Conservatives are still wandering stunned through the wreckage of the Bush presidency and have absented themselves from the policy debate. GOP politicians are hunkered down waiting for an anti-Obama backlash that may or may not materialize. Instead, as Rick Hertzberg wrote recently, the media personalities are running the show. And what a show:
The protesters do not look to politicians for leadership. They look to niche media figures like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and their scores of clones behind local and national microphones. Because these figures have no responsibilities, they cannot disappoint. Their sneers may be false and hateful -- they all routinely liken the President and the "Democrat Party" to murderous totalitarians -- but they are employed by large, nominally respectable corporations and supported by national advertisers, lending them a considerable measure of institutional prestige. The dominant wing of the Republican Party is increasingly an appendage of the organism -- the tail, you might say, though it seems to wag more often from fear than from happiness. Many Republican officeholders, even some reputed moderates like Senator Chuck Grassley, of Iowa, have obediently echoed the foul nonsense.
As a group, politicians have incentives to be cautious -- you know, politic -- in their public statements. (There are, of course, exceptions.) But for media personalities, all the incentives point in the opposite direction. The more outrageous Limbaugh is, the more buttons he pushes, the higher the ratings and the more money he makes. In a Today show interview, Limbaugh forswore any leadership role with the GOP while boasting of his ability to monopolize media coverage for days on end. During which, it should be noted, the media isn't going to be paying much attention to John Boehner.
And when loudmouthed demagogues dominate the political discussion, it drives politicians further away from substantive debate, as they may be forced to pander to the most impassioned, red meat-devouring segments of the electorate.
All of this is to say, on the right there's an inordinate focus on emotion and personalities that makes a real political debate impossible. One symptom of this is the right's peculiar fixation on Obama's personality and motivations -- or rather, their imaginary versions of those things. To the conservosphere, Obama is a smug, preening narcissist, a character in a right-wing morality play, full of hubris and headed for a fall -- any fall will do. When that happens the whole moral universe momentarily aligns itself with what is right and good.
Hence conservatives' bizarre jubilation when Chicago lost its Olympic bid after Obama flew to Copenhagen and personally lobbied for it, and the view that Obama's self-regard had finally done him in. George Will claimed -- incorrectly, it turns out -- that Obama's Olympic speech contained an inordinate number of first-person pronouns and snarked about narcissism as "an Olympic sport."
Then last week, the Nobel Peace Prize spawned a thousand "narcissist" blog posts. conservative pundit Lisa Schiffren wrote: "Aides owe the president a dose of reality. Otherwise, the prize may exacerbate his vanity and narcissism, which are his most visible flaws, and inflate his cult of personality, which won't create jobs or end wars." At the Corner, Yuval Levin called it a Nobel Prize for Narcissism.
The problem with the Obama-the-narcissist idea is that Obama is not a narcissist. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is defined as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy." But there's very little evidence for this, at least in the public face Obama presents.
All presidents have big egos -- and they're entitled, right? But that's not the same as narcissism. I'm not a psychologist, but Obama seems like a pretty mature individual -- certainly more psychologically "together" than many of his immediate predecessors. And his policies are ambitious, certainly, but not grandiose. Many presidents have attempted health care reform, for example, and Obama's approach -- to build on and alter the current system rather than setting up a new one -- may not be ambitious enough. Levin and other conservatives say it's grandiose to try to leverage Obama's global popularity with speeches such as his Cairo address. But the White House would be crazy not to try this. It doesn't mean they think those words will change the world all by themselves.
Nor is there an Obama "cult of personality." Obama has done a lot to anger those on his left flank. They're disillusioned at his "isms" -- his centrism, pragmatism, incrementalism, and institutionalism. And those in the political center, who should most identify with his program, aren't too pleased with him either. Nobody's worshipping Obama anymore, if they ever did. Rather, polls show a majority of Americans personally like Obama. Last month, the WSJ-NBC poll put that figure at 71%, regardless of whether respondents approved or disapproved of his policies.
But conservatives personally dislike him. So they have ginned up an ex-post facto reason for that -- if we don't like him, he must be psychologically flawed. This is oddly reminiscent of Maureen Dowd's trivializing approach to politics -- pretend to know a politician intimately, take a few personality tics and spin them into a unified theory of psycho-political dysfunction that has at best a tenuous correspondence to reality. This is silly. If conservatives want to win back power, they should focus on issues. They could start by kicking Obama off the analyst's couch and taking a spin on it themselves.
Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement
6. is interpersonally exploitative
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
This list fits Sarah Palin much better than it fits BHO.
Again, the right wing is all about projection.
I voted for Obama based upon the point of view he shared in his books and from the campaign web page. They were his sales literature, designed, by him, to set expectations of the "product" he offered. For me, he defined his goals and principles, his "product", and what he would achieve. There was no mention that he would just try a little bit and compromise on everything.
