Barack Obama And Why It Matters That He Plagiarized A Speech (At Least One That We Know Of)
As a child psychologist and psychoanalyst, I have worked with children and adolescents of all ages who come to me with every imaginable kind of problem (and some that are, quite frankly, unimaginable). Usually, the teenagers I see are there because they've gotten themselves into trouble, both at home and at school. The trouble could be drugs, it could be overly aggressive behavior, it could be truancy, it could be lack of respect shown to authority figures and, not uncommonly, it could be because he or she has gotten thrown out of school for plagiarism.
Any child over the age of, say, 8, knows it is not only morally wrong to sign your name to something you did not write but that it is a punishable act. Such punishment, when the child who commits the plagiarism is in high school or college, often includes expulsion from school. With kids ever more internet savvy (i.e., having access to the myriads of articles and papers written on any given subject by some supposedly obscure author) and school administrators and teachers trying to ensure that the teen does not "slip one past them," schools are increasingly using programs designed to detect whether, in fact, a piece of written work handed in by a student was actually written by that student and does not match, in phraseology or any other patterns that such programs detect, written work by someone other than the student. We, as a society, value honesty and integrity and one of the surest mark of a lack of both is a person's willingness to claim someone else's words (or work) as their own.
And this is why it matters that Barack Obama is now furiously trying to suggest that it's "no big deal" that he plagiarized his friend's, Deval Patrick's, speech. He's even claiming that Mr. Patrick told him to use the speech. Perhaps Mr. Patrick did. Perhaps Mr. Patrick told him to use the speech and never told him to say it was written by Mr. Patrick and not by Mr. Obama. It doesn't matter, actually, what Mr. Patrick said or did not say to Mr. Obama. What matters is that Mr. Obama passed this speech off as his own, adding only his by now customary flourishes of tone and inflection. That the man who has presented himself to this country as the man of integrity and change turns out to be a fraud — and that is what we call people who pretend that someone else's words are their own — must be a profound disappointment for his supporters, if they can be honest enough with themselves to admit it.
However, what's even more disheartening and heartbreaking is this: Mr. Obama, in his historic bid for the Presidency, represented an ideal with whom children from broken homes, of mixed racial origins, of no great means, of inner turmoil who seek refuge in drugs, could all look up to and strive to be. In one fell swoop of his unwritten-with pen, he has dashed the hope that here stood a man who pulled himself together and got it together.
Here stood a man who towered above others in his quest for decency and integrity. Here stood a man who played it straight and said it as he saw it. But Mr. Obama is not that man. This man, as it turns out, is just another guy who seems to have bought into his own hype about how wonderful he is even as he tries to convince us he is not simply a liar. Worse still, he has been shown to be a liar while he has paradoxically been running his entire campaign based virtually exclusively on his stellar character, a character he has claimed that is so different from all those Washington insiders he has sought to set himself apart from.
Listening to the pundits of Slate Magazine claim that this charge of plagiarism "won't stick" with the voters because "with Obama, there's no pattern of lying," only adds insult to injury. I'm sure that even Slate Magazine remembers that Mr. Obama's so-called autobiography, Dreams From My Father, was discovered not to be entirely factual, as well. It took Mr. Obama some time, as I recall, to finally admit that, yes, some of the characters were not real but were, rather, "composite" characters. In other words, they were fiction. Which means that, in other words, he lied about it and never told anyone that his autobiography was not only not entirely written by him (check with his ghost writer), but that his so-called life was not exactly what he claimed it was.
Children know that not telling the truth, either by omission or commission, is the definition of a lie. Perhaps there is more of a pattern to Mr. Obama's distortions and omissions than even these two rather egregious examples point to. As a clinician, I have found that if one lies about one or two things here or there and then makes light of those lies, and acts as if the ones who find this offensive are the ones making mountains out of molehills, you can almost take it to the bank that a deeper pattern of not telling it like it is exists. It's only a matter of time before it becomes more fully exposed. So, it's suffer the children yet again. Yet again, a grownup who might actually have served as the inspiration he so adamantly claims he is, turns out to be another scammer who, when caught in the scam, does what every child does: he says, "it's no big deal." And then he has the audacity to cast aspersions on the ones who caught him. Even the children I see don't do that.
