In which lambert apologizes, once again, for being prematurely correct
Heads of government having movements organized around them as individuals - rather than having to deal with independent social movements - is something lots of autocratic developing world countries have experience with (think huge murals with pictures of leaders - seems similar to the Obama murals doesn't it?). We may have had presidents who were products of movements before (ie. Reagan), but we've never had presidents who are individual movements unto themselves. It's exciting that the movement could push the progressive whims of the Dear Leader ...
[Reach me some more of that honeymoon cake, wouldja hon?]
... but also frightening, in that it could serve to defend the government from pressure (and as a side note, those who tried to use the election to organize around issues, rather than around individual candidates, were largely attacked in the blogosphere and elsewhere for trying to do that [ahem] - so in that sense the blogosphere [oh, really?] helped create this quandary we're now in).
Mass movements based on the charisma of one individual, and seeking national unity; what could go wrong?
Can we please remember the wise words of Madison: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." And no political parties either, I might add.