Posted on 03/07/2014 4:46:06 AM PST by Kaslin
Solipsism. It's a fancy word that means that the self is the only existing reality and that the external world, including other people, are representations of one's own self and can have no independent existence. A person who follows this philosophy may believe that others see the world as he does and will behave as he would.
It's a quality often found in narcissists, people who greatly admire themselves -- such as a presidential candidate confident that he is a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, knows more about policy than his policy directors and is a better political director than his political director.
If that sounds familiar, it's a paraphrase of what President Obama told top political aide Patrick Gaspard in 2008, according to the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza.
More recently, Obama's narcissism has been painfully apparent as the United States suffers one reversal after another in world affairs. But it has been apparent ever since he started running for president in 2007.
Candidate Obama campaigned not just as a critic of the policies of the opposing party's president, as many candidates do, but he portrayed himself repeatedly as someone who, because he "looks different" from other presidents, would make America beloved and cherished in the world.
Plenty of solipsism here. Obama's status as the possible -- and then actual -- first black president was surely an electoral asset. Most Americans believed and believe that, given the nation's history, the election of a black president would be a good thing, at least in the abstract.
But that history has less resonance beyond America's borders. Obama must have been surprised to find, on his trip to his father's native Africa, that he was less popular there than George W. Bush, thanks to Bush's program to combat AIDS.
Obama was also mistaken in thinking that his election and the departure of the cowboy bully Bush would make the United States popular again among the world's leaders and peoples -- though it had that effect in the faculty lounges and university neighborhoods Obama had chosen to inhabit.
In the wider world, the United States, as the largest and mightiest power, is bound to be resented and blamed for every unwelcome development. American presidents for more than a century have been characterized as crude and bumptious by foreign elites.
Moreover, as Robert Gates argued persuasively in his 1996 and 2014 memoirs, there is more continuity in American foreign policy than domestic campaign rhetoric suggests. From Guantanamo to Afghanistan, Obama found himself obliged more to carry on than to repudiate Bush's policies.
Where he has clearly changed course, he has done so solipsistically. A reset with Russia was possible, he reasoned, because Vladimir Putin, insulted by Bush's mulishness, was ready to cooperate with a president in mutually advantageous win-win agreements.
So in the past week, Obama has insisted that Putin's invasion of Ukraine's Crimea was not in his own interest. No doubt most in the faculty lounge would see it that way. But Putin clearly doesn't. As the military say, the enemy has a vote.
And in his astonishing interview last week with Bloomberg's Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama declared that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was ready to accept peace with Israel. Again, that's what Obama and the faculty lounge would do. But Abbas has turned down one generous peace deal and has never said he would recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Obama's assumption that other leaders share his views has its limits. It does not always apply to those who have been allies and friends of the United States.
In the Goldberg interview, he lashed Israel, and by implication Benjamin Netanyahu, for "aggressive settlement construction" in the West Bank. The implication is that only Israel is blocking a peace agreement. But it was Abbas who has rejected John Kerry's framework.
Obama's solipsistic narcissism extends even to the mullahs of Iran. This goes back again to the 2008 campaign: The problem was Bush's refusal to negotiate. Speak emolliently, send greetings on Muslim holidays and ignore the Green Movement protesters, and Iranian leaders would see that it is in their interest to halt their nuclear weapons program.
Most Americans, conservative as well as liberal, would be delighted if Putin, the Palestinians and Ayatollah Khamenei believed and behaved as we would. They would be pleased to see an enlightened American leader bridge rhetorical differences and reach accommodations that left all sides content and at peace.
That, unhappily, is not the world we live in. Being on the lookout for common ground is sensible. Assuming common ground when none exists is foolish. And often has bad consequences.
Oh boy, yet another mental disorder. When the zero passes on, what will they find inside that skull?
I think Barone is thinking of Obama as a normal leftist Democrat. I.e., Obama is “naive.” Or solipsistic.
