Reagan vs. Obama

Every country with an excessively "populist" head of state is in partial danger of the cults of personality that surround those figures, in my opinion. At an extreme level, the Communist dictators of the USSR come to mind; at a far more mild phase, heads of state that use their rhetorical abilities to influence audiences to agree with them without much independent thought on the part of those audiences are the norm.

The most "cultish" U.S. president in recent history is probably John Kennedy; his brief reign and assassination have left most people unaware of the interventionist campaigns he approved and engaged in during his brief administration. It's possible that he would have surpassed his essentially imperialist predecessor, Eisenhower.

Of the two most recent U.S. presidents with substantial cults of personality around them, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, which is the greater "deity" among their followers? This is perhaps not a completely fair poll, since we've seen eight years of Reagan and more than twenty years to reflect on his deeds, while less than two years of Obama's governance, though more of his public presence. But what would your analysis be, regardless? And yea, I'm expecting this to go along partisan lines. :rofl

Reagan was a liberal hollywood actor playing the part of a "conservative" president. Obama is real.

It has to be Obama. Partisanship has to be involved, because left-wingers are automatically more known to cater to the "cult of personality" because they have Hollywood backing. Reagan was heavily supported, but that's only because he had a revolutionary process of economic thinking that Kennedy began, but due to a fateful and tragic bullet, could not see to complete fruition.

Reagan gets lots of credit he deserves and lots of credit he didn't deserve. Personally, I think the way he handled Iran-Contra was nothing short of brilliant. Making your enemies fight each other is straight from Sun Tzu, and he was the man. He helped control the Sandanistas and other Marxist revolutionaries in Central America that choked their own people and economies.

The main thing he got too much credit for was "winning" the Cold War. He did deliver a killing blow to the Soviet Union, but they were on the decline long before Reagan saw office. All he did was come in and sweep up the remains to adoring fans.

On the other hand, Obama hasn't done jack for this nation, and what little he has done has been at minimum detrimental, and probably closer to a long-term catastrophe. He was elected on a platform of smoke and mirrors. People chanting "hope" and "change", all the while not mentioning the hope and change he planned to deliver. He took advantage of your average simple-minded American voter. The only advantage he had is that he was charming enough to do it en masse. He had the same advantage Kennedy had in 1960 - looks. If the '60 presidential debates had been over the radio and not television, Nixon would have won in a landslide. He was out-debated on every possible level. Fortunately, Kennedy turned out to be a great president for what little time he had.

Obama has been called a "rock star" for a reason. There weren't any Internet sluts making youtube videos titled "I got a crush on McCain".

I am going to have to go with Obama on this one.

I don't think the question is fair because Obama is still in office and Reagan served decades ago. Remember though, how every republican running for president in 2008 stopped and gave respect to St. Ronnie at every single chance.

That had to do more with his accomplishments than him being "cool".

Gipper said:

That had to do more with his accomplishments than him being "cool".

Click to expand...

It's a cult of personality no matter how you spin it

Reagan was popular because he played the illiterate cowboy image perfectly. This is a guy who people will argue somehow 'scared' the Iranians into handing over hostages over simply by becoming president. The same Iranians who would blast Israel back to the stone age if they got their hands on a single nuclear weapon were scared of a senile 70 year old. The same Iranian revolution which pushed JIHAD (remember what the **** Jihad is? You DIE for Allah?) were scared of being bombed by Reagan. Reagan was brilliant at letting the cult of personality form around him by people who simply don't know better.

All you have to look at is how Conservatives and the right wing still push the lie that Reagan somehow won the cold war. The right wing has a lot of intellectuals at the top (Kissinger being one of my personal favorites) but at the very base it is made up of people who are ignorant. Not that I have anything against that, I just see why Reagan is so valuable to these people. He was a political opportunist and he basically fed off their ignorance.

I think most of Reagan's cult of personality came after he was president, whereas most of Obama's came before he was president. Obama wins if he retains it past his presidency. So my answer is, let's wait and see.

I don't care how much the right-wing says it loves Reagan, they never got signs saying that he was God or Jesus or the Messiah. If Reagan went as far to say that he was some angelic being, or if a leading GOP partisan-hack publication did what the NYT did and showed Reagan with a halo around him; it'd be laughed off the stage.

