Does Christopher Buckley still think Obama has "a first-class temperament"?
Remember when Christopher Buckley endorsed Barack Obama? Let's revisit.
The son of the late William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review, wrote in October 2008, "As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a "first-class temperament."1
Yet now nearly nineteen months into Obama's presidency there is scant evidence of that "first-class temperament" to which Buckley refers. If Obama's term in office thus far can be summed up with a single word I would choose petulant. Merriam-Webster defines petulant as "insolent or rude in speech or behavior;" "characterized by temporary or capricious ill humor."2 This fits Obama to a tee.
President Obama has been petulant towards those who disagree with him. Just days after taking office he told Republican Congressional leaders who objected to his stimulus plan, "I won. I'm the president." At this same meeting he told Republicans, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."3
President Obama has been petulant towards those who seek freedom from totalitarianism. When it came time to choose between the Iranian mullahs and the millions of Iranians marching on the streets he chose the mullahs, stating it wasn't for us to "meddle." This would not be forgotten by the Iranian people. During the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, months following the "elections," demonstrators could be heard chanting, "Obama, Obama – either you're with them or you're with us."4
President Obama has been petulant to dissidents. He would not meet with The Dalai Lama during his U.S. visit in October 2009 so as not to offend Chinese Communists prior to his state visit to Beijing the following month.5 When the Tibetan spiritual leader did finally meet with Obama last February it was behind closed doors. The only glimpse the world got of The Dalai Lama was when he left the White House out a side door where a large pile of trash awaited him.6 Contrast this with the last time The Dalai Lama met with President Bush in October 2007. On that occasion, Bush handed him the Congressional Gold Medal.7
President Obama has been petulant to our closest friends and allies. After the stalwart friendship between Bush and Tony Blair, Obama paid his respects to Great Britain by returning a bust of Sir Winston Churchill which Blair had lent to Bush after the attacks of September 11, 2001.8 Obama's rudeness didn't prevent then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown from giving him a penholder made out of timbers from the H.M.S. Gannet, an anti-slavery ship.9 Obama's idea of reciprocity was to give Brown twenty-five DVDs – which were unplayable in the U.K.10 Let us also not forget how Obama made every possible effort to avoid Brown during the opening of the UN General Assembly last September.11 And to think Brown was a fellow socialist.
What about President Obama's petulance towards Israel? Build nuclear weapons in Tehran and Obama will be cool, detached and behave as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened. But build houses in Jerusalem and Obama will unleash not only his sound and fury but also the entire weight of the U.S. government right down on you. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wouldn't let Obama push him around at the White House over settlements in East Jerusalem, Obama walked out on him.12
President Obama has been petulant towards police officers sworn to protect us. Who can forget when the President chastised Sergeant James Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department for having "acted stupidly" in the arrest of Harvard Professor (and Obama's friend) Henry Louis Gates, Jr.? Yet it isn't the only time he has cast aspersions against law enforcement. Last April, when commenting on Arizona's immigration law which had passed days earlier, Obama said, "But now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed."13 That President Obama would casually accuse law enforcement of planning to engage in wanton harassment speaks of a petulant disposition.
President Obama has been petulant towards this country. What American President refers to his country while abroad as "arrogant, derisive and dismissive"?14
And now President Obama has been petulant towards the families who lost loved ones during the attacks of September 11, 2001. This time he may have taken his petulance too far with his support for the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque:
But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America.15
Yet Americans have been clear in saying it isn't about religious freedom but rather about propriety. Just because Muslims can build a mosque near the site of the deadliest terrorist attack in our nation's history doesn't mean they should. But instead of apologizing and admitting the error of his ways, Obama reverts to petulant form and tells us, "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."16 And exactly how many mosques are presently being proposed for construction on private property in Lower Manhattan? For Obama to suggest he wasn't giving his blessing to the Ground Zero Mosque is an insult to our intelligence. He has now reached the pinnacle of petulance.
Does Christopher Buckley still think Obama has "a first-class temperament"? What does he have to say for Obama's petulant presidency?
