Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Need of a leader by Scott

I was reading this article, by Todd Purdum from Vanity Fair, looking for something else, when I came across this paragraph

"Sure, Obama has made his share of mistakes, rookie and otherwise. But don’t count him out—not just yet. For the fault, dear readers, lies not in our stars, nor even in our rock-star president, but in ourselves: in our impatience, our intemperance, our lack of perspective, our susceptibility to the easy untruth and the quick fix. Barack Obama only rarely falls victim to any of these vices, and, with luck, he may yet save us from ourselves."

Is this worship of a governmental leader healthy for a democratic/republic style government?

I have overheard people say things such as, "if congress just got out of Obama's way then he could fix everything." or "it's Nancy and Harry that are messing things up and making Obama look bad, they should just get out of the way."

Is this article and others attacking the very foundation of our government or am I over-reacting?

Here is the article. It is very amazing on how he believes Obama can do no wrong.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/01/purdum-on-obama-201001

2 comments:

  1. Of the top of my head i can't see why "worship" of the president is detrimental to our system. There is considerable historical precedent for this type of thing, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, FDR.

    Depending on who you heard these things from changes the implication. They could just be ignorant misperceptions. If they came from pundits they could be more serious but still ineffectual. If they came from congressmen then there is a situation because they actually have the power to initiate change in the government. It is also scary because it shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental operations of the government.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see what you mean. I don't need to get too worked up if the worship is coming from just a random person. But if it is coming from people in congress (which it is clearly not) then that would merit a more concerned consideration.
    Good point.

    ReplyDelete