Obama wins hands down.

Areopagitican said:

I don't care how much the right-wing says it loves Reagan, they never got signs saying that he was God or Jesus or the Messiah. If Reagan went as far to say that he was some angelic being, or if a leading GOP partisan-hack publication did what the NYT did and showed Reagan with a halo around him; it'd be laughed off the stage.

Obama wins hands down.

Click to expand...

..... When did Obama say he was angelic being?

He didn't. His enthralled masses did.

Hatuey said:

..... When did Obama say he was angelic being?

Click to expand...

"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.

As any theologian would tell you, there is only one type of being who has that sort of direct line to God.

We knew a lot about Reagan before he was elected. He was a California Governor and spokesman for GE where he went across the country giving speeches about America and he ran for President before being elected. All of these things put him squarely in the 'KNOWN QUANTITY' category.

Obama was barely known except for his two books and a year as Senator. His momentum came from his personality around which a cult developed.

Areopagitican said:

"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.

As any theologian would tell you, there is only one type of being who has that sort of direct line to God.

Click to expand...

Here is the full quote:

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack,"

Click to expand...

.... Still. No mention of Obama saying he was an angelic being. Just you making **** up. :shrug:

Hatuey said:

Here is the full quote:



.... Still. No mention of Obama saying he was an angelic being. Just you making **** up. :shrug:

Click to expand...

My job is to tell you that I will talk so well... A force of God will make you vote for me? What is that supposed to be? Secular? Atheistic?

If you read the Bible, perhaps you don't (your loss), it says that when the Apostles were able to talk so convincingly that they could convert the masses with just a single speech; that they were filled with (depending on your translation) angelic/holy/otherwise heavenly spirits.

Now, if Obama was a distinctly secular entity; if he had no Bible background, I'd let it go. But if you read the Gospels, for your whole life, and make speeches about calling down heavenly power with the charisma of your speech, then hell, you aren't calling yourself a run-of-the-mill human being.

You can't get more than 3 Republicans together without them starting a Reagan Circle Jerk, so I am going to have to say that Reagan has the bigger cult of personality thing going.

After all, every single Republican debate in 2008 started off with each candidate going into about how much they like Reagan, are like Reagan, and how much Reagan would like them. Mao did not have the kind of party devotion that Reagan enjoys. It is by far Reagan.

Reagan was a cult of personality, but he walked the walk. I do not see how he can be compared to Obama this way. Reagan was outspoken about smaller government and personal freedom, along with personal responsibility.

Yes, I know, Reagan did turn out to be a spender, but that spending resulted in the defeat of Communism. He bankrupted the Soviets, because they just were not able to keep up without wrecking their economy. THAT spending I can live with, as it made the world a safer place.

Obama, on the other hand, has not kept too many of his promises. I know that he inherited a huge mess from Bush, but he is actually making it worse. He is all personality and no substance, IMHO.

Areopagitican said:

My job is to tell you that I will talk so well... A force of God will make you vote for me? What is that supposed to be? Secular? Atheistic?

Click to expand...

What force of God? WHERE IS THE MENTION OF A FORCE OF GOD?

If you read the Bible, perhaps you don't (your loss), it says that when the Apostles were able to talk so convincingly that they could convert the masses with just a single speech; that they were filled with (depending on your translation) angelic/holy/otherwise heavenly spirits.

Click to expand...

Ah so apostles and politicians have a lot in common according to a book so vague people who believe in its word see God everywhere. What exactly is your point? That an apostle was a politician or that a politician is an apostle?

Now, if Obama was a distinctly secular entity; if he had no Bible background, I'd let it go. But if you read the Gospels, for your whole life, and make speeches about calling down heavenly power with the charisma of your speech, then hell, you aren't calling yourself a run-of-the-mill human being.

Click to expand...

Where did Obama say he'd call down heavenly power? Would you stop making **** up? Please? FFS? Try being a little honest in your life. Please?

danarhea said:

Reagan was a cult of personality, but he walked the walk. I do not see how he can be compared to Obama this way. Reagan was outspoken about smaller government and personal freedom, along with personal responsibility.

Yes, I know, Reagan did turn out to be a spender, but that spending resulted in the defeat of Communism. He bankrupted the Soviets, because they just were not able to keep up without wrecking their economy. THAT spending I can live with, as it made the world a safer place.