Endnotes
1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/2/
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petulant
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1
5. http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704471504574449420327844600.html
7. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/17/dalai.lama/index.html
8. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5622197.ece
9. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/05/brown's-telling-gift-to-obama/
12. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4125551/netanyahu-humiliated-by-obama?category_id=86857
13. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-ottumwa-iowa-town-hall
14. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/world/europe/04prexy.html?_r=1
15. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/13/remarks-president-iftar-dinner
16. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/Obama_narrows_mosque_defense.html
“Petulant” is a very good adjective to describe Obama. When I voted for him, I thought I was getting a tough negotiator, a skilled bargainer, and a very pragmatic liberal. Instead, what I got was a self-righteous, petulant man who seems much younger and far less mature in office than he seemed to be in seeking office. Petulance is often a sign of immaturity, and thus far Obama has lived down to his potential.
Gestell,
I find your comment to be an extremely interesting choice of words. “When I voted for him, I thought I was getting a tough negotiator, a skilled bargainer, and a very pragmatic liberal.” What exactly, pray tell, gave you this impression? Was it his three terms in the Illinois Senate? Was it the legislation he produced while serving in the US Senate? Was it his tough stand on issues?
I’m really not trying to be sarcastic here. We’ve had the pleasure of several spirited debates; most of which we find ourselves at loggerheads, but once in awhile we tend to agree. I know you are an intelligent person. What caught you up in him?
While I’d been used to a series of progressive presidential candidates; Gore, Kerry, and Obama; each being more ephemeral and more difficult to define than the last. Apparently you never noticed that pattern.
I personally took it as the liberal/progressives moving a strategy that eventually worked for them in congressional races in 2006 and honed it for a national election roll-out.
I’m certain that you are aware of how I believe most progressive policy is debated. That it must be couched within euphemism in order to placate the average American. The idea is always to make unpalatable policy seem innocuous. I’ve personally felt that ever since Gore was defeated by Bush that progressives began to do the same with candidates.
That’s what I believe happened in 2006. They ran either fiscally conservative or socially conservative democrats in razor thin blue versus red split districts; and reading voter tendencies, taylored campaigns to peel enough cross-over vote to win those elections. This eventually resulted in progressives winning both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue in 2008.
I was always under the impression that progressives knew (wink, wink) exactly what they were voting for; then you come along and basically say; “No, I was fooled as well.” So what was it?
reply to Mr. Wavering,
A completely fair question, and I’ll try to answer it. My first reason was party identification. In general, I prefer most Democrats to most Republicans, for most offices. I have voted Republican occasionally, but only when I believed that a truly incompetent Democratic candidate had been fielded. Second, I knew Obama’s Senate record was thin, as was his state legislature record. However, I had thought he would take advantage of available veteran Democrats in Congress and take advice from them. I’ve taught in graduate programs that included community organizers and, while most of these folks were further left than I am, most of them also had abundant negotiating skills. I was prepared to think that Obama’s former career was at least a plus when it came to possession of the skills (and flexibility) needed to make opposing groups sit down at the same table. The soaring rhetoric that lured so many of my fellow liberals seemed a bonus, but it was not a decider for me. I tend to discount political rhetoric when I hear it, but try not to be a total cynic either.
After all of this, though, the major deciding factor for me was Obama’s insistence that he would work to develop bipartisan policies. He did spend of a lot of time and energy on that claim during the campaign, which is right up my alley. I have read that Obama had the chance, early in his presidency, to work with at least some congressional Republicans on health care, and I looked forward to seeing a genuinely bipartisan proposal materialize in Congress. I believe that rabid partisanship has paralyzed Congress, and I know enough about the way Congress works, as well as about its history, to know that it can function differently. I assumed Obama would be a pretty quick study in learning how to work with Congress, including Republicans, and that he would have some capable advisers. It hadn’t occurred to me that he would (1) divest himself of pretty much all responsibility for working with his party’s congressional leadership and let them free range, and (2) that, even if some of his fellow Democrats didn’t like it, his would be more than willing and able to open some back channel lines to Republicans. Instead, Obama steered hard left, but worse than that, he steered hard stupid. He matches Jimmy Carter for ineptitude in office and may eventually eclipse Carter. When he talks tough he just sounds lame and desperate, and when he takes action, he is so Hamlet-like that I think he’s never going to do anything. Why wasn’t he up and running on the Gulf oil spill in a matter of hours? Why can’t he make sense, even his own kind of sense, on an issue like the Ground Zero Mosque? My response to most of his speeches and initiatives is an impolite WTF.
Like many other American politicians–Carter comes to mind again–Obama is a skilled campaigner, but not an especially skilled or effective executive. Moreover, he seems afraid to use or even mention American power, whether military or otherwise. I’m appalled that the kill order for the Somali pirates had to come from the President, and that it took several days of whatever? for that decision to be reached. And, since IC readers know I’m a defense hawk, I’m appalled at his seeming lack of interest in or understanding of military matters.
