With all due respect to Philip Ellis Jackson's earlier piece on the subject, here is another view on why Obama is a failure; he isn't all that smart, is poorly educated for the job, is a coward, and is really nothing more than a con man.
Virtually everyone in politics and the media who promoted the candidacy of Barack Obama seemed to think that he was a "transcendent" candidate. That somehow he would be able to cross party lines, eliminate racial divides and bring America to some new utopian existence as never before experienced. If he were elected everything would be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Maybe even a few unicorns. Obama even seemed to believe it himself when he made the speech about how the waters would recede, the world would cool, and all kinds of problems would be solved by his election. Of course, one can throw most of this off a campaign puffery, except that altogether too often people believe puffery in politics, which is why they often vote for the wrong person, or believe what that want to believe instead of seeing the truth.
But Obama has been a failure and it is a virtual certainty that he will continue to be. There has been sunshine, but only because of the Spring and Summer. There have been no lollipops, rainbows or unicorns and instead of a smart, capable executive on the job we see a man who is quite obviously in way over his head. The reason at bottom line is quite simple; never send a child to do an adult's job.
So many of the Obama fanatics thought that it would be good to have "someone intelligent in that White House." If they have been paying attention then they must be wondering where this vaunted intelligence went. His administration is characterized by chronic poor judgment. His incessant "major speeches" have been form without substance or reiterations of the same old tired pleas that the country should fall in behind his agenda because it is his. All too often they consist of "straw man" arguments and statements that "my way is the only way." Instead of rallying support, they tend to reduce it.
In the world of the immature person, whether or not their agenda is a good one, or whether it will do what they claim is irrelevant. Dissent is not acceptable. Instead, the mere fact that they are promoting it should be enough. It is the child saying "I want that." In the real world, in the world of adults and responsible people that isn't enough. When you examine things in the cold light of day it becomes obvious that Obama isn't really all that smart or well educated. Certainly, he is clever, and makes a good political con man, but it takes more to govern a nation than a smooth mouth and a Harvard law degree. It takes experience, and it takes knowledge coupled with the ability to use it. It takes an understanding that the world does not always operate according to your preconceived notions and that your chosen political doctrines don't hold all the answers. It takes an understanding the you can't always have what you want.
It is quite likely that Barack Obama is educated beyond his intelligence, or perhaps more accurately, beyond his ability to use that education. Because his worldview is highly dogmatic he cannot manage situations that do not fit his preconceived ideas. When he makes a speech everyone is expected to agree with it. If they disagree they are deluded, misinformed, or otherwise incapable of comprehending his incredible wisdom. When he makes the wrong decision, instead of him being wrong, it is the world that is wrong. His calls for bipartisanship are really demands for everyone to carry out his desires. He doesn't want to be a president; he wants to be a king, with a rubber stamp legislature. This is why he is able to be so chummy with Hugo Chavez and others like him. It is a case of "birds of a feather." He admires and desires their power and he is dissatisfied because he doesn't have it for himself.
His handling of the economy shows that he has no real plans, and is probably incapable of formulating any. The proposals emanating from the Oval Office are worn out, disproved, Keynesian ideas that failed every time that they were used in the past. They aren't working now, but instead of admitting it and changing course, we get more speeches about how they have exceeded all expectations while unemployment continues to grow and much of the private sector flounders. If the world doesn't cooperate, the world is wrong.
It is obvious that Barack Obama loves the spotlight, which is probably a major reason for the number of speeches and appearances he makes, but there is little beyond that. When it comes to doing anything constructive he is out of his element. This is quite probably because he has never done anything constructive in his life. Even as president of the Harvard Law Review he did nothing of note. Carol Platt Lebow, was on the Law Review staff at the same time and indicated during a guest host talk radio appearance, that Obama was almost never in the Review office and claimed that he was working from home. But there is virtually nothing to show for all that work he claimed to have done.
After graduating he became a law school lecturer, which requires little more than repeating back the lessons he received as a student. As a "community organizer," he was, for all practical purposes, little more than a rabble-rouser. In the Illinois legislature and the US Senate he did essentially nothing except run for the next office and make one big speech, which the press fell in love with. The fact that he had done nothing should have been considered vital in a major party candidate but the press ignored it. Now, because he knows nothing else, he continues to campaign and make speeches. He is still a rabble-rouser and nothing more, unless, as Tammy Bruce frequently states, he is a narcissist.
