As anyone who has spent a month-long holiday with their parents knows, they sure do drive you nuts. It is not just their waking up at god-awful hours and pottering about (which they do) but every thing. EVERY THING. Take for instance, my father's views on Modi, the rockstar prime minister of India:
1. He is the first guy to really talk 'Change' and he is/will be a transformational figure.
2. People should not criticise him because you have to give the guy a chance.
3. And really, even if he doesn't manage to change anything, it is not his fault because a. he is just one man and he has to deal with a party of old-timers and b. the system is broken.
This "true believer" logic is unbreakable. He will change everything. But even if he doesn't, it is not him but others. And shut up.
What annoys me the most about this fanboy-ness (which everyone is entitled to - refer: John Green / I am giddy as a school girl) is the sort of I-am-above-this-ness that comes with it. Instead of admitting that yes, I fell for Modi hook line and sinker and think that he is the second coming of our Lord and Saviour, one poses as someone who doesn't have any skin in the game. I am just an objective observer and ye shall bow before my pronouncements.
The response and I have to admit that I hardly had the patience to be so clear is:
1. There have always been and will always be politicians campaigning on hope and change. Refer Kevin Rudd, Barack Obama for two of the most recent examples. This is because people want change and they want hope that things will change. And it is not cynical to suggest that politicians want to sell them exactly that. If people want puppy sized elephants, you can bet your ass that the politician will campaign on how he always supported puppy sized elephants and free puppy sized elephants for all.
2. Just as it is valid that people do not criticise Modi before he has had a chance to do anything, it is perfectly acceptable, why, even necessary, that he be not praised for something that he has not achieved. To be fair to the guy, the higher the pedestal, the further he falls.
And we don't need people shushing the naysayers. Firstly there are too few of them compared to the vocal and loud supporters. Secondly, some of the naysayers are not actually naysayers but just wait-a-minuters, who are merely asking a question about some tall claim or talking about actual policy positions. We need more people to criticise and question the government to have any sort of balance with the unbirdled euphoria of the yesmen.
3. I have some sympathy for the politician who promises the sky and can't deliver. Obama peddled hope and change and he turned out to be a big nothing. His meagre achievements are only partially due to the corrupt system or intransigent opposition. There is a lot of inertia built into the political process such that no one person can either do great harm or great good. But there is no fun in campaigning that I will be better than average president. But it is important that one has the ability to call out the emperor when he has no clothes. The "true believer" is a problem because he sees everything through the prism of his hero-worship; my leader is pure and unimpeachable but it is the others. We also saw the Democrats switch their positions from "Bush is an evil war-criminal to wiretap on citizens" to "Sometimes it is necessary to kill our own citizens because Obama says so".
Well! at the end of the day, Meh!
Also
this