Obama, on the other hand, has not kept too many of his promises. I know that he inherited a huge mess from Bush, but he is actually making it worse. He is all personality and no substance, IMHO.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...

Have you visited the website PoliticFact.com? They keep track of all of Pres. Obama's campaign promises. So far, he has kept 108 promises, broken 19 and compromised on 34. I'd say that's a pretty good track record despite having 83 promises stalled, 257 in the works and 3 not yet rated.

As to this cultist personality issue, I'd have to give it to Obama only because he began to amass followers before he even became President.

We also have to remember that Republicans like Sarah Palin still have shrines of Reagan in their closet.

However, the cultish behavior is a lot more evident now with Obama. That doesn't make him better or worse though.

Gipper said:

It has to be Obama. Partisanship has to be involved, because left-wingers are automatically more known to cater to the "cult of personality" because they have Hollywood backing.

Click to expand...

That has to be one of the single most stupid things ever written on this board, ever.

I would tend to go with Reagan to answer the question. Obama ran on a left wing platform, and was supported by left wingers. Reagan ran on a small government platform, and presided the exact opposite way, and is still enshrined.

Hatuey said:

What force of God? WHERE IS THE MENTION OF A FORCE OF GOD?

Click to expand...

Oh, right, a light from the sky is just... What? An airplane? A helicopter? Maybe the police? Sorry, but what do you think of when someone talks of lights from the sky? UFO's?

Ah so apostles and politicians have a lot in common according to a book so vague people who believe in its word see God everywhere.

Click to expand...

"People?" See, that's irony because you talk of vagueness, through the use of "people." A fairly vague term in of itself.

What exactly is your point? That an apostle was a politician or that a politician is an apostle?

Click to expand...

Obama believes that he is filled with an angelic presence.

Where did Obama say he'd call down heavenly power? Would you stop making **** up? Please? FFS? Try being a little honest in your life. Please?

Click to expand...

Oh, right. Of course, I'm completely wrong. He was saying that he would use some of his secular ability to invoke a light beam from an UFO that would give people an appearance or manifestation, esp. of a deity (i.e. an epiphany).

Areopagitican said:

Oh, right. Of course, I'm completely wrong. He was saying that he would use some of his secular ability to invoke a light beam from an UFO that would give people an appearance or manifestation, esp. of a deity (i.e. an epiphany).

Click to expand...

When was this?

Areopagitican said:

Oh, right, a light from the sky is just... What? An airplane? A helicopter? Maybe the police? Sorry, but what do you think of when someone talks of lights from the sky? UFO's?

Click to expand...

Ah, so you think Obama was talking about himself being a heavenly being? And because he was clearly using hyperbole regarding how persuasive he must be, then he clearly is? Let me introduce you to the word hyperbole:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole]Hyperbole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɜrbəli/[1], from ancient Greek ὑπερβολή 'exaggeration') is a rhetorical device in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Hyperbole is used to create emphasis. It is a literary device often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. On occasion, Newspapers also use Hyperbole when talking of an accident to increase the impact of the article. This is more often found in Tabloid newspapers, who often exaggerate accounts of events to appeal to a wider audience.

In rhetoric, some opposites of hyperbole are meiosis, litotes, understatement, and bathos (the 'let down' after a hyperbole in a phrase).

Click to expand...

"People?" See, that's irony because you talk of vagueness, through the use of "people." A fairly vague term in of itself.

Click to expand...

If you knew how to read and actually understood what is being said you would see there is no vagueness in my use of the word 'People'. You spoke of people who read the Bible. That is who I was referring to when I quoted your words. Thus : 'a book so vague people who believe in its word see God everywhere'. See how that works? When you understand literary devices, follow conversations and have an average level of reading comprehension, you don't have to rely on soundbites to make cases. You can just debate something above a 6th grade understanding of spoken words.

Obama believes that he is filled with an angelic presence.

Oh, right. Of course, I'm completely wrong. He was saying that he would use some of his secular ability to invoke a light beam from an UFO that would give people an appearance or manifestation, esp. of a deity (i.e. an epiphany).

Click to expand...

Show us all proof? Your simpleton interpretation of clear hyperbole is not sufficient.