Politics in America has become a series of purposefully flawed arguments - sleight of hand to avoid discussion of the issues. Ad hominem attacks are the norm, as you point out Maureen Dowd has a whole column in the NYTimes based on them. Politicians and journalists use a series of logical fallacies designed to persuade the weak minded.
I don't much care if Obama has a narcissitic personality disorder or not. I take it as a rule that to want to even run for the Presidency an individual must have a strong ego.
For me, I care about execution and outcomes - results. Execution is everything. Results matter.
Obama has been a professional politician most all his adult life. He was a member of the U.S. Senate for a few weeks before he began his quest for the Presidency. His term as President is almost 20% over. Time for Obama to stop sounding like George Bush - "working hard", "it's hard work".
Time for Obama to stand and deliver.
Who but a raving narcissist would want to be President? You'd have to be either a mad narcissist like Obama and JFK, or a zombie like GW Bush. Imagine haveing to deal with 550 Congressmen, most of whom are fanatics, crooks, idiots or all three, in order to get anything done. No sane person would want the job!
Now i"d like to take a leaf from the old Roman's book and be Dictator for a year. Or even a day! Long enuf to have all the Rethuglican politicians, talk show kings, evangelists etc, , executed for high treason, war crimes, crimes against humanity, stealing nine trillion dollars from the taxpayers, wrecking the economy, and general a--hole-ishness,And then maybe telling the Dim-ocrat pols to go get honest jobs, they were utterly useless in office!
Of course, I my not be entirely sane. But at least I admit it. And if eliminating the Greedpublicans and Dimocrats wouldnt eliminate all of America's problems, it would be a dam good start. its like you have cancer. Getting rid of the cancer wont put you back in perfect health, but you HAVE to get rid of the cancer before you do anything else, or the cancer will kill you!
The question is, are the American people too hopelessly stupid to figure out what the truth is?
As someone who believes in Evolution, I think that this new kind of intelligence war will weed out the stupid people in America, that is, unless the conditions get so bad that we end up with a French-Revolution style uprising complete with Guillotines.
We're definitely at a crossroads, we must choose between TRUTH and the propaganda of the lobbyists, Limbaughs, Hannity's, and Savage's. We have a broken political system and the entire world will all suffer for our neglect of our precious Democracy.
Politicians of any colour need to realize that they work for US: - Not THE US but US, the people. I know there is very little left of a democracy here. After our government raised and kissed dictators all around the globe it is high time we realize that that is not merely undemocratic. - It is antidemocratic. And what we have now is the rule of the ones with the money. They took it by fraud. They took it ba war and massmurder. They took it by torture and letting people starve. And it is time we realize that profit is the worst kind of rule there is.
The GOP does NOT belong on the couch. They belong in jail. Corruption is by its very nature a danger to demovracy. Just look where else corruption on the level we have now existed. Nazi Germany jumps to mind. - And I always get goosbumps when someone says "WE ARE NUMBER ONE AND SHOULD RULE THIS PLANET" - becaus that is EXACTLY what Germany thought. - And we actually think we are better than they were. - It gives me the creeps.
Democracy is not just voting for one of teo corrupt politicians. It is ruling through majority. And the majority of our nation wants bank to obey rules, health plan, jobs, and security. - And NOT security from terrorists WE trained but from the driminals who trained them.
He is a decent, realistic, humble and committed public servant.
Enough of this B.S. already!
Discussing narcicism at this point is playing into their hands. Especailly if You oppose them. because that is the point when they see you defending something they attacked. So they will go on attacking.
Tell them what You think about their policies or corruption or profit being the ine and only rule. But do NOT defend something they attack. Because at that point they rule the discussion by their vile blatherings.
The biggest problem is that he's neither Kunta Kinte nor Step n Fetchit; so he totally blows the imagery, meme and playbook for the purveyors of hatred and discord.
They don't know what to do with him; how to handle him. And from a power perspective, that's very troublesome and problematic. So they seek every day, in every way, to bring him down.
He keeps telling them, and they keep missing it -- this thing is not about Obama. It's much bigger than him -- and them.
Is Obama a narcissist? I think not. But his constant detractors are cave men if they can't see the writing on the walls. The times -- they are a changin'.
Thanks to you both.
He is pretty much representative of modern day naval gazing, self obsessed culture.
That Republicans chose to lump decades together, declare that he is a "rock star" (in a failed strategy to belittle him by comparing him to Britney and others), and then call that "proof" of narcissism is disingenuous at best. I think THEY are far more obsessed with him than HE is.
He KNOWS who is is. They just wish it were not so.
Obama is incredibly obsessed with himself, that is stating the obvious. You cannot argue that because you know it is true, so prefer to throw ridiculous insults around based on your assumption that everybody who fails to see him as the saint he is portrayed must be a right winger, republican etc....
I remember when everybody who failed to idolize George Bush was labeled a crazy left wing lunatic, anarchist, commie.