The enigma that is Barack Obama grows day by day. Contradiction after contradiction, abrupt gear shifts, perpetual motion that never reaches a destination. 'Obscene' Wall Street bonuses suddenly transmute into well earned rewards for a good guy golfing buddy; the imperative to act boldly on the jobs crisis means placing it the callous hands of Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley of health care fame; the plotting of exit strategies from Afghanistan by 2011 becomes a 'long as we have to' occupation. All these contrapuntal reversals against a sound track of non-stop exhortation and a restless shuttling from one photo-op to another. Who is this guy, anyway?
A few elements of Obama's personality are now evident: a strong narcissistic streak, an ingrained sense of superiority, a nimbleness - intellectual and political - enabled by the incredible lightness of his conviction about anything, an audacious ambition yet no gumption for a fight. Behind these traits, there is something even more basic discernible. Obama is two people, one superimposed on the other. The visible, surface man is the epitome of an enlightened, Ivy League, socially responsible liberal. This is Obama the community organizer (albeit an exceptionally non-confrontational one), Obama the African American political activist who attends Jeremiah Wright's cosmopolitan church, Obama the orator who routinely hits the high 'Cs' of the call to conscience, Obama the optimist who appeals to, and for the better angels of our idealistic American selves. This is Obama the African-American who moved enough voters to be elected President of the United States.
To this portrait, we must juxtapose the other Barack Obama - the Barack Obama who has surfaced as he quickly shed his 'liberal' skin amidst the trappings of the White House. This other personality, I contend, is the underlying one - truer to the man's core nature. This is the Obama who twice in his young career sought out positions in big corporate law firms; this is the Obama who was raised by three Kansans who instilled in him conservative heartland values; this is the Obama who relishes wealth and what it can buy; this is the Obama who feels more at ease with his Wall Street buddies (Jaime Dimon, et al) playing golf than with anyone of the Move On American crowd; this is the Obama who chose as his trusted confidant that unscrupulous, liberals-be-damned fixer - Rahm Emanuel; this is the Obama who absorbed the spirit of Ronald Reagan's America he himself has said stands as the model of inspirational leadership.
Far-fetched? Let's take a clear eyed look at what President Obama actually has done and said. He placed his supposedly signature health care reform initiative in the hands of those dedicated to thwarting it, he has curried favor with the criminally incompetent financial establishment, he orphaned the proposal to help underwater homeowners through the bankruptcy courts, he stiffed the trade unions on the loosening of rules for organizing workers, he has retained all of Bush's policies on surveillance, he has refused the slightest chastisement of the CIA and their mercenaries, he has retained Bush's practice of Executive statements interpreting legislation, he has followed a behind closed doors style of policy-making, he has followed the Pentagon hawks in escalating the war in Afghanistan, he has made repeated advances toward the evangelical right. This is the behavioral pattern of a deeply conservative personality and conventional thinker who tips his hat to every establishment he encounters.
The evidence supports my thesis that this latter Obama is the truer personality, and that it has liberated itself now that the man is at the apex of his achieved ambition. There is, of course, a more prosaic explanation of Obama's repudiation of the ideas and outlook that won him the White House. It argues that his about faces and incongruous acts merely reflect practical political calculations. That argument does not stand up to scrutiny, though. First, Obama's conduct in the White House has severely weakened his political position to the point where he managed to resuscitate a moribund Republican Party while putting at risk reelection of the Democratic Congress and himself. Second, Obama initiated most of these reversals in the early months of his administration when he was still riding high in the polls and had every opportunity to take the initiative.
The unhappy conclusion is that we have in Obama a President who is what we used to call a moderate Republican before the species became extinct. Moreover, someone who is very much a man of his times - those times being the 1980s and 1990s. That means suspicions of government programs (last week Obama declared that New Deal thinking wasn't applicable to day's problems), a strong belief that we should always give private interests the benefit of the doubt, an assumption that the rich deserve their riches, and an insensitivity to the plight of salaried Americans (Obama's push for a Bipartisan Commission to recommend budget cutting measures to be voted 'up or down' by Congress clearly had Social Security in its sights). Abroad, Obama is ready to deploy military might in dubious causes defined by the country's hawkish defense establishment.
The implication for progressives? Let Barack Obama know in no unspoken terms that if he wants to revel in the White House for a full eight years he has to garb himself in that old liberal persona.
http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2010/02/the_hypnotist.html
In the US the elite govern with a set of biases that are somewhat contradictory. But the main thrust is to govern with a bias toward the successful, with a belief either in meritocracy (liberalism, moderation) or class privilege (conservatism) . Is is any surprise that the elitists Obama believes that you should get what you "deserve" and that the structural inequality in the US should be ignored?
It is easy to blend all this with liberal and progressive rhetoric but not with a progressive politics that would honestly face why income inequality has grown so severe in the US, why jobs for those not in the elite are shrinking, why we are engaged in perpetual war, why our financial system causes one bubble/crash after another.
A moderate Republican does indeed govern with a bias toward the upper middle class and with a concern, a fair legal system, good manners, some upward mobility, and an openness to people from every background who have "earned" their money and status. But that's about it.
In case the Dems in congress are listening, here’s how you do that.
HUDDLE UP!
