All the things he is not

Intrepid reader and long time friend, A.I., recently blasted me for psychoanalyzing Barack Obama without a license. Well, Drew Weston is a gin-you-wine Professor of Psychology and he sees Obama pretty much the same way I do. From the New York Times:

Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction, one that weds "revenue enhancements" (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with "entitlement cuts" (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who've worked their whole lives are looking for handouts). But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president's storytelling…

As a practicing psychologist with more than 25 years of experience, I will resist the temptation to diagnose at a distance, but as a scientist and strategic consultant I will venture some hypotheses.

The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that "centrist" voters like "centrist" politicians…

A somewhat less charitable explanation is that we are a nation that is being held hostage not just by an extremist Republican Party but also by a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election.

Apparently I'm a natural at this psychologizing thing. Or maybe it doesn't take professional training to see the President for what he is. Here is what "a lot of Democrats" are thinking about the President. From the Washington Post:

If there is a hallmark of Obama's campaign and governing style, however, it is an aversion to second-guessing, making it unlikely that the White House will respond to the unrest with any major overhaul. His aides note that his unconventional 2008 presidential campaign also faced plenty of naysaying but ultimately proved successful.

But back then, Obama was running as an agent of change.

Of course, the kind of attitude just described was rigidity and stubbornness and an inability to admit mistakes, back when Bush W. was President. Now it is just a benign "aversion to second guessing." However, the real problem is that his first guesses are so anemic.

With President Obama's reelection on the line, Democrats are increasingly anxious about what they see as his failure to advance a coherent and muscular strategy for addressing the nation's economic ills.

Or any other kind of strategy. Richard Cohen thinks the problem is a lack of empathy.

Obama has always been the man he is today. He is the very personification of cognitive dissonance — the gap between what we (especially liberals) expected of the first serious African American presidential candidate and the man he in fact is. He has next to none of the rhetorical qualities of the old-time black politicians. He would eschew the cliché, but he feels little of their pain.

Bill McClellan at St. Louis Today has finally seen the light.

I was splashing around in Lake Michigan last week when the realization hit me like a wave — I was wrong about Barack Obama. I should have voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary three years ago.

At the time of the primary, the decision seemed easy. I saw in Obama the same qualities Jack Kerouac saw in Dean Moriarty in "On the Road." He was 'something new, long prophesied, long a-coming."

It might have occurred to McClellan at the time that On the Road, however "semi-autobiographical", was fiction and that Jack Kerouac might not be the best guide to reality. It seems to be occurring to him now.

It's not just Americans who are finally beginning realize that they are not living in a novel and Barack Obama is not a fictional character. From Der Spiegel:

America's president, as the political scientist Richard Neustadt once noted, may be the most powerful man in the world, but he has only one real power: the power of persuasion.

Barack Obama was back at the pulpit on Monday afternoon, as the world's stock exchanges plummeted. "No matter what some agency may say, we've always been and always will be a triple-A country," asserted the president. It had taken Obama three days to make a statement on Standard & Poor's decision to strip the United States of its top credit rating.

But Obama convinced no one. Even while the president was speaking, the Dow fell below 11,000 for the first time in nine months. This is certainly a problem for Obama, but more than that, it is a problem for America.

The problem with Barack Obama is not that he lacks empathy or courage. There is no reason to believe that he is the genius that many, without evidence, mistook him for, but neither is there any reason to believe that he is stupid. He is simply utterly lacking in any quality beyond self-admiration. No ideas, no particular passions, no content that is not provided by the room around him. He has lived his whole life this way and has been richly rewarded with fame, fortune, and armed forces. Now that we are facing a real crisis, we are finally finding out all the things that Barack Obama is not.

Comments

[Jimi]

Obama seems to lack "Vision." Ironically, "Vision" was the snake oil he sold everybody before the 2008 election.

He is all Idealism and very little reality, just like many of his supporters.

In a way I kinda feel sorry for him. It must be embarassing to finally discover reality when you have the most powerful position in the world, and all eyes are on you. If the media would have just done their job in the beginning the country wouldn't have to put up with all this destruction.

#1.) ObamaCare - Epic Fail
#2.) Wealth Redistribution - Epic Fail
#3.) The Green Economy - Epic Fail
#4.) Keyensianism - Epic Fail

One can only come to one conclusion after reading this post and reviewing Obama's first term. The one thing Obama certainly is NOT is a Leader!

[George Mason]

Some of us identified Obama as an empty suit by mid campaign '08.

[Lynn]

A relative of mine termed Obama as an empty suit after she had attended the Iowa caucuses before the last election. It was even obvious to a rock solid Democrat. Sadly though, the media was in the tank, and as most voters don't really research issues or candidates but rely on sound bites, the media won the election for him with their fawning coverage, "tingly feelings running down their legs," etc. Those not influenced by the media were taken in by the "first Black president" mantra and/or were the gimmes who were promised more of his "stash." Now we are reaping the results. At least, the truth of his ineptitude, lack of experience, and lack of leadership is becoming evident to all.

[A.I.]

I don't have the time or inclination to respond to all the psychobabble above other than to note two points:

Whatever and whomever Obama is, he is not his predecessor and he is not the crazy right in congress--neither of which could manage a lemonade stand much less a nation. And the same goes for most of the contenders for the 2012 Republican nomination.

