Posted on 12/05/2010 10:24:43 AM PST by proxy_user
First, here is Frank Rich’s article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05rich.html?ref=opinion
If you read the article carefully, and all eleven pages of comments from disappointed NYTimes readers, you will feel the tremendous anguish among liberal Democrats that Obama has not been what they expected. Their understanding was that in the 2008 campaign, in order to be elected, he had to moderate his basically liberal positions, but that once in office with a solid Democrat majority he would be able to implement the program of the liberal wing, and reverse years of Republican rule. The first few months of his presidency vindicated this view, as he turned his back on the Republicans and put through the stimulus bill and began work on health care. Everything should have been good, right?
If their premises were correct, and the entire country was longing for unmitigated liberalism, that would have been true. But only the most naïve liberals in the most insular areas really believe that the vast majority of the country agrees with them. While mainstream Democrats may attribute evil motives or stupidity to those holding opposing views, they do realize that there are a lot of them. What they underestimated is how much their actions would stir up and revitalize the conservatives, and how many moderates would jump ship once they saw the direction the government was going.
Now how does Obama fit into this picture? Was he naïve, was he crafty, was he really a centrist in disguise? In order to answer these questions, we have to look carefully at his background, and make a few careful guesses about the missing pieces. He went to college, he went to law school. He was probably welcomed as an intelligent, articulate African-American man at a time when affirmative action was taking off, but there was a distinct shortage of black men of the appropriate age to fill these slots. He undoubtedly espoused radical ideas, wrote papers full of the latest progressive cliches, and was praised and promoted for doing so. He was made editor of the Harvard Law Review, but there is no evidence to show that he did anything in particular. He merely showed up, spoke, and doors opened for him.
The same pattern is seen in his political career. He was virtually appointed to the Illinois state senate, and when he went to run for the US Senate both his primary opponents and general election opposition faded away due to scandals. The only political setback he ever experienced was the loss of a Democratic congressional primary in 2000.
So his whole career consisted of reading and speaking with basically like-minded people. He presented liberal, progressive cliches to captive audiences, or sat in the Illinois legislature and voted the Democrat line. His real life, in the upper-middle class world, was curiously detached from the ideas he dealt in. The house he owned, the argula he bought at the farmer’s market, the schools he sent his girls to, were in essence paid for by someone else’s labor. While he learned to milk the system, and get colleges and taxpayers to support him, they were not exactly giving him this money because they agreed with him or liked his views, although some undoubtedly did.
A career like this will undoubtedly give a man a very distorted idea of what constitutes success, and what kind of effort is needed to accomplish a goal. It tends to reinforce the notion that the job of a leader is to give a good speech, and accept the accolades of the masses—as well as the good life that comes with being a leader. Thus Obama’s soaring speeches and his career on the golf course can be seen as two sides of the same story. If all of life consists of voicing noble sentiments and enjoying great luxury in return, that is exactly what he should be doing.
As for those who try to explain Obama as a communist, or a third-world anti-colonialist, they are seeing difficulties that do not really exist. If we look at real communists like Lenin and Trotsky, we will see men who are engaged in the real world and who do realize what they are up against. They spent hard time in Czarist prisons and exile, and scrambled to stay alive and keep their cause going. This hardening eventually paid off, and when the time came, they were ready. They may have been tough, they may have been brutal, but they knew what it took to seize power and hold it. Obama is, in many ways, the direct opposite of such men. His life has been more like that of the spoiled heirs of great industrial fortunes, who go to prep school, an Ivy league college, and a cushy job on Wall Street without any great effort on their part. The only difference is that in the 30s, they got the ‘gentleman’s C’ at Yale, but nowadays they get the ‘Affirmative Action A’.
I would also dismiss the idea that Obama is the figurehead of a vast conspiratorial cabal. In a giant country of 300 million people, such a conspiracy would have zero chance of working, especially with a naïve and out-of-touch figurehead. The presidency is the one office where incompetence has virtually no chance of remaining undiscovered—and once your puppet is found out, what can you do then? Various interest groups, of course, have tried to use Obama to advance their agenda. However, once it is generally recognized that he is useless and a fool, they will all run madly in the opposite direction.
So how should conservatives proceed? I believe we are headed in the right direction, and have already made surprising progress. Our mistakes, such as they are, come from overenthusiasm at the bottom rather than arrogance and folly at the top. The new Congress has not even been sworn in, and already the Democrats are in a panic and the Obama administration is crumbling. If we keep the pressure on, I would not be greatly surprised if the within the next year or two, Obama decides to quit. He just does not have the experience and background he needs to do the job that is asked. On the other hand, his arrogance and sense of entitlement may lead him to do what is necessary to keep his job, even if he is forced to work with the Republican majority and sign their legislation. If he does this, the Democrats will surely be seething mad, because they will recognize he has sacrificed their sacred cause for a few rounds on the Federal golf courses and some state dinners. I can’t say they don’t deserve it.