So, here's the lesson these kids will learn if the media, as they seem likely to do, go too easy on Mr. Obama for this crime: The trick is in getting away with it. That's the lesson they will learn, when the sad thing is they could have learned so much more from him. Mr. Obama's dismissal of this fraudulent act and his other as "no big deals" undermines what parents and teachers have been trying to teach their kids about honesty and integrity, sometimes against very strong odds. They thought maybe in Mr. Obama they had a helping hand. They were wrong.
What they have instead is a man who, while seeking the highest office in the land, shrugs off a "crime" as no big deal, seeks to blame those who uncovered it, and arrogantly thinks he should not be held to the same standard to which we hold school children. I only hope for the sake of the children watching, that he is wrong.
As Mr. Obama using Mr. Patrick's speech says, "it's only words." Yes, Mr. Obama, words do matter, especially when they're lies.
Dr. Sylvia Welsh is a Clinical Psychologist and Psychoanalyst. She is on the faculty of the NYU Psychoanalytic Institute and the faculty of the NYU School Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. Dr. Welsh treats children, adolescents and adults, families and couples.
Read more news and blog posts on accusations of plagiarism against Obama
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I've sent a copy of your comments to George W. and Hillary and Bill Clinton!
You should invite them to take a lie detector test!
Just in case this person is serious about this article...
the 'just words' portion of the speech was self defense. both in Deval's case and Obama's case. they weren't selling anything. they were defending themselves from accusations that they were incapable of anything but promises and speeches.
since when did self defense require crediting phrases that someone else used to defend themselves?
how many times have you defended yourself? did you make any arguements that you heard someone else make in a similiar situation?
Obama wasn't putting out of plan or product... he was responding to an attack on his ability to fullfill his promises.
this is America. it is still the land of the free. we still have freedom of speach. we still have the right to defend ourselves. we do not need to give credit to people who have similiarly defended themselves because we use words they have used.
self defense is not stealing.
Huh? The repeated phrases are lies?
As Mr. Obama using Mr. Patrick's speech says, "it's only words." Yes, Mr. Obama, words do matter, especially when they're lies.
__________
Well, the Clintons should know a lot about lying by now, so I guess they're experts on ferreting them out. You know the old saying, "set a thief to catch a thief."
However, John McCain's deep integrity will stand the test of ... of ... well, of something or other I'm sure. Well, at least I suspect it will ... maybe.
Thank You Dr. Welsh !!!
this was a slice of his character ... the tip of the iceberg ...
few are paying attention ...
http://www
http://www
Thanks for the post Ms. Welsh. Finally, the media is starting to look into the facade that is Obama. It is unfortunate that McCain is the one that has to bring people to reality - yes, inspirational speeches without specific experience and proven past action are just platitudes. AND NOW WE KNOW that even his platitudes are NOT his own. Yes it matters that his ENTIRE campaign is based on slogans. Some slogans that are not even his own. But the reality is that even HOPE AND CHANGE ARE false slogans, because his recent past with Exelon Corporation and his very close relationship with REZKO demonstrate that he is NOT really about Change but more of the same pay to play politics in Washington and accepting personal rewards from politic insiders. Obama has been brilliantly packaged in this phoney but very experience campaign of platitudes. If Obama is the nominee - he will be steamrolled as a lightweight with not enough experience to be POTUS!
The white power structure has done this to a notable black man before.
From Wikipedia:
In the 1980s, questions were raised regarding the authorship of King's dissertation, other papers, and his speeches. Concerns about his doctoral dissertation at Boston University led to a formal inquiry by university officials, which concluded that approximately a third of it had been plagiarized. However, Boston University decided not to revoke his doctorate, stating that although King acted improperly, his dissertation still "makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship".
