Please Stop Saying "Inaugural Balls"

I'm at home today, and I just walked past the TV where one of those morning "news" programs are discussing "fun and inexpensive ways to throw your own inauguration party." Trappings include drinks named after the president-elect (an "Obamatini"), presidential trivia, and a life-size cutout of our new Presidential Overlord. There are also American flags... everywhere.

My feelings about this are pretty mixed. I mean, on the surface, the kind of overwhelming support for the new guy is probably a good thing. There will be less infighting in Congress when new legislation is passed (at least for awhile), and any initiatives he announces will be taken up more quickly than if he'd won with a 50.1% margin. Volunteers and job seekers have flocked to D.C. to be a part of the new administration in numbers that are rarely seen. And these aren't your College Democrats; scientists and lawyers and all sorts of people are applying for jobs in the administration. AND it's not just the elitist northeastern news shows that are all up on his nuts, either, since (according to CNN) six in ten Republicans have a favorable view of Obama.

On the other hand, does "cult of personality" mean anything to anyone? It seems like the populist media (not the "news" media, which is pretty even-handed) is playing to the high poll numbers by discussing whether Obama is "Amazing" or "Awesome," but since most people formulate their opinions through populist media, it definitely puts an image in people's minds that is difficult to shake. If the image of female anchors on "Good Morning, America" hanging all over cardboard cutouts of the new president doesn't give you pause, well... it should.

Now, there's a huge difference between the cult of personality in history (see: go-to examples of evil dictators) and what's going on now: namely, that Obama has (relatively) nothing to do with the unrelenting showering of praise. In America, despite what a lot of people think, the press is free to say whatever they want about politicians. The catch-22 is that the press also wants to say what people want to hear, so that papers get sold and websites get hit and media gets consumed. Thus, if people are hating on Bush, then the media has a lot of Bush-hating stories. The stories are true, of course, but they don't present a whole picture, since there's a lot of things Bush has done which don't suck (AIDS funding, for example). Conversely, media coverage of Obama has been pretty positive, because people have a high opinion of him (and not because of coercion of the media outlets, which is a big difference). But there are a bunch of things (retraction of FISA during the campaign,

Now, I'm an Obama supporter. I think it would be a little cynical to suggest that the only reason he gets positive press is because of his popularity. He seems to be making swift moves to put a lot of his campaign talk into action; at least, as much as he can without being president. In the next few weeks we'll see how much of it has been posturing and how much will be real. Until then, everyone should keep their heads.

(Side note: CNN.com's front page, at 9:30 AM, has the requisite set of news stories talking about the inauguration and the significance of this year's MLK day. And then there's a story whose title reads, "Going With The Flow: Learn why people tend to go along with the majority view, even when it's wrong." I can't make this stuff up.)

(Side note #2: After Israel and Hamas decided to fuck the shit out of Gaza, people observed that they were probably getting their last licks in before Bush leaves office. I thought that was a little silly, but if you're someone who espoused that view, another headline on CNN reads: "Israel: We'll exit Gaza by time Obama sworn in." Seriously.)