What people should keep in mind about Obama’s victory is how slim it really was. I follow polls very close in an election year; I need to in order to teach my American government course. Typically I follow 8 or 9 polls during a presidential year. Five of the polls I followed were predicting a McCain win around Labor Day 2008, and the others showed a very close race. Lots of polls had the candidates very close in early September. It was only after the economic meltdown that Obama started edging, and then surging, ahead. If the meltdown hadn’t happened, the race would have been extremely close, possibly ending in a McCain win. And, Obama’s charisma did appeal to younger voters, as well as independents. My particular constituency (it doesn’t have a name–maybe I can call it “effective government” or “militant negotiationism”) is very small, and ill served by the people who run both parties.
First off; my take on the 2008 election. I was always under the impression that John McCain was more of the media choice in 2008. He was dead and buried in the primaries until the MSM began to give him a large volume of good press during the primary season. (I seem to remember someone saying that “John McCain was a republican ‘they could work with’”; although I cannot recall who or where that quote came from.) Being the cynic I am, I thought the MSM believed him to be the most beatable republican in the stable at the time and ‘assisted’ in his selection. At the time there were a majority of moderate republicans that were under the impression that staunch conservative values were out of the mainstream (as the MSM constantly tells us) and they felt McCain had a chance.
You qualify Obama’s victory in 2008 as a squeaker but when the results in the Electoral College are 365 Obama to 173 McCain that says the McCain only pulled 32% of the electors, a trouncing by any measure. I can well understand the appeal Obama would have with younger voters, and moderates as well. He sold himself as the ‘post-partisan’ presidential candidate and many bought into that line. It was only after being sworn into office that the nation began to discover that that is exactly what it was, just a line, a slogan.
After an election, I always tend to give the guy a chance, after all whether republican or democrat, he is my Commander-in-Chief, and old habits die hard. It was President Obama’s aloof nature that put me off from the beginning.
One might reasonably argue that Obama did seek out veteran legislators as you hoped he would. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, a twenty-three year veteran, and Senator Harry Reid a thirty year veteran had both been there awhile. That he decided to outsource most of the heavy lifting to these Congressional veterans was as hurtful to me as it apparently was to you. But I guess we should have expected such as this is how I picture an academic functioning; he sets the tone and looks to othere to execute the ‘nuts-and-bolts’.
I truly do not understand his mind-set. It’s almost as if the more strident the opposition to a particular policy the more relish he seems to display in favoring such policy. That he squandered most of his political capital on health care cannot be refuted. That he has politicized the DoJ to an extent not seen in quite awhile cannot be argued either. But I really don’t care which issue you choose; health care, cap & trade, SB 1070 or the recent Ground Zero Mosque: The more the public seems to be against something the more ardent his support is for that particular thing. This has, more or less, dashed any feeling I might have harbored regarding the president being every American’s champion and not just his party’s champion.
It’s a difficult for me. As I said; my military career tends to steer me toward at least giving my President the benefit of the doubt. I find it increasingly difficult to do this as his term progresses.
A relatively small margin in polls, if the popular vote is well-distributed, adds up to a big electoral vote, and that’s what Obama had. As for Reid and Pelosi, I will admit that, prior to Obama, I had paid little attention to them apart from wondering if the congressional Democrats had no other option but these two. Certainly it never entered my mind that Obama would turn over his signature health care proposal to them and do virtually nothing to lead. Obama seems allergic to the very idea of leadership, preferring to fritter away whatever political capital he had on the sorts of squabbles you mention, especially those where he digs in and tries to make a stand against much of the country. I suspect that he regards this approach as principled and courageous, where I see it as dim-witted and self-defeating.
Obama does remind me a little of academic deans I’ve dealt with. Great at agenda-setting, but lousy at execution. He certainly shares one of the consummate faults of many liberal academics–he thinks making speeches is the same thing as making decisions. Many (not all) liberal academics react with the naivete of celebrity fans watching the stars strut the red carpet when one of their heroes goes eloquent. Conservatives used to do the same thing over Reagan’s famous BOMFOG speech–you remember, the “Brotherhood of Man, the Fatherhood of God.”