WTF do you mean, "the white power structure" did this to a notable black man?
Martin Luther King did it to himself, when he lifted large portions of other people's work and presented them as his own in order to obtain a degree. Not to mince words, but MLK's degree was based upon a fraud -- although the university decided not to revoke it.
Or are you saying that it's okay to do this, provided that you're black?
This is your typical sensationalist "gotcha" style of politics that's been breeding the divisive, vehement, partisan politics that have kept the American public fighting each other instead of coming together to fight for policies that work for them instead of for corporations and the wealthy.
Divide and Conquer is what it's called, and until we wake up from it, we'll never see real progressive change in our government.
This is what Obama is trying to change, and Hillary's support of this bogus plagiarism claim shows us clearly that right now, she is not that candidate to deliver us this much needed change in the way our government works.
You hit that one on the head. [attribution omitted]
I never supported a GOP candidate, but given all of the vitriolic messages going on, not only on these comment boards and blogs, but the media (Huff Post and MSNBC are the worst) I will now.
I love it! Obama cult fans and Clintonites getting at each other's throats to the point of poisoning each to the other candidate.
Opening the door wider for the GOP every day!
Keep it up guys!
If you're proud of your country, and have been all of your life, let Michelle Obama know, and also ask her if she will support Clinton is she was the Dem nominee while you're at it. Based on what she said on TV, she's not sure, she'd have to think about it!
pla·gia·rism /ˈpleɪdʒəˌrɪzəm, -dʒiəˌrɪz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciat
–noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
Unauthorized being the operative word. You could accuse Barack of being unoriginal in this one aspect, if you like.
But plagiarist? By the very definition of the word - and the fact that Obama had Deval Patrick's permission, it is impossible to be plagiarism.
For what it is worth I voted for Deval Patrick in Massachusetts primarily for those words. Turned out he is the biggest disappointment as governor especially since he succeeded Mitt. Words do matter but substance too has its place.
Thank you, Dr., this is a really important point that is often overlooked by laypeople. What if the children find out that whenever politicians say stuff during speeches, it was written by other people ? How will they ever trust again?
Jeez, does this mean that if I quote Shakespeare in conversation, I have to add footnotes.
What if I don't know that it was Shakespeare? After all, it's been observed that his plays are just a bunch of familiar quotations strung together..
Much ado about nothing
From Plagarism.
"According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
1. to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
Obama did not insinuate or highlight these as his original thought. He did not steal these words from Deval Patrick, as they were the words of his colleague with whom they bounce ideas, with whom they are not in competition.
2. to use (another's production) without crediting the source
He didn't credit the original source, for his recent speech, but he has in the past. Obama also didn't use the lines for material gain.
3. to commit literary theft
NO
4. to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
These words, comments and phrases were not presented as new and original.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone Else's work and lying about it afterward.
Dr. this is bit of a stretch to invoke as a poor example for children. But if you must you must. Just hope you and your Psychologist colleagues have enough friends to get out the vote for Hillary to win the nomination and then the general election.
Note Hillary has lifted a few lines also so add that to your course lesson for balance.
Dr. Welsh, I agree with you, and caution that you are asking for your head to be handed to you. The particular sect of Obama suporters who act as anti-intellectuals (read that as intellectual fascists), who pass on even considering the possibility that your crisp logic might just have merit will, like spoiled brats and vandals, just rant more and louder. You are their next target, you analytic, truth-telling, thought-provoking, tell-it-like-it-is annoyance. Great analysis; my wife cuffed me last night for suggesting the bare bones of it (I hadn't seen your argument until just now), and she isn't even one of the fascists of whom I am speaking. (Woe be until them who call a fascist a fascist.)
Obama hynosis has gripped the country. There is only hope that these so-called democrats and "honest" people stop the hate mongering of the Clintons. Aside from his afair with Monica, Bill Clinton was the best president we ever had. Period!!!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
