Why did Barack Obama spend so much time talking at the "health care summit" and what does this tell us about him.
Years ago I encountered a wonderful book entitled "The Classics Reclassified." It was a brilliant piece of satire by Richard Armour, an esteemed English professor, based on several of the classic books used for decades as high school reading material. One of these was The Iliad, which featured, on occasion, the wise old man, Nestor. "Nestor," Armour said, "knew everything except when to keep his mouth shut." It has now become obvious that Barack Obama has this same problem.
Actually, to be fair to Nestor , in Homer's Iliad he was an elder statesman, how may have been as much as 110 years old. He was considered the source of much wisdom although many people probably considered him long winded. But then, what do you expect in epic poetry?
Still, even if Nestor wasn't quite110 years old it is certain that he had garnered his share of life's experiences and wasn't just talking to hear his own voice. He was one of the Argonauts, participated in the hunt for the Calydonian Boar and became king of Pylos. He still led his warriors in the Trojan War, although no longer able to fight. His advice is generally good, and when it isn't, it is often the result of divine intervention. Was Nestor an intellectual? Perhaps, because of his age, reputed wisdom and the reliance others placed in him. However, I don't think Thomas Sowell would have called him one.
Sowell's recent book, Intellectuals and Society," addresses some of the reasons why intellectuals often make the wrong decisions. In an interview with Investors Business Daily he states:
I define intellectuals as persons whose occupations begin and end with ideas. I distinguish between intellectuals and other people who may have ideas but whose ideas end up producing some good or service, something that whether it's working or not working can be determined by third parties.
With intellectuals, one of the crucial factors is their work is largely judged by peer consensus, so it doesn't matter if their ideas work in the real world.
Sowell rightly points out that someone can be a genius in a particular field but know almost nothing other areas, including the practical knowledge that makes the world work. "Knowledge that is in no way intellectually challenging but is nevertheless crucial." Such as, he illustrates, the need to lower the landing gear on an airplane before it touches down.
The problem is that the intellectuals, as Sowell defines them, develop the belief that they know better than everyone else and because of it they should run society and make all of its decisions. This led to the title of his earlier work "The Vision of the Anointed." There is another possible way of describing this; the "Divine Right of Ivy League Graduates."
Of course, as Sowell also points out, the intellectuals often run their followers off of a cliff. This is a natural consequence of thinking that your knowledge in one field translates to brilliance in all fields, which is exactly the problem with Barack Obama. He thinks that he is an expert on everything. In fact, he many not even be an expert in law, despite his Harvard credential. So far he has no track record of scholarly publication, and his forays into constitutional discussions throw into high relief that fact that he apparently does not understand the intent of the authors of the Constitution, except when it suits his fancy. The sole example appears to have occurred when he, and others, protested the intent of the Senate to force an up or down vote on Bush Administration judicial appointees. Now that the shoe is on the other foot it is OK for him to force his health care plan on everyone by using the same process.
Which brings us finally to Representative Paul Ryan's unanswered questions and statements about the proposed legislation. Ryan had done his homework very well, and concisely pointed out that Obamacare would not lower spending, involved double counting of income, raided one government account to fund another, and would simply make a bad situation worse. Obama said nothing to rebut these statements. And he probably couldn't without making himself look like more of a fool than he already had with his attacks on John McCain and his accusations that the Republicans were using talking points and stage props; the same thing he does on a regular basis. Deprived of his teleprompter and control of the situation he was an ordinary person, or perhaps less than ordinary. Unlike Nestor, he was just running his mouth.
As Sowell would probably put it, he lacks the mundane knowledge of how an economy works, and how his proposals would affect the lives of millions of people. His ideas sound good to him, and they have an emotional appeal that a lot of folks fall for. But that doesn't make them good. The same types of programs have failed wherever they have been tried. The only difference is that he wasn't in charge. It is likely that he sees this as the critical difference. But changing the management of a broken down factory will not, overnight, make it a paragon of productivity; not without putting in new, working equipment. Taking the old broken equipment across the street to a new building will not work either.
There have been a lot of well-respected people who have called Obama extremely intelligent. I am not one of them. The reason why I don't is because of something my grandfather taught me many years ago. He said that a person who knows the limits of his own knowledge is smarter than someone who doesn't. That makes the average person a heck of a lot smarter than many a Harvard Law graduate. Obama's idea is, as Sowell puts it, that "Third parties will structure how millions of people adjust to millions of different circumstances." The reasonably intelligent person knows either instinctively or experientially that this is impossible. Intellectual don't care one way or another. They just want to experiment on society, as long as they are exempt from any negative results. That is not an intelligent or enlightened attitude. It is the attitude of a spoiled brat.
Steve,
My personal opinion is that all this may be described by President Obama’s obvious case of narcissism.