The truth is that Obama is an illegal alien and an enemy combatant. He seeks the destruction of the United States. It is mere coincidence that his foreign policy resembles that of a typical “naive” leftist—at this stage.
Solipsism may apply to Obama, but it is NOT the REASON for Obama’s behavior.
Hatred of America, Christianity, and the West, and EVIL intent on the destruction of each, is a much clearer explanation.
But, some folks are too worried about being labeled “racist”, or “extremist”, to state the obvious, so they feel compelled to come up with elaborate explanations for Obama’s behavior.
Even worse than obama believing others see the world as he does is the fact that he believes the world actually is the way he sees it. He is completely unaware of his own biases and limitations. Biases and limitations which are significantly more than typical.
“Solipsism. It’s a fancy word that means that the self is the only existing reality and that the external world, including other people, are representations of one’s own self and can have no independent existence.”.......
Pretty well defines odumbo, “Reason” or not.
Obama grew up as a moslem in Indonesia.
I have a few questions:
1. When is the republican leadership going to start realizing whom they are dealing with?
2. When are the American people going to realize who this guy really is?
3. When are countries like Israel and Russia going to start leaking the contents of their dossier on this guy?
1. NSA took care of that.
2. Never in our lifetimes, or at least until the media has been washed, rinsed and hung out to dry.
3. Why would they when Obama is doing all of their work for them. Attacking him would just make him a martyr and Americans instinctively defend Americans from outsiders.
“In the Goldberg interview, he lashed Israel, and by implication Benjamin Netanyahu, for “aggressive settlement construction” in the West Bank. The implication is that only Israel is blocking a peace agreement. But it was Abbas who has rejected John Kerry’s framework.”
Sort of like slapping the dog when grandma breaks wind...
Leftists can’t be reasoned with because there’s no reason in them. They’ve been so thoroughly feminized that they can’t think, instead they feel. Logic and common sense are like kryptonite to them. They recoil from them in horror.
Agreed about the NSA. I think this whole NSA leak thing is just blackmail writ large. Suddenly the “gubmint” leaks that they’re spying on everybody, including Congress. Suddenly Congress becomes totally invertebrate. “Play ball or all your shady deals and clandestine affairs will be leaked.”
Boehner and McConnell must have a lot of skeletons. Cruz, not so much, or he just plain old won’t knuckle under.
Sawdust!
Cruz just has no reasons to knuckle under, period. Would anyone with issues have walked out on the end of that plank with this administration? NO.
The others are just opportunists and every opportunist got there not by being honest and trustworthy.
Boehner, McConnell, and Roberts must have a lot of skeletons.
Had to fix it.
The critical lesson here is for Republican candidates for POTUS. At the very start of the primary season they have to be asked the question that will reveal if they have too big an ego for the office.
“Are you willing to work with congress to reduce the power of the office of the president to constitutionality?”
Unless they answer this question quickly and correctly, with a minimum of b.s., they probably think that *they* are strong enough to “control” the unconstitutional power, and use it “wisely”.
Which is the wrong answer.
This excessive power is too much for anyone to handle, and it is tearing our country apart. The office of the President of the United States must be deflated, or it will destroy our form of government, our prosperity, and our people.
The “imperial presidency” must end.
Are his intentions any different than the other coffee sippers in "...the faculty lounges and university neighborhoods Obama had chosen to inhabit?
“Cruz just has no reasons to knuckle under, period.”
Mrs. Cruz works for Goldman Sachs. Given the leftist orientation of many Goldman elitists, it is surprising she still has a job with such a prominent outspoken conservative for a husband. Does she have the dirt on someone? Or is Cruz another tool of the global bankers who will change his tune immediately if elected POTUS? In today’s world, nothing would be a surprise.
If he reads what the MSM writes and says, why would he believe any differently?
“I don’t care...what you do...I wouldn’t wanna be like you.”
************************
Overcooked spaghetti.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.