The Dems in Congress meet in private, like a huddle.
You discuss what you’re going to do in private, reach a consensus, and call the play.
Then you step back on the floor, (Break), and ya RUN TNE PLAY as a team TOGETHER.
Your now like a football team that lines up,
the running backs crying “I don’t want to run again because that line couldn’t punch a whole thru a wet paper bag”,
the tight end is screaming “why should I block, it should have been a pass play”
a lineman is whining “we should pass, pass blocking is easier”
and after you finished telling the other team what the play is,
but before you get the ball snapped, the play clock runs out!
Got it? OK
BREAK!
Now go run the darn play, together as a team, and GET SOMETHING DONE!
Ponder this:
McCain/Palin in 2008 pulled ahead of Obama for a few weeks when “drill baby drill” took hold and McCain said he would build 50 new Nuclear Plants in response to Global Warming.
Obama retook the lead by co-opting that message by basically saying ME TOO over and over. He repeated support for new Nuclear plants and more US oil from new areas in the State of the Union speech.
Fast forward to 2012.
If no new areas are being drilled and no new Nuclear plants have broken ground and Palin (or anyone else, he is now in a tie with a generic GOP opponent) running against him says: “Vote for me and I’ll open new areas for drilling (drill baby drill) and build new Nuclear power plants”, what chance will Obama have?
He can’t say Vote for me because that’s a bad idea, because that’s what he said he would do.
He can’t say I tried but it’s too hard, because that’s admitting he is not up to the job.
I cannot think of anything Obama could say that would save him.
I do not think “Vote for me I’ll do that too (I really, really mean it this time) will work again.
Why can't Dems HELP him with his agenda? He gets more pushback from Dems than anyone else. The GOP is sitting on their hands, and why not, circular firing squads are best watched from a distance!
"McCain/Palin in 2008 pulled ahead of Obama for a few weeks when “drill baby drill” took hold and McCain said he would build 50 new Nuclear Plants in response to Global Warming.
Obama retook the lead by co-opting that message by basically saying ME TOO over and over. He repeated support for new Nuclear plants and more US oil from new areas in the State of the Union speech."
Since you called me out on a few issues, shall we continue the debate.
The house bill has a public option, and the president never promise this bill would cover everyone. Nevertheless, it did cover 96 percent of Americans. I don’t think his goal was to take over health care. I really believe he feels we are in dire need of health care and due to job loss and illness most cannot afford it.
If more people buy into health care the cost would go down. I don’t believe in mandated health insurance, but most American will purchase insurance at some point in their life time.
It got pretty ugly at times, but they were looking at the end game, and trying everything to get there. The President meant no harm.
The demise of American democracy (large D and small) is complete.
At this stage, we can only fight losing battle after losing battle.
The question is will we.
For myself, I cannot say at this time.
But between now and the November election, I believe I will have
seen either the end or Democracy and the Democrats or a reason
to fight and lose.
Right now, I can see no reason to fight on, as there are no representatives
of the people in Congress or in the White House ....
and, those who are there, simply do not care.
"A few elements of Obama's personality are now evident: a strong narcissistic streak, an ingrained sense of superiority..."
This would be silly if it didn't identify him as Modified Limited Hangout (that's an intel term... look it up). Brenner is a Neocon airing liberal grievances to inject some disinfo.
Tabula rasa, Michael. Well done. Bormann is proud.
Then they will turn around and expect the President to happily carryout their litle agenda. It is so unbelievable.
As a person that support the President 100 percent, I wish you wouldn't vote for him. If he lose, it would be with the people that supported him.
I would hate to go thru another 4 years of he tricked, hoodwinked, deceived me into voting for him again. Take your vote in hand and leave this party. Have a bless day and life.
As a matter of fact, yes - every GD day - and I have the emails to prove it. And he didn't just ask for my vote - he asked for money, knocking on doors, making phone calls, and more.
A nadie le gusta las tracciones. (No one likes being betrayed - from a song by Vicente Fernandez)
and
El que tracción una vez tracciona siempre. (He who betrays you once will do so always - Emiliano Zapata)
"Take your vote in hand and leave this party."
Is the DP your (and only your) party? Who are you to say who should or shouldn't hold or express a particular opinion? (Whoever you are, it's certainly not truth before you - and if you had any moral integrity you wouldn't hide behind an alias.
And you are NOT helping Obama by insulting those that voted for him and expected much more.
That is what campaigning for public office is all about, asking people to vote for you.
I am genuinely curious about what other motivations there could be for voting or not voting for anyone.
1. You were against health care - "Kill Bill" now that the bill maybe dead you said Obama did nothing to give us health care. Inconsistent.
2. Afghanistan War - Obama said in his campaign he could continue the War in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, you voted for him after hearing him make this statement many times. Inconsistent.
Wall Street running the show and insurance Cartel. You are fanning and loving any Republican that can spell "Socialist". The Republican are Wall Street. Yet you praised Republicans that say keep the Dems out of the White House for 8 or 12 years. Palin and Republicans have the answer for this country. And I doubt the Republicans are in favor of health care reform. In fact I am sure of it.
You anger is only directed at the President, other than that you seems not to have a single idea in your head.
working on healthcare??