Thomas Sowell characterized his health care speech of September 9, 2009 as "a masterpiece of rhetoric and a shameless fraud" and stated further that "One of the secrets of being a glib talker is not getting hung up on whether what you are saying is true, and instead giving your full attention to what is required by the audience and the circumstances of the moment, without letting facts get in your way and cramp your style. Obama has mastered that art." In other words, Obama is a master liar. It's rather amazing how politely Dr. Sowell can say this. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi will demand that he apologize too.
His speeches at the United Nations were more of the same. He makes unsupported statements, condemns America, then points to how things have suddenly become good and right since his election, and how America is suddenly able to take its proper place in the world community by unilaterally disarming, and allowing someone else to become the world's lead nation. And someone else will. Politics, like Nature, abhors a vacuum. If the United States doesn't lead, another nation will move in, probably with less noble motives. Obama doesn't understand this. Probably, he is incapable of it, despite the object lesson that occurred when the Soviet Union collapsed. Something had to fill the gap and what did was Islamist militancy.
To complete the picture, Obama is also a coward. It was noted above that he can't handle dissent or criticism. This is why he wants to silence talk radio and to data mine the Internet for critics. When the Sept. 12, 2009 rally arrived in DC he was conveniently out of town, claiming to have no knowledge of the event, which was impossible, given the level of Internet publicity it received and the fact that government permits were required in advance. It is no wonder that his numbers are sinking like a pair of cement overshoes.
The American people appear to have elected this man in the mistaken belief that he knew how to govern, and had the best interests of the nation at heart. They have discovered their mistake. We can hope that next election they will pick someone with less prestige, less fancy degrees, more ability and the understanding that this nation is founded on popular sovereignty, not government-centrism. Ronald Reagan was such a man. Success speaks for itself.
Steve:
Are you referring to this article on why Obama is failing? http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/08/22/why-obama-is-failing/
My point has never been that Obama is a brilliant guy who ran an incredibly brilliant campaign. Rather, after some unfounded hope that Obama would not be elected, I put a lot of the blame for the loss of the election on McCain’s stupid strategy of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/10/07/how-john-mccain-will-lose-the-2008-election/
Obama got elected because of the following:
As has become the trend in recent years, elections today are as much about what you don't want to have happen as it is about what you want to see accomplished. I doubt seriously that the legions of John Kerry supporters in 2004 really wanted him above all others to occupy the White House, just as those of us who voted for McCain in 2008 were hardly confirmed McCainiacs enamored by his talents and abilities. Rather, it's just as likely (perhaps moreso) that a majority of Kerry voters hated Bush in 2004, thus driving their decision much the same way that I and others feared Obama's stewardship of the nation more than we embraced McCain's political philosophy.
Add to the mix in 2008 the guilt-and-Camelot factors, and you have the makings of a perfect political storm. Guilt, in that in the minds of some voting for Obama atoned for the sins of our past; and Camelot, in that wouldn't it be really cool to have a modern-day version of JFK replace the old, tired, out-of-step policies of the past? This is why "Hope and Change" needed no actual real-world definition. The emotions themselves were sufficient to drive many voters, who simply filled in the missing details with their own personal policy preferences.
Since "change" was one of the dominant themes in Obama's campaign, and technically anything different than what we have at present is "change," the thinking was, we might as well throw in a filibuster-proof Democrat control of Congress to help Obama out. I mean, after all, what's a few more Senators and Congressmen among friends? We're all pulling in the same direction — the direction of "change" — and you can't have change without changing things around.
Which brings us to today. Barack Obama has been in office about seven months now along with his Democrat pals, and they've been busy implementing their change. The problem is, "their" change isn't necessarily the voters' change, many of whom bought into the transparent, post-racial, bi-partisan imagery of the Obama campaign.
Obama is failing as an administrator now in office because of his own shortcomings. Again from my 8/22 article:
It isn't Obama's race that is causing him problems. It isn't the fact that Republicans don't like Democrats in power that is causing Congress its problems. Obama, Pelosi, Reed and the other True Believers have pissed off too many people who were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt when they assumed power in January 2009.
The simple fact is, the American public knows it has been lied to by Obama and his party, and they no longer trust him. Therefore, they are no longer willing to fall lock-step behind any programs they offer, because they no longer believe what is being said about the purpose, cost, or possibility of success for those programs.
