Do you hate Obama? I blame the Lion King.

Today on The Stephanie Miller Show, a listener called in to express her dislike for Obama and explain why she was planning on voting for Mitt Romney.

She explained that she was struggling financially. She used to consider herself “middle class,” but no longer. She spoke at length about the employment problems, medical problems, and overall financial difficulties that affected her and her entire family.

The hosts on the show tried to dig a little deeper. John Fugelsang said, “So… that makes you want to vote for the guy who is going to give tax breaks to rich people?”  Stephanie Miller asked, “So how will voting for Mitt Romney benefit you?”  Of course, in my own mind, I was also thinking, “What part of all of your problems do you think are President Obama’s fault?”

The caller sputtered and talked around the topic, and eventually the show ran out of time. None of these questions was ever answered. The caller never explained the train of thought that lead from “I am experiencing economic hardship” to “I dislike Obama and want to vote for Romney.”

But I know the answer.

I blame The Lion King.

In case you are not familiar with the story-line, let me recap for you:

King Scar.The story opens with Mufasa as King. Mufasa is kind and wise. Everything is bright and sunny, people have food, and the kingdom is generally well-off.

Then, through trickery and treachery, his evil brother Scar becomes king. Now, there is poverty in the land. Things are dark and everyone is depressed, hungry, and suffering.

Finally, at the very end, Mufasa’s son Simba becomes King. Simba is good-hearted, and suddenly the land prospers again. People are happy, the weather is good, and everyone has food.

There is no discussion about what Simba might have done to cause the country to be more prosperous. There is nothing that told us what Scar was doing to make everything so miserable while he was King. The only conclusion we can come to is that because a bad, evil person was King, people ran out of food and began to suffer. At the end of the movie, there is no indication that Simba might have had successful policies that made things better; instead, the suggestion is that because Simba is a good person (or rather, a good lion), everyone is automatically happy and the land is prosperous.


On some very deep–maybe even subconscious–level, I think this is how people’s minds work.

People don’t really understand policy or the structure of our government. People don’t fully understand what limits there are on the President’s power, or what processes are involved in changing the way things work in society. People don’t even fully understand the relationship between policies and how they translate into there being more or less food on the table at the end of the day.

What people understand is this: There is a Leader. If the leader is good, then everything will be good; if the leader is bad, then everything will be bad. And of course, the corollary to that kind of reasoning is this: if things are bad, then it must be because the leader is a “bad person.”

That is the message of The Lion King.

Now, I’m not saying that people think this way because of  the movie The Lion King. I think people have been thinking this way for a very long time. The story-line of The Lion King is more of a symptom than a cause: it reflects a very deep collective subconscious desire and belief:

“A good King will make things good, a bad King will make things bad, and screw the details.”

This is the “Lion King mentality.”

And it unless we start pointing it out to people, it could decide the next election.

5 views shared on this article. Join in...

  1. Proud Poor Republican says:

    You obviously didn’t see the ending because the land flourished and the animals were happy and it was all green after Simba took over, not just because Simba is nice. Typical of liberals to leave out crucial details.

    -23 year old poor Republican who doesn’t qualify for any kind of government help despite being it, but yet still loves this country

    • Greg Stevens says:

      Thanks for your comment! I did see the ending of the movie, and that is part of what I thought was so interesting: everything DID turn out fine, but the movie didn’t particularly spell out why everything suddenly was fine… except, of course, for the fact that Simba is a “good” character.

      Maybe I missed it. Can you tell me where, in the movie, it explained exactly what policies his government put into place that resulted in there being more food, more sunshine, and all-around general happiness? I didn’t catch those details.

  2. Todd says:

    Do you really believe in any of these politictians. Obama has spent more money than every single president before him combined,and he is slowly taking constitutional rights away. Obamacare for one, is so unconstitutional that they had to change the word penalty to tax. Then there is the NDAA bill. A federal judge ruled that uncontitutional, but then they had his ruling overturned. I hate to say it, but you are very one dimensional, just like most people who choose a political side in this country. You fall into a stereotype,bleeding heart liberal. There is virtually very little difference in the two parties. Ron Paul said that we need a second party, or option in this country. I think this to be true. Certain types of people, normally alway vote the same, and it’s usually backed by some superficial belief.

  3. Simon says:

    It comes with the territory, Greg. The conservatives have been warning people about things like entitlement and “the culture of dependency”. Well…here it is. We ask government to manage every little problem we think is important. And, as is entirely logical, we then blame government (or whoever they hate within it) when our lives are miserable. You can look forward to more of this. This is a central aspect of libertarianism: that you stand on your own two feet and pull your own weight and be responsible for your own choices. That’s pretty much gone bye bye.
    The problem with the Lion King is the suggestion that there needs to be some ruler making sure everything is in order. Without the authority…oh, excuse me…”leader”…the animals would have no choice but to blame themselves for whatever mess they’ve gotten into, and also pat themselves on the back for whatever they’ve accomplished.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      The “libertarian hypothesis” is an interesting one, I will admit.

      “stand on your own two feet and pull your own weight and be responsible for your own choices.”

      So let me ask you this: if you are born as an indentured servant to a corporation because your parents took out a loan from them that they were unable to pay back, which “choices” will you be able to make that will allow you to feel “responsible” for the type of life that you are able to live?

      Now, you might object, and say that in Libertarian Land, there are no indentured servants, people cannot sign agreements that lead to complete servitude, and the debt owed by parents cannot be passed on to their children.

      But I would then have to ask this: how would such things be prevented? Without a powerful, authoritarian government, who would PREVENT people from signing a contract that said, “I or my children will work for you indefinitely until and unless I can pay you back $X”?

      There will always be people who will do desperate things and sign desperate contracts that are not within their own interests. You might say “They suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions!” …. but the simple fact is, people also can enter into contracts that affect OTHER people’s lives (like their childrens’).

      And without laws and government and regulation, there will be nothing to stop that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these tags : <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trending Articles

Keep up with my writing!You will only be notified about new articles. No ads, no petitions, no digests, no nonsense.