First off he does indeed believe he’s smarter that everyone else. One only has to reference the numerous times (I lost count after 27) he has spoken out during this entire health care process. Time after time he would plow the same ground as if he were thinking; “OK idiots, I’m going to say this one more time. I’ll speak more slowly so you’ll be more able to keep up.” He never changed the message.
Let’s look at your statement; “The problem is that the intellectuals, as Sowell defines them, develop the belief that they know better than everyone else and because of it they should run society and make all of its decisions.” This is an attitude that not only affects the personality of the Ideologue-in-Chief, but his entire collection of cabinet members and czars as well. If his Chief-of-Staff believes that his own party faithful are nothing more than’$#@&*!^ retards’ the Lord only knows how much lower on the scale they place the opposition, not to mention the great unwashed out in fly-over country.
Finally; we’ve discussed previously that President Obama, until now, hasn’t even personally invested himself in any administrative action, legislative or policy wise, taken by the progressives since he ascended to office. This amounts to nothing more than an overdeveloped sense of plausible deniability. If he’s not personally invested, he’s not personally accountable for the success or failure of the policy or bill.
The American public sees through this. They are willing to follow a President who is passionate regarding his beliefs and will to spend political capital on what he truly honors. They will reflexively pull back from any policy or program that any President does not totally commit to.
This amounts to political impasse. He says he wants something, but fails to passionately push for it, and the people calculate that his demonstrated lack of commitment means he’s not really certain. Uncertainty breed opposition
Just another reason, among a plethora of reasons, as to why this person is obviously not yet ready for prime time.
As an interesting side note; why do you think that now that democrats cannot pass anything significant with clear majorities in both legislative Houses that they believe Washington is broken and the country ungovernable? I never heard this when they were in the position of loyal opposition.
What values do you share with the grandson of a New Guinea headhunter? Ethically, you don’t condone headhunting either for yourself or your family members nor do you believe headhunting falls into one of those “personal choice” categories which seem to confuse so many Americans nowadays – but then again your ancestors weren’t headhunters – and more than likely, they possessed their own favorite forms of inhumanity and which simply didn’t include the taking of heads.
So what does headhunting have to do with Obama? Well, this author confuses the irrational need to personalize fault within a single individual versus the unspoken reality that Americans simply don’t share the same cultural values. And guess what Conservatives, Obama does share values with many Americans who are not now and never will be Conservative and whose values are actively hostile to you and yours. What this author carefully avoids admitting is that Obama really IS a product of his environment, he DOES speak the same language and think the same thoughts as those whom he represents, he beautifully articulates the ideology of a well educated liberal but he can also do a “negro” accent on occasion and to amuse his party guests, as Harry Reid recently noted.
So, how do you reconcile being led by someone who doesn’t share your values? You don’t share the cultural values of that headhunter’s grandson, neither do you share the values of many of your fellow Americans – how do you deal with that? Pack up the U-Haul and move to the State of Denial(state motto: All I am saying is give peace a chance). Pretend that folks who look like you, talk like you, dress like you and even hate the same television commercials you do are exactly like you. But are they really?
Isn’t it more than likely that Obama represents people who believe it’s their right to take your wealth, that their self-interest is far more important than yours? Is it about intellectualism as this author claims – or is it about a childish idea that lines drawn on a map really do define a community of like minded people? Is it about human cowardice – the hope that by doing nothing, everything will work out – that by denying what’s obvious and right before our eyes, those ugly things you don’t even want to imagine will simply not occur?
Pat,
In your post you say; “And guess what Conservatives, Obama does share values with many Americans who are not now and never will be Conservative and whose values are actively hostile to you and yours.”
I don’t know if there’s ever been any doubt that President Obama doesn’t agree with conservatives. Most of us ‘get it’. However; my question, particularly since this health care debate began way back in the summer of 2009 is that the President has repeatedly taken the opportunity to frame and reframe this debate.
In one public forum after another he has stated and re-stated administration policy. At one time we needed to revamp the health care system because of ‘greedy’ doctors overcharging patients. Then we needed to reel in the profits being generated by big pharmaceutical companies. Now we are excoriating health insurance companies. Health insurance company profit margins average 6% and profits actually barely exceed 2%. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/10/26/aps-woodward-fact-checks-health-insurance-company-profits-finds-them-ane
But while the target has changed, the solution always remains the same. There has never been a significant move from the original 2,400 page bill. Even though the American people have made it clear, the issue IS the bill.
In my previous post I said; “One only has to reference the numerous times (I lost count after 27) he has spoken out during this entire health care process. Time after time he would plow the same ground as if he were thinking; “OK idiots, I’m going to say this one more time.”
I also said; “If his Chief-of-Staff believes that his own party faithful are nothing more than’$#@&*!^ retards’ the Lord only knows how much lower on the scale they place the opposition, not to mention the great unwashed out in fly-over country.”
