Is the direction of the masses a good path to follow?  Who are “the masses” anyway and what superior wisdom do they possess?  In some ways, the masses exist in the same realm as the “wrong crowd.”   Just as no one’s kid who gets in trouble is ever the “wrong crowd” (it is always someone else), similarly, no group participant would ever claim to be a part of an indistinguishable mass–they would instead claim individuality.  Though an accurate definition of “the masses” is difficult, the connotation is almost always negative.  Are the masses always misguided?  Not necessarily.  The error occurs when one follows the crowd simply because it is a crowd, with no investigation into where the throng is going and who it is following. 

In this political season the magnetic pull of the masses easily draws in those who are not nor have been rooted in any ideological mode—hence the multiple births of new voters stirred by the excitement generated by Obama—the new kid on the Washington block.   Though I detest giving Hitler any credit, he did understand the makeup of the masses:  “the political understanding of the broad masses is far from being highly enough developed to arrive at definite general political views of their own accord and [to] seek out the suitable personalities” (Mein Kampf).  In other words, the masses ain’t too smart.  Many are too busy or uninterested to do any serious study of a candidate’s ideas, choosing rather to let whim and “good feelings” be their guide.  So when a young (black) man captures the attention of the press and he is attracting large crowds, what’s not to like.  The uninformed stand back and say, “Wow!  I’m voting for him!”

That Hitler understood the power of utilizing the momentum of the masses is an understatement.  Knowing how to manipulate the crowds (however altruistic the manipulator may view himself) baits the hook that draws the fish.  According to Hitler, “the power which has always started the greatest religious and political avalanches in history rolling has from time immemorial been the magic power of the spoken word, and that alone” (Mein Kampf).  Obama has capitalized on that one bit of truth.  No one would deny that Obama can sermonize, but does eloquence replace perspicacity?  No, it doesn’t, but try telling that to the throngs, most of whom know very little about this man and what he truly stands for.

I don’t fear Obama as much as I fear the gullibility of the masses who have been enthralled with oratory and newness at the expense of asking the tough questions.  After all, a day at the rock concert is much more fun than a day doing research.  “Well, he can’t be all that bad; look at the crowds following him.”  That type of logic takes us down the Jonestown path dripping with Kool-aid.  Understanding how the manipulators manipulate and how the propagandizers propagandize keeps us from succumbing to the undertow stirred up by the masses.  Hitler understood that “all great movements are popular movements, volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotional sentiments, stirred either by the cruel Goddess of Distress or by the firebrand of the word hurled among the masses” (Mein Kampf).  When you have both the Goddess of Distress (Bush=disaster)  and  the firebrand  (eloquent aggrandizing), the masses are kissing your feet.

In countries without a free press, this type of manipulation goes on unchecked.  In our country, reporters are free to investigate those who make claims and desire a life of public service.   The only hiccup in this American distinction occurs because members of the press are also voters and most of them are Democrats.  Unfortunately, the liberal media is spending most of their time cooling their feet in the swift current of Obama’s rhetoric and his swooning masses rather than probing potential serious flaws.  The brilliance of a free press should not be squandered for political expediency. Candidates naturally are uncomfortable underneath the microscope, but voters deserve the investigation.   Danger ensues when “the Press” becomes “Press-lite” for the mere fact that the goal of electing one candidate over the other squelches serious investigative reporting.  Ignoring the obligation to fully report, question, probe, and scrutinize even the most favored candidate creates little distinction between America and a dictatorship. 

It is understandable that Democrats would assemble themselves en masse behind Barrack Obama, but the worrisome part about this growing mass of followers is how easily evangelicals (and even some Republicans) are sacrificing their beliefs at the altar of popularity.  Those who would never have supported a pro-choice candidate (or a candidate who supports gay marriage) have suddenly bought into the notion that Obama represents them as a Christian regardless of what he believes.  Some are getting goose bumps; some are feeling that the promise of unity is more important; some are stirred by his eloquence; some hear magic in the mention of the word “change.”  Evangelicals once stood as a dependable voting block on the social issues, but now the willingness of some to back a candidate that does not even remotely embody their beliefs has revealed a hypocrisy to which they will forever be identified.  The evangelical march to join the masses (thus becoming indistinguishable) will result in one less camp that a candidate will feel compelled to pursue, hence the evangelical demise as a political force.