that piece that nobody ever wrote there! I'm afraid some of the things you list that seem to you so obviously implied.... are not implied. And as it is with implications - there's nothing evidentiary to cite but a feeling of implication, so...it gets circular and unproductive.
I think everyone here is fully aware that Obama supporters come in all shapes and styles and are not monolithic by any means- and are not (eek!) zombies. There has been humor and snark here and there but the deeper concerns about the mass crowd frenzies are separate from those. That said, there is one large sector that we seem to be observing that does trouble us. We are not alone in that. And so we talk about it. This morning on Air America local I heard numerous callers who were seriously creeped out at the exact same thing we discuss here. The "churchiness" quality of the oration mixed into political rallies accompanied by screaming crescendos. There may be transcripts you can read if you want at the station: (Mario Solis Marich).
I've read articles addressing the same subject even from international press. Should these journalists, and us in this community, refrain from exploration of the topic?
Try not to read too much into it unless it's actually written.
Anyways, it's late, and I- like Dorma- also work 2 jobs and am very tired - need sleep. I hope this has answered some of your questions. I for one (and I know others here) remain somewhat disturbed by the crowds, the chanting, the whole "movement" mentality-- but would by no means cast you in that same light. You have always seemed clear thinking, cogent and an individualist who thinks for yourself. All traits no decent self respecting zombie can claim! In fact clear thinking has been one of the qualities that drew me into the Clark Community and that keeps me here.
Now I hope you could make some sense of that midnight ramble- BTW: I am one of those democrats who will support the nominee regardless, and I don't even need to pause to "think about it". Because at the end of the day - I fear a McCain presidency far more than a stadium full of screaming teens! I can safely say I fear a McCain presidency even more than zombies. :)
at Time this week writes....
there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — "We are the ones we've been waiting for" — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.
In other words, his supporters are more special, better, different somehow than those tired out other supporters over there.
Classic evangelical language. You're the special, the few, the empowered, not like those other people over there.
That's the razor blade hidden in the apple of unity. If you're part of the movement, you belong, you're transformed somehow. If you're not, or worse, don't *want* to be, or dare to object, you're viewed as an impediment, a drag to "progress."
I feel as though I'm trapped in the Presidential Election Editor of The Wave. (Or am I the only one who remembers that? It was required viewing at my high school, even though it was already a more than a bit dated by then).
Scientology talk for "suppressive persons." Bit of a to-do over the weekend with global protests. So the language is wandering round in my brain. nvm...carry on.
it's the media filter & a concerted effort to portray events in a certain light & sculpt an outcome by the wait for it vast rightwingmedia.
There. I said it.
Hope is not trademarked by the junior Senator from Illinois & the American Dream is a birthright, not a marketing slogan
we are all trying our best to make the right decision and at the same time those who are supporting their candidate and volunteer to advocate for him or her eventually will defend and initiate what they believe in the candidate. The difference is, what kind of words are used and what the listener and reader wants to process in their minds is sometimes going to be misunderstood. To talk about politics withough stepping on no one toes is impossible. I tried that but I learned there were times when I had to be a little aggressive if they were only going to allow me to even say word… so it all depends on the situation.
This blog didn’t really strike me to offend Obama because I personally have nothing against him and I am just judging him whether he is going to be effective in the WH. Also the question is, did only hope worked before? From what I see, not really… I love the word hope and it should be part of candidate’s speech but if one was fighting with the lions and tigers in the WH then one should better have a shield (extensive experience) and solid resume (sword); I mean that is how I see it and politics have changed so we can’t be using the same strategy as good leaders in the past have used; sometimes it’s all about momentum and timing… I also perceived this blog as what donjo mentioned bellow about the psychological study… Of course, I am not saying that Obama is going to be a bad leader because he is charismatic in fact it’s his advantage to be charismatic…
I guess that is my opinion and maybe I will learn that I was wrong, lol. And thank you for reading my post as I am sure you already know this but because dissent is the highest form of patriotism, I thought I chip-in.
Other's have seen it too. It's advertising. I'm sorry to have to break it to you.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23182456-28737,00.html
When he says that "this campaign is different because of you", that means something to me. It means that what is so different about his campaign is who is supporting it -- people who have never been passionate about politics before. When he says that "ordinary people can do extraordinary things", to me that means something. It means that hundreds of thousands of small donors can overcome the Clinton machine and all of their big donor support to overtake the once "inevitable candidate". I don't think it's very vague at all.
LJM. This comment from last night made me remember the old Beach Boys song..."Catch a wave and you're sittin on the top o the world....doo dah doo dah".
Then I remembered "Wipe Out!" :o
Haha.
You say this:
"When he says that "ordinary people can do extraordinary things", to me that means something. It means that hundreds of thousands of small donors can overcome the Clinton machine and all of their big donor support to overtake the once "inevitable candidate". I don't think it's very vague at all."