You’re posting, while going a long way toward pointing out the obvious difference between conservative and progressive policy and why one side would be less than pleased with the other’s take on things it doesn’t begin to explain the actual phenomenon we’ve witnessed.
For the Commander-in-Chief to incessantly try to sell the same product to the American people in failed attempt after failed attempt, even in the face of rising opposition by the very people he is responsible for governing, defies not only conservative logic, but all logic.
The fact that Obama got elected by a landslide shows only that many people BELIEVED that he shares their values. Indeed, when Obama DID make any sort of policy statement, it seemed, well, a bit conservative (support for DOMA, tax breaks on those making less than 250K). Of course, most of these statements were spun or outrightly denied in record time. Basically, in deference to Pat: he does NOT “beautifully [articulate] the ideology of a well-educated liberal”. Instead, he deflects with “feel-good” statements or tear-jerking anecdotes, knowing full well that if we do get a glimpse of his ideology, we will react strongly against it (see polls on CNN and in Newsweek).
The Problem of Oratory
People equate eloquence of oratory with intelligence / knowledge of the issues because analyzing what is actually being said is too complex, plus we hear what we want to hear; and in Øbama’s case, when we [the rhetorical “we”] heard “change”, we heard “good”. In the case of George Bush and Sarah Palin, their opponents equate poor oratory with low intelligence. But consider this situation:
In the early 1970s, a distinguished-looking, authoritative-sounding actor was coached to give a lecture on “The Application of Mathematical Game Theory to Physical Education” to groups of professionals and educators. He was billed as Dr. Myron L. Fox of the Albert Einstein University and dressed up with a fictitious but impressive curriculum vitae. Dr. Fox was instructed “to present his topic and conduct his question-and-answer period with an excessive use of double talk, neologisms, non sequiturs, and contradictory statements. All this was to be interspersed with parenthetical humor and meaningless references to unrelated topics.” Afterward, questionnaires were administered to evaluate his talk. Some typical responses were as follows:
Excellent presentation, enjoyed listening. Has warm manner. Good flow . . . Lively examples . . . Extremely articulate . . . Good analysis of subject . . . Knowledgeable.
Moreover, not a single person in the well-educated audiences detected that the authoritative lecturer was a complete phony!
Source: When Word Games Take Lives, William Brennan
Here we have even a highly intelligent audience falling into the same trap. Quoting Sowell, “When you buy words, you had better know what you are buying,” and “Words do not change realities.” Since talk does not equal performance, is it any wonder that we are often disappointed in our leaders?
Sedonaman,
I want to place two of your statements in tandem with each other. First you say; “People equate eloquence of oratory with intelligence / knowledge…” Then you write; “In the case of George Bush and Sarah Palin, their opponents equate poor oratory with low intelligence.”
But it isn’t just ‘their opponents’ is it? Wouldn’t it be more accurate for the second statement to read “People equate poor oratory with low intelligence”? I understand the original point of your second statement was to demonstrate out how the progressives excoriated both President Bush and candidate Palin, but it wouldn’t have worked without this ‘un-vocalized’ opinion a majority of people hold regarding the ability to adequately express oneself with equating directly to intellect. Even that comparison, while discriminating to be sure, is incorrect. The only thing soaring oratory is indicative of is educational achievement.
A person possessing an advanced college degree would reasonably be expected to demonstrate a more highly developed set of vocabulary/oratory related skills than say a sophomore in high school. Educational achievement doesn’t necessarily translate in to intellectual wisdom.
I suspect that Bill has fallen in the good ole boy trap by making the assumption that the way people talk is an indication of a combination of intelligence and education. Hmmm living again in the South I notice that when the accent and colloquialisms get thick the person I am dealing with wants me to believe that they are dumber than a rock. Alternative uses of the language also cover playing to what a group of people want to believe. So don’t discount Bush’s Yale grades when evaluating his intelligence against the genius of Al Gore. Remember both transcripts are available and Mr. Gore suffers in the comparison.
Mickey G,
I don’t make any assumptions based upon the manner in which people express themselves or their appearance. I go after everyone based uponthe contents of their statements as opposed to their oral skill. But it’s been my experience that a host of others do indeed make judgments based upon such things. As a matter of fact I’ve used a variation of this ploy myself. I like overalls, for several reasons. Two of which are; they are comfortable, and they make others feel superior.
I’m running for local political office, and all of us running under the same ticket are currently involved in campaign training. I recently showed up at a practice debate dressed in my overalls, camouflage over-shirt and my ‘Tractor Supply’ cap. My practice opponent said I looked as if I’d just climbed down from my tractor and I said “I did.”
The representatives from the local Toastmasters group that were both moderating and monitoring the debate scored me the overwhelming victor in that debate. I got this guy to make a mental snap judgment, caught him completely off guard from the very beginning, got advantage and never relinquished it over the next 30 minutes. By the end he was so completely flustered that he was stammering and skipping all over his closing remarks.