I wish Frank Rich would read it, but we are not likely to get him here.
Excellent!
Take care, my friend.
I am ashamed to say this, but the first 20 years of my adult life was spend working in the media, both newspapers and radio. You have a fine working voice and present a compelling argument without rancor and hyperbole. If I was your editor, I’d advise you to keep writing.
Be well and God bless.
Interesting. Thanks for posting. I hope you’re right.
Only one minor disagreement:
“If we look at real communists like Lenin and Trotsky, we will see men who are engaged in the real world and who do realize what they are up against...This hardening eventually paid off, and when the time came, they were ready...Obama is, in many ways, the direct opposite of such men”
Lenin’s and Trotsky’s engagement in the real world consisted of attempts to bend and force reality into their theory. Obama’s trying to do the same thing - ineptly, and with a lot less force (so far). But he’s trying to shape the truth rather than adapting to it.
“G.O.P. propagandists notwithstanding, (NJ Governor) Christie’s appeal does not prove that New Jersey (and therefore the country) has “turned to the right.” It does prove that people want a leader with a strong voice, even if only to argue with it.
No one expects Obama to imitate Christie’s in-your-face, bull-in-the-china-shop shtick. But they have waited in vain for him to...”
...begin to halt the rise of the oceans, heal the planet, provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless? ‘Cause he’s actually kinda gone the other way on that jobs/jobless part.
Pelosi and Reid will do his thinking for him and inform TOTUS.
I have to disagree with you about the top... Repubs had exclusive control of D.C. for several years... and doubled the debt. If they stay any time in D.C. they are all bought off by someone.
What happened to term limits? What happened to eliminating earmarks? When are the lobbyists and special interests going to be turned down?
Never, if the old guard stays in there.
Primary ALL of these guys...
Thanks for your piece. It has a lot of plausibility
Did Bush not do much this same thing? When he got in with solid republican majorities, and announced he was taking on education reform, all the people I knew had worked for him (homeschoolers). Here at last America was looking for real educational choice, and I've no doubt there would have been a new intellectual renaissance.
Instead, he works with Kennedy and bypasses true reform.
It's not a repub or Dem thing, it's a politician thing.
Your essay is much more cogent and readable than much of what the ‘pros’ publish.
Thanks!
Don’t try to analyze Obama. Axelrod is Obama’s brain. Analyze Axelrod.
I agree 100% with your essay. The only other thing I would have mentioned is the added influence of being raised in another country. I see so much of that in his behavior, for instance, bowing to other countries leaders.
In America, we learned Americans don’t do that in second grade.
If only 1/10th of vanities were this cogently presented and argued. Nice work.
Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that candidates don't lie to get elected, but Obama's campaign went beyond the lie by exaggeration. Obama blatantly presented himself to voters as the exact opposite of who he really was. Once the American people found out just how extensively they were duped, they rejected Obama completely. And, they are taking the rest of the enabling Democrats with them.
Before the 2008 election, I wrote that Obama would set back the cause of African-American presidents for a generation, and now I'm convinced that I was right. Also, the mask is off the Democrat party, after how they abused their power to push through health care, set aside centuries of established law, and squandered the national treasury for payoffs to their base in the name of stimulus.
-PJ
"If all of life consists of voicing noble sentiments and enjoying great luxury in return, that is exactly what he should be doing."
"As for those who try to explain Obama as a communist, or a third-world anti-colonialist, they are seeing difficulties that do not really exist. If we look at real communists like Lenin and Trotsky, we will see men who are engaged in the real world and who do realize what they are up against. They spent hard time in Czarist prisons and exile, and scrambled to stay alive and keep their cause going. This hardening eventually paid off, and when the time came, they were ready. They may have been tough, they may have been brutal, but they knew what it took to seize power and hold it. Obama is, in many ways, the direct opposite of such men. His life has been more like that of the spoiled heirs of great industrial fortunes, who go to prep school, an Ivy league college, and a cushy job on Wall Street without any great effort on their part."
Obama has also comes across to me as someone who succeeded simply by showing up. The claims of a vast intelligence in the man have never rung true with me. I've never heard him speak on a subject in a manner that sounded like he knew what he was talking about.
He's the world's perfect bureaucrat. A know-nothing who looks great knowing nothing.
I find I can earn more money in IT than in writing at the moment. In fact, I wrote this during after getting up at 7 AM on Sunday to have a guy in India restart my apps, only to face a two-hour delay while other apps were started.
It is not perfect; the sentence structure is too complex, and parts should be rewritten for clarity. It would pass in The Rambler, but not in today’s world.
Maybe I will write more when I retire. Right now I am fully booked with work and hobbies.
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.