Is just beating Hillary Clinton the end game here?
I don't think you mean just that. You don't have to go into a long explanation or anything, but I'm just a bit taken aback by this statement.
If you choose not to see that Hillary Clinton is all about ordinary people, and I know you've checked out her record, that's fine. But maybe you should dig a little deeper into the arena of support demographics. It's not hard to find the numbers. (Of course, I suppose I could just go find some poll pointing them out, I think CNN did one on SuperDooper Tuesday, but it's almost 11PM here and I'm about to drop.) Anyway, it's the blue-collar working class that's coming out for her in a big way. It's no secret that the higher educated, white collar upper class and students make up O's support base. I'm sure you're aware of it.
So your comment here is just so, um, I don't know if ironic is the proper term, but I'm too tired to think of the right one. So I'm gonna have to go with ironic.
And she just reached out to her base after super Tuesday and asked for $$ help. And has so far raised in the neighborhood (like next door on one side or the other) of $10M. And this is from people who are hard pressed to afford it.
I wish though that she would not take money from lobbysists and would not rely on big donors to fund her campaign. I respect the money she has rasied since super tuesday from small donors but I read an article the other day that said her campaign made the conscious decision early on to rely on big donors and Obama went with small donors (perhaps out of necessity). The vast majority of Obama's donors have not donated the maximum amount (like 97%) while I heard that over 30% of Hillary's donors have donated the max amount.
And no -- beating Hillary is definitely not the end game. It's one example of what the campaign is working to accomplish when it initially looked impossible. It's insipring to see an underdog overcoming the odds, it's not about Obama beating Hillary, it's about a coalition of unlikely allies defeating most of the party establishment and most of the big donors in the democratic parties. The little guy can win. That's what he means when he says ordinary people can do extraorinary means.
So. The underdog bests the big dog. And um...a coalition of unlikely allies defeats the party establishment.
And big donor in the dem parties.
OK. Again. Hillary didn't ask for our (us barely middle class blue collars) hard earned cash because she didn't figure she'd get any. She was right. I figured she had enough cash, and my credit card screams when I touch it. (So does my bank statement, it didn't used to but the last couple of years have been extraordinarily nasty.) So, anyhow. We come to find out, a couple of weeks ago, that she could use cash, and the folks who could afford to fund her had maxed out. So now it's our turn. I would guess that those numbers you have the 97% small for o not maxed out and the over 30% for HC maxed - will change over the next reporting quarter. But, I get it, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I just don't want you to think that her reliance on big donors was something she did so they would have - come to think of it, so what? It was nice that I could be behind someone for awhile who wasn't asking me for money every week. Nice that. (I guess those days are gone - LOL!)
I'm not gonna get into playing 'who's the real establishment candidate' but o seems to be getting along just fine with them lately. (And was pretty much a DLC pick for his IL senate seat, just so's ya know.)
So, if inspiring to see the underdog (and I never saw him as the underdog, I knew just what that guy was capable of the minute he set foot into the ring in January of 07) win, I just hope there's more to it than just winning.
I certainly hope he can beat the GOP. I hope if he can, that he can govern maturely and knowledgeably, a really big country with a lot of humongous problems. On day one. (oops sorry, that was snarky too, could we please have this discussion later, maybe tomorrow afternoon sometime between gigs. My snarky comes out when I'm tired.)
by the labeling. Obama has as many "big donors" as Clinton does. Check the sources at Open Secrets. Also, the "Clinton machine" is matched quite competently by the "Obama machine" although due to big media picking and choosing what we "hear" one could easily miss that fact. When you've got heavyweights like Senator Kennedy backing Obama, you can be sure he's got the backing of a pretty entrenched, powerful "machine."
That's the way politics works, unfortunately. The difference is, Obama tries to portray himself as different, as an outsider trying to break through the old power structure. I'm afraid that's just not quite true.
Overview of Contributions/$$ Spent
Individual contributions: $103,611,269 (90%)
Individual contributions: $101,429,472 (99%)
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
it's been hard at work over the past two years. There is no way he could have gotten as far as he has without it.
Proud to be an American.
but look at the superdelegate total -- of party insiders. I heard today that our WA Governor Chris Gregoir is taking TONS of internal party heat for endorsing Obama when so many on the inside wanted her to endorse Clinton.
When John Kerry came to the UW to speak, he talked about endorsing Obama and he stopped and shook his head and said "You can imagine the pressure" to endorse Hillary.
It's not about John Kerry. It's about you. John Kerry's job is to deal with the pressure. Same goes for Gregoir. It goes with the territory.
that blossomed and wilted in the "last" century. It was unbelievable how out of nowhere, these individuals would come out and create incredibly large movements nationwide. Over and over, through the decades, similar patterns. I think Americans have a gullible gene that gets activated in some kind of cyclical pattern. Maybe distress activates it, and we surely have had a dose of it in the last seven years.