Gestell,
I really never understood the president’s motivation regarding the ‘outsourcing’ of administration policy in the beginning of his term. The first example of this was the stimulus bill. I am convinced that if he would have led from the front on this issue, and did some bridge building, he would have faced less ‘resistance’ during later political battles. When it was revealed that the White House web site was tracking stimulus spent in fictious congressional districts; http://watchdog.org/1530/6-4-billion-stimulus-goes-to-phantom-districts/ or to democratic strongholds http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Report-Stimulus-funds-not-targeted-to-states-that-need-jobs-79530417.html I believe his credibility began to wane. It was widely perceived, at least here in fly-over country, that he had just handed the majority party a checkbook and told them to write what they wanted, which they did. I remember this distinctly as that was when my Father-in-Law, and academic liberal himself, went out and scraped the “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker off his Volvo.
Thanks for confirming my thoughts regarding his academic nature. I was functioning under the suspicion that such was the case, but with little personal experience in that area could not be certain. That you draw a parallel between some characteristics of his nature and liberal/academics you have known confirms my original theory.
Let’s talk ‘down-ticket’ for a bit. During the 2008 election I wasn’t any more confident in Obama’s readiness for office than most of the liberal MSM was regarding Sarah Palin. But I did think he made a good choice in Joe Biden. Despite Joe’s penchant of ‘open-mouth-insert-foot’ moments; his own longevity in the senate coupled with his foreign policy experience, I felt, would potentially serve Obama well if elected. This has not seemed to be the case either.
I believe we’ve commented on Obama’s obstinacy. In another essay (Preparing for Democrat’s 2010 General Election Antics) you seem to feel as if Obama is going to be a one-term president. There’s been a lot written on liberal blogs about Obama ridding himself of Joe Biden in favor of Hilary Clinton as VP next general election cycle. Two questions;
• Do you think Hillary as VP could provide enough boost to win Obama another term?
• Do you think Hillary would accept such an offer as opposed to challenging him in the primaries?
Finally, as I believe I said before; I really do enjoy these ‘back-and-forth’s’ we have. I offer you an opportunity to conduct a more free flowing discussion. At the bottom of any of my submissions to IC is my hotmail.com address. Feel free to click on it and provide communication directly to me if you wish. As I said I do enjoy our keyboard debates. Who knows where such conversations may end up without an already typed submission to act as a starting point? I’ll understand either way you decide.
reply to Mr. Wavering,
On Biden:What surprises me is how little use Obama makes of Biden. Biden has much more of the common touch Obama so lacks, and he could have been a kind of ‘Mr.Inside,’ given his years in Congress. I had expected him to be a powerful force in Congress presenting the President’s agenda and working behind the scenes–and even he has worked well with Republicans at time–to forge alliances. But, Biden is virtually invisible, and I think Obama doesn’t want Biden to detract from his own glory, if you want to call it that. Once more, Obama fails me as politician. A raw outsider like Obama needs people inside the institutions to help him out. That was one of Carter’s problems. There’s a story, possibly true, that when Carter took office, his staff people didn’t know which members of Congress to contact. Sheer lunacy if you’re a president. Obama doesn’t seem much better. This is another kind of ‘academic’ failing. Obama seems to have believed that he should only have to deal with the top people in Congress, and judged that these would have to be people in formal leadership positions. Lots of liberal academics have little instinct for recognizing the importance of making contacts at all levels in a hierarchy. That’s why some of these academics can be hell to work for if you’re a lowly secretary or assistant or, God help you, a blue collar guy or girl working for Buildings & Grounds, or Facilities Maintenance.
On Hillary: I can’t imagine that she’d consider playing second fiddle to Obama. If Obama’s electability diminishes, and if she still wants to make a presidential bid, she’ll settle for the top of the ticket, and nothing less. Obama did do himself a favor by appointing her to State. If she had stayed in the Senate, she would have been a major player, powerful enough to help, or to seriously hurt, Obama. She could have exacted a high price for her help with his legislative agenda. However, at State, she’s off to one side of the strictly partisan political dynamics in Washington, and she can’t let herself be perceived as a disloyal subordinate to her boss.
In partisan terms, Hillary and Obama have somewhat different bases in the Democratic party. Hillary has far more credibility with blue collar Dems and unions than Obama does, while Obama has lots of liberal intellectuals, media people, academics, etc. A battle between Obama and Hillary would be very divisive to the Democrats. And my party does not have anything like the old Republican “11th Commandment” –”Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican.” Reagan embodied this principle, which is one reason he could always count on a unified Republican Party behind him. Many Democratic party leaders are like a crowd of anxious divas, each trying to upstage the next, and all the while sounding as self-righteous as humanly possible.