Obama and Co. have lost the trust of the voters who put them in office. This trust cannot easily be recovered. It must be earned anew. However, it takes time, and actual honesty, to reverse the course — two things which the Democrats today have in short supply.
Now, talking about the specific shortcomings of candidate McCain (which helped elect Obama), the American public’s fill-in-the-blank content about hope & change and their angst-driven desire to elect a historical figure, the media’s deliberate suppressing of stories unfavorable to Obama, and once in office Obama’s own self-inflicted wounds to account for his governance problems isn’t the same thing as what I’ve written recently in http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/09/23/a-prescription-for-conservative-success/
This article points to some very real systemic obstacles that Conservatives need to address to pave the way for electing stronger conservative candidates, and thus promoting a conservative agenda. It has nothing to do directly with what Obama does/doesn’t accomplish in the next 3 years, but rather speaks to the long term trends we need to reverse to be more effective in promoting our ideas through the exercise of actual political power, instead of just promoting our ideas with no real ability to implement them.
So, other than the fact that you’ve elaborated on some points I’ve made about Obama’s character and trustworthiness, as well as introducing a few new examples of your own, exactly what view of mine are you refuting?
Hey Phil,
Take it easy. I'm not refuting anything. I just have a little different idea on him being, effectively a con man from the word go, who won no only because of McCain's stupidity, but also because he had the media shills on his side. Now he's in over his head, which was inevitable, given the fact that he knows nothing, in my opinion about how to do the job.
I think that the only real area of disagreement we might have is in respect to the level of intelligence of the man. I don't find him very smart. I'm not sure how you place him.
Next time, remember that I'm going to agree with you at least 90 percent of the time.
No problemo. The "with all due respect" intro made me think you were opposing something I said about the O-man.
And only 90% agreement? We'll have to work on that last 10%. :)
Take care
Phil
The idea of Obama's brilliance was talked up much in the campaign and in the early days of his administration. As time has passed, he has demonstrated rather clearly
1) that he has a very ordinary intellect, absolutely nothing approaching the genius level that was touted so strongly;
2) his education has been very narrow and doctrinaire along Marxist lines, to the point that he is unable to even entertain another point of view at all.
Nothing he has done shows any signs of a great mind at all. As Steve has observed, he is in much over his head, and all he is able to do is stick to the Marxist script and plow ahead. The fact that it leads to the destruction of this nation does not phase him because he is convinced that this nation needs to be completely restructured from the ground up.
McCain would have been another story, but it would not have been this sort of headlong plunge to national destruction.
[...] The Failure of Barack Obama The Failure of Barack Obama [...]
Obama Serial Narcissist and a Megalomaniac
Of course you're correct Steve.
A perfect storm has descended upon this country. It is the combination of progressive planning, complicit media, and a public just beginning to express their concerns.
Progressive planning – For decades the progressives in this country have known that if they actually lay out in detail ahead of time what they intend to do if elected, they continually lose. The American electorate, while never 100% certain what they want, has maturity enough to know they do not desire to live the 'progressive' utopia. Forced sterilization for population control, sustainable development that places the overwhelming majority of the land under iron fisted non-development criteria. Mega-population centers where the remaining population is stacked like cord-wood. An economic, financial, and health system that dictates each and every person's level of participation in society; and rigidly prescribes each persons maximum levels of consumption of each and every natural and man-made resource. The American Public does not want to live under despotic government, no matter how many elitists declare that lifestyle to be the only reasonable lifestyle.
So they must hide their true desires behind euphemism. Abortion becomes 'choice'; tax increases become 'investments', and under achievers become the blameless 'losers of life's lottery'. The definition of 'bipartisanship' is conservatives moving to accept progressive tenets, never the opposite. I could go on indefinitely; but you get the point. They've also found they must do the same with the candidates they offer the public. Witness the 'fiscally conservative' liberals they've run in republican districts during the last two election cycles. This was all part of their "How can we trick the public today" strategy. Their belief was that once these fiscally conservative liberals got to Washington they would, soon enough, fall into line behind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid; giving them the progressive majorities they needed. They were short sighted in this regard; as they could have never realized that these fiscal conservatives would really stick to their guns. They believed that these persons they supported were wink, wink, just saying what they had to in order to win election. More on that another time: But it is the reason liberals are having difficulty with cap & trade, health care, and card check.