The quote from Der Spiegel is perfect. It illustrates the conservative mindset that corporations and the stocck market are America. Obama recognizes there is much more to this nation than corporate stocks and said America is a triple A country, not that the Dow is a triple A institution. It was stocks that sank and a lot of that capital was being shifted to U.S. treasuries. I'm not saying investors were "persuaded" by his speech, but they apparently at least shared his opinion that America is still a triple A country that will pay its debts with interest.

[Donald Pay]

As bad as Obama might be imagined to be, and, as a liberal Democrat, I'm opposed to many of his Republican positions, he is far more competent in policy and executive management than any of the Republican pretenders. I watched a good chunk of the Republican debate last night and realized that Obama has one clear advantage for these clowns---he lives in the real world and does not exhibit signs of paranoid hallucinations. You might not like his policies or his personality or his leadership style, but he has one character trait that moves him billions and billions of miles ahead of the Republicans---he's sane!

Forget about birth certificates for these Republican sickos. I want to see them certified as sane and competent to stand for president. Right now the choice appears to be between a Republican (Obama) and an certifiable crazy person.

Now we're about to get another sick Texan, Rick Perry, who recently gave evidence to his particular delusion of being the Warren Jeffs of the Republican Party. Just a year ago this kook wanted to secede from the union. Then came his prayer/pity party, where his particular brand of religious insanity was on full display. If his treason doesn't automatically disqualify him from the presidency, his religious extremism should qualify him and his audience for the loony bin, not the presidency. About the only thing good about Rick Perry's entry into the race is that it may knock out Bachman and Romney.

[Bill Fleming]

I'm going to network Pay's sanity certificate idea. It's brilliant. Thanks, Don.

[Donald Pay]

I mean, Bill, was that a debate between reasonable people, or a scene from Marat/Sade?

[duggersd]

Interesting concept from Donald about "the real world". Considering President Obama has never actually met a payroll or had any executive experience, it is interesting to say he is from the real world compared to the people in the debate last night.
Speaking of psychology, here is an interesting article I just read. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2024577/Narcissists-rise-people-mistake-confidence-authority-leadership-qualities.html This might explain why an empty suit looks so good on paper, but when put into a position of real authority that person fails.

[Ken Blanchard]

A.I.: you both spew a lot of invective, but neither of you produce the slightest evidence for your case. Your complaint about "psychobable", A.I., is just a way of trying to immunize your hero from criticism. It allows you to dismiss any critique of his motives, even when presented by an actual professor of psychology.

Donald: Obama is living in the real world. Maybe. But he is not acting in and has no opinions about it. He still wants to build high speed train systems. On what planet is that a good idea?

[Donald Pay]

High speed rail makes sense in some areas, but not all. Obama comes from Chicago, where rail is very important, so there's some parochialism involved. Obama fell into the Republican trap--taking a reasonable idea and expanding it into ridiculousness because some special interests got involved in lobbying. High speed rail between Chicago and Milwaukee makes sense. Extending that to Madison and the Twin Cities does not make sense now.

[duggersd]

High Speed Rail from Chicago to Milwaukee makes sense? What are we looking at? 95 miles? And the train can go up to what? 100 mph or so? I am thinking by the time the train gets out of the station and up to speed after getting out of Chicago and slowing down for Milwaukee and getting into the station, it would be faster to drive it. Currently with Amtrak, it takes about an hour and a half. I bet with the high speed rail, it takes almost that much time. I can see how it makes sense to you.

[Donald Pay]

Clearly, you've never driven from downtown Milwaukee to downtown Chicago.

[George Mason]

Donald; The train already exists. Making it into "high speed rail" is a monumental waste of money. Dugger is correct about getting up to speed. How does it make any sense with stops at Kenosha and Racine along the way.

[George Mason]

Donald; The train already exists. Making it into "high speed rail" is a monumental waste of money. Dugger is correct about getting up to speed. How does it make any sense with stops at Kenosha and Racine along the way.

[Donald Pay]

Of course the train exists. Making an upgrade to high speed rail (not the medium speed rail Obama was after) would have made sense, cost less, provided jobs, and negated most of the conservative's opposition.

[duggersd]

Donald, no I have never driven from downtown Chicago to downtown Milwaukee. I doubt most people going there would want to. Let us look at a trip to Milwaukee from Chicago as it currently is done with Amtrak. Every 2 - 2 1/2 hours a train leaves the station. Assuming an hour to the station and 1/2 hour to get to where I am going in Milwaukee, I have a total of 3 1/2 hours invested in the trip. I also do not have a car in Milwaukee so I have to make arrangements, meaning I probably have to go to where they rent cars and add more time to this trip. I am doubting the "high speed" will shave very much off from my time, so just what is the advantage? Also, by driving, I can choose my arrival time. AND why would I pay a bunch more for saving 15 - 30 minutes? It only makes sense to liberals who are depending upon a subsidy so they can spend other peoples' money.

[duggersd]

BTW, Donald. About your choo-choo train. You might find this interesting.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/08/09/1998444/ap-exclusive-calif-high-speed.html Essentially it says it will unexpectedly cost $2.6 - $6.8 billion more than previously estimated. But what is a couple of $billion?