Now to your first question: If the economy continues to perform more or less as it is now–and the people I read think this is likely–it won’t matter who Obama has on the ticket. He’s done.
I read an article today published in the UK Telegraph that asks; “Does Barack Obama want to be re-elected in 2012?” You can view the entire article at this site http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7958031/Does-Barack-Obama-want-to-be-re-elected-in-2012.html
But the kicker, to me, is the author’s observation that; “It seems highly unlikely that Obama will decide not to run in 2012. But he might well be calculating that a embarking post-presidential role as the leading global thinker in the post-American world as a Republican successor enters office is more attractive than being sullied by the political compromises and manoeuvrings necessary to win.”
I’ve often wondered about this very thing. To me Barack Obama has represented not much more than a ‘job-hopper’. He works as a community organizer but finds insufficient power to influence the change he envisions for America. So he embarks on an Illinois political career. But at each stage is not satisfied with the amount of control he has to foment change. It is almost as if once he achieves an office, he soon tires of the day-to-day responsibilities of that office and begins looking for another job; one that is large enough to give him the absolute control his ego requires. He burns through the Illinois Senate, and runs for national office. Even as o9ne of the 100 most powerful men on the planet, he finds that part of the job description of a Senator still includes compromise. So he soon tires of this gig as well. He decided to run for POTUS; surely this position offers the ability to decree the change necessary to make the US more fair at home, more liked around the world, and less ‘exceptional’ in the eyes of its own citizens.
He runs and winds the Presidency and is now acknowledged as the most powerful man on the planet. He begins to act as such. Inserting his own ideas as to how American business should be conducted in order to have America fall into line with his picture of what America should be.
This would explain the foreign policy, the domestic policy, and the economic policy his administration has embarked upon. Kowtowing to dangerous foreign regimes, Eschewing allies and embracing enemies. Seizing manufacturing concerns and ignoring settled bankruptcy law. Suing stats that deign to enforce immigration law, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into favored sectors of the economy, demanding legislation that mandates health care for all, cap & trade to support a greener economy regardless of cost, card check legislation to revive union membership, allowing unions to continue to fund advocacy ads but decrying a SCOTUS decision to allow business the same privilege. Bypassing the ‘advise & consent’ duty of the Senate be the appointment of ‘czars’.
One could come away with the impression that;
1. He cares little for the actual economic pain he may impose as long as the misery is evenly spread
2. Deliberately confusing the foreign policy picture so as to ensure no country turns to the US expecting leadership
3. Sets up the US for a future where he remains the post-presidential commentator of record for all policy
All this really begins to make sense, in a perverted sort of way, when you decide to view this all through the lens of a sociopath.
1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
How many of these characteristics fit, in your opinion?
Another thought for Mr. Wavering,
If Obama really imagines that he could be some sort of super policy guru once he is out of office, he’s delusional. At most he would be one progressive voice among many. I don’t think that even very many liberals would regard him as being a sage once he’s no longer president. I don’t think there’s much of a niche for that sort of person in American politics. Of course, Obama continues to surprise me at the extent of his confusion, so…
I remember several people questioning what might Bill Clinton do after two terms. The most often repeated thought was that he’d attempt to wrangle a position at the UN.
One could suppose that since the Obama Administration seems so enamoured of that institution, and that they privately would like to see US authority subsumed by that body; that the UN would be his next goal.
If Obama really wants to marginalize himself, the UN would be a great place for him. He could pontificate and be ignored by most of the planet. You’ll notice that Bill Clinton didn’t go there; he became a kind of cheerleader and rallying-point for disaster relief and other global service projects. He’s much more visible there than he would have been if he’d really gone into the UN.
From my vantage point, at least, Obama really doesn’t do all that much with regard to the UN. Yes, he’s trying to cultivate a global constituency, but you might notice that his popularity has gone down in the Muslim world, just as it has in his own country. He manages to be ineffective both at home and abroad, a real achievement.
The more I ponder Obama, the stranger he becomes. He has virtually no sense of political realism, in any area. He’s not a bargainer, but he’s also unable to keep up a high level of rhetoric and inspiration for those who want such things. Maybe his true venue would be reality TV. Lots of losers, lots of dysfunctional people. He’d fit right in.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by IC Politics, Rachel Alexander. Rachel Alexander said: Intellec. Conserv.: Obama's Petulant Presidency http://bit.ly/9kbNuv [...]