Complicit media – Republicans didn't choose the candidate in 2008; the media did. If you'll remember, McCain was 'dead' in 2007. While the bloodletting between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton was playing itself out in the democratic primaries, the media were pulling out all the stops for McCain. He was the 'maverick', the one who would 'reach across the aisle', a republican that democrats could 'work with'. In other words; the most 'defeatable' of all the republicans in the race. A 'sacrificial lamb' in the truest sense.
The Public – Iraq was just coming around, the economy was weakening, 'compassionate conservatism' had been discredited. There was little to distinguish the final term of the Bush administration with any previous liberal chief executive. The nation was bleeding jobs, credit was tight, housing was slumping, and republicans didn't have much to cheer for. The progressives were poised to re-take the White House.
Into this 'perfect storm' the progressives inserted their Manchurian Candidate, Barrack Hussein Obama. They painted him as a highly educated, highly accomplished, candidate that would finally unite the nation. Their ultimate stealth candidate had none of the baggage of a Hillary Clinton, a John Kerry, or an Al Gore. There was no record to bash him with as he had spent so little time in every job he'd ever held that what little record he had could not be pieced together.
Lacking any record, conservative pundits tried to expose his three decades long series of associations with unpalatable people. The media wrote all off as peripheral, and smear tactics. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama dutifully threw each under the bus as required. He was swept into office by the Trifecta, ACORN, a devastated economy, and a disillusioned republican party that just decided to 'stay home'.
As it has turned out, the progressives were to smart by half. Their post-partisan candidate has become a post election disaster.
Like Ronald Reagan, he is an eloquent speaker. His dialogue is uplifting but vacuous. Everyone that listened during the campaign heard exactly what they wanted to hear and discarded the rest. He's photogenic, a statuesque figure; one who exudes confidence and command; until the teleprompter fails.
During the campaign in 2008 Barrack Obama himself said; "Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself." OK; Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Michael Pfleger, and William Charles Ayers. How could we miss it?
Barrack Obama is a serial narcissist. If one actually places his record under strict scrutiny; one finds a man constantly dissatisfied, a person that quickly tires of a position once he discovers there is insufficient power associated with the position to effect the 'change' he envisions. This is the reason his resume reads like that of a 'job hopper'. He is one! He began as a community organizer for ACORN, but soon tired of the work as it did not provide the immediate opportunity to foment his core belief in social justice. The same explanation holds for his short stints as an Illinois State Legislator, and a US Senator. Like a child held in the grip of ADHD; he would quickly tire of a position once he had discerned that his ability to provoke immediate change was severely limited. Like the schizophrenic who keeps repeating the same actions expecting a different result; he moves incessantly from position to position hoping to find the one that allows him to finally achieve his dream: That the world will be 'remade' in his image, and all will adulate him for his foresight!
This is a man already bored with his present job. He is the leader of the free world; and has discovered that he is still only one voice in a chorus. He has already tired of the work in domestic affairs. This can be clearly seen by two things:
First: he paints all his policy directives in broad strokes, leaving his 'attendants' in the House and Senate to actually conceptualize his vision.
Second: Each time his domestic policy stumbles over discontented citizens, he once again; like a parent dealing with a petulant child; laboriously re-introduces the same program, with the same content, couched in the same lies; and expects that maybe this time they'll finally get what he's' talking about. .
He's discovered that his control of both Houses of Congress and his plethora of unaccountable czars are still insufficient to totally redesign the social contract between the government and the American citizen fast enough. That plus the fact that he's also discovered that no matter how many times he patiently explains to all the foreign leaders how much he has personally altered the stance of America, they refuse to follow his lead; whether it's destroying their nuclear stockpiles immediately, contributing significantly to his 'good' war in Afghanistan, sanctioning the Iranians, or immediately enacting stringent 'global' climate change policy.
I'm certain that both meetings he's had with Hugo Chavez have provoked an almost 'Pavlovian' response whenever he imagines the degree of control wielded by such a ruler. Only Obama would not even be long satisfied with such power over the United States. His vision is truly global in scope. Even dictatorial power such as that enjoyed by the Venezuelan leader would not long sate his quest.
In my opinion, the man desires no less than the subsuming of all nations under the flag of the UN. He imagines the harmony of a world guided by the principle of global governance, with him at its head.