As my colleague, Denise Williams, reported this weekend in an excellent piece entitled "The Cult of Obama?", the latest talking point against Barack Obama's candidacy is that his followers are "creepy" and "cult-like." Almost immediately, these same types of arguments were being copied and pasted all over our message boards by Hillary Clinton's supporters.

The same smear was used successfully against Ron Paul's candidacy, albeit combined with a seemingly willful determination by the mainstream media to completely ignore or glibly dismiss Paul's many successes. It worked because, for Paul's supporters, the argument was an inescapable trap. The only way to spread the message of their underdog candidate was to evangelize. The more they fought against the zealot label, the more zealous they seemed. The more they tried to point out the "Paul Blackout", the more paranoid they sounded.

This latest in a collection of smears against Obama feels similarly elegant, at first blush, but it is doomed to failure. After the jump, I'll explain why, and examine the true cult that exists in American politics today.

Update: Response to comments at the end.

(Article continues below)

A friend of mine, interestingly named Rod Paul, produced a TV movie called "Blinded by the Light" in 1980, long before I knew him, but the film made an indelible impression on me. When I found out Rod had produced it, I was astonished at the coincidence. The film tells the story of a young woman's attempt to free her brother from a quasi-religious cult, and the thing that fascinated me was the set of methods used by the cult to manipulate new members that the film's "deprogrammers" described.

In the film, Kristy McNichol infiltrates the cult, armed with this foreknowledge. The first thing they do is shower her with attention and affection, telling her what she wants to hear. As the long tour of the compound continues, they continually delay her from eating a meal or resting, the first steps in gaining a measure of control through subtle deprivations. When these things are finally provided, a dependence on the cult is established.

As the cult gradually provides and controls more basic necessities, a feeling of gratitude is fostered. This is the portal by which the subject is convinced to share all of their worldly possessions. It's a frighteningly simple method. From there, the cult isolates the subject from the rest of society, controlling and providing information, and therefore, truth. Adherents will hold these truths unquestioningly, in the face of all rational opposition.

Now, Obama is undeniably telling a lot of people what they want to hear, but that's pretty much where the comparison ends. In the case of Ron Paul, the comparison was equally spurious, but buttressed by the zealotry and small size of his following. The cult comparison completely falls apart for Obama when you view the size and breadth of his following. A key characteristic of cults is a relatively small, isolated following.

Also hurting Ron Paul in that argument was the fact that his ideas, whether you like them or not, are out of the mainstream of political thought, making them easier to marginalize. Obama, on the other hand, has tapped into an electorate that has figured out that Universal Healthcare is more than a good idea, it's a moral imperative, and that the Iraq War must end, and that waiting for economic benefits to "triclke down" makes for a parched existence.

What this "cult" smear really is, is an attempt to re-encrypt the coded racism of other smears that failed to gain traction. From Denise's article:

There is a politician today who merits a stronger comparison to the cult model, one who has a small but diehard following despite evidence that their material sacrifices are not benefiting them, whose policies have led to deprivations of sleep and food, whose followers depend on an isolated source for all of their information. Luckily, that cult's mothership arrives on January 20, 2009.

First, let me say, Kristen, you are obviously the smartest and best person on this thread, congratulations! OK, David G write:

Now, DavidG is an avid reader of The Political Machine, so I found it really hard to believe that he hadn't read examples of my writing that fit his bill, as they are among my most popular stories ever. Still, David, you deserve an answer. I cannot answer for my fellow bloggers, but I, myself, have made an extreme effort to treat all of the candidates, even Rudy Giuliani, fairly.

First of all, I have ripped Obama on Healthcare in several stories since the South Carolina debate. I also spoke strongly against him for failing to quash the furor over the "MLK/LBJ" remarks. I have written countless articles in defense of Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney, because despite my policy differences with each of them, it was apparent to me that they were being treated unfairly.

I guess it all depends on your definition of "negative" or "positive." My aim is to be fair. In fairness to you, the phenomenon you observe is real, but I am not the guy you want to target for that criticism. You can click on the little blue "Tommy Christopher" under any one of my stories, and read what I've written. I will provide you with a few examples here. With the exception of the last one, which I include because it is my favorite, these are all stories you have commented on, David.