Mind you it’s a trick that’ll only work once per opponent, but when it does; boy does it ever pack a punch.
Bill:
Sometimes stating the obvious is necessary – particularly when folks stray far into the mental daisy patch – it’s similar to throwing a bucket of icy water on a frantic and hysterical victim of a recent natural disaster in order to restore some semblance of calm. Look at this author’s rhetorical style for a typical example of losing touch with reality.
Shortly after introducing Sowell into his essay as a respected Conservative icon with something important to say, he pulls this little bit of rhetorical ledgermain: “this is a natural consequence of thinking that your knowledge in one field translates to brilliance in all fields, which is exactly the problem with Barack Obama. He thinks that he is an expert on everything.” From the general (the nature of American intellectualism) to the specific (Obama) in the blink of an eye. And, we both know this author doesn’t know Obama personally, isn’t likely to know him in the future and hasn’t a clue as to what Obama actually thinks on any subject.
A tendency to pretend to an intimate familiarity with a total stranger for the purpose of psychoanalyzing him is a common, intellectual form of “cheap thrills”, usually baseless and almost always counterproductive. For Conservative pundits stuck in the minor league of Conservative writers, it’s also a way to quickly generate essays which pander to our lack of emotional control while not requiring much time or effort on the pundit’s part.
For Conservative readers, it addresses the love/hate relationship we have with Liberals or Progressives, whatever label we choose to employ. At times, Conservatives see Liberals as simply “misguided” in their thinking, basically good folks who were led astray by university professors or their fundamental lack of basic reasoning powers. They’re Americans, just like us, members of our tribe, but who can’t see the intrinsic worth in embracing Conservative values.
At the same time, there are real issues which divide Conservatives from Liberals, someone has to lose when others win – and this is the root of the “hate” part of the relationship. Ultimately, however, these are just emotions we can seldom control and which typically control us. This type of essay employing this pseudo-intellectual rhetoric feeds those emotions but lacks any objective value.
We live in a country with arbitrary boundaries determined by historical accidents – being an “American” has come to mean precisely nothing due to multiculturalism and diversity – and we’re hardly the first society to become victims of territorial social expansions which result in a loss of common values and the cohesiveness necessary to form common goals guided by consistent principles. As Conservatives, we need to accept that fact, it can’t be changed in any respect, it must be dealt with. Unfortunately, we don’t often deal with it very well as this type of essay exemplifies.
Being irrational creatures, we are at our very best when responding to events which threaten our survival, but in lieu of concrete threats which intensely focus our mental powers we tend to mark time with valueless bickering meant to preserve the status quo. Conservatives function best when stating the obvious bolstered by naked facts which we analyze with tight discipline and harsh, unforgiving logic. This is our unique strength, but a strength that isn’t highly valued by many of our so-called brethren within American society.
Pat,
While I do agree with your assertion that it is unlikely that Steven personally knows Barack Obama. Would you agree there is now a sufficient ‘body of work’ available on Barack Obama to draw a reasonable conclusion? Between his twelve months on the campaign trail coupled with another thirteen months occupying the oval office, it totals almost 5 times longer than his tenure in the Senate prior to his presidential bid.
Is it possible to draw conclusions from this baseline? I understand that unique conditions existed in this country when Obama took office. I do believe there is some evidence that would point to his belief in the superiority of his ideas. A good deal of which stems from times he has publically admonished one group or another directly for resisting portions of his agenda or questioning his motives. Just a few come to mind immediately;
The hedge fund managers that were trying to protect people’s pension funds during the GM bankruptcy. Their ‘secured’ positions as lenders had the backing of 100 years of settled bankruptcy law. They were to be paid 100% for their secured loans prior to anyone else getting a dime. President Obama publically excoriated them as ‘greedy’ and insisted they take only 30 cents on the dollar in settlement and that GM’s union employees be given standing to recover their unsecured positions.
There have been over 29 occasions (I lost count after that) in the last year where President Obama has presented the same exact health care plan to the American public. Each time the percentage of people disheartened with the legislation grew, and on each subsequent occasion he merely presented the exact same recipe couched in different prose; as if to say; “I’m going to repeat this once again, only more slowly so you’ll be more able to keep up this time.”
Or consider my personal favorite: His disrespecting of the Nobel Committee, not to mention Denmark’s Royalty, by hastening off after accepting his Nobel without bothering to attend any of the post celebratory gatherings or the banquet arranged in his honor by the Queen herself.
Can we draw a reasonable conclusion as to his belief in his own superiority given these, and a host of other examples; or would you call this something else? Naïveté perhaps? Narcissism? Or is it something else?
[...] via People who talk too much… | Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy. [...]