More on Obama the blame duck
Abe Greenwald of Commentary puts his finger on one characteristic of Obama’s that strikes an especially discordant note: his repetitive need to pass the buck and make excuses.
It was one of the very first things I noticed about Obama, and it later moved me to coin the descriptive name for him that appears in the title of this post: the blame duck.
Here’s Greenwald on the subject of Obama’s excuses:
Imagine a man who is up for a sales job at a company in crisis. He tells his prospective boss that not only will he rescue sales but he’ll also lower costs, turn out a better product, get the competition to cooperate instead of compete, raise wages, improve the food in the company commissary, and redecorate the offices to boot. This man then gets hired. For a year, sales continue to lag, and everything else stays the same. The new employee explains that the guy who used to have his job left behind an unconscionable mess, which has made it very hard to do the things he had promised in the interview phase. After a year and a half, sales hit an historic low, the product is being recalled, competitors have formed a guild and are pulling ahead, everyone at the company has taken a salary hit, a few people have gotten food poisoning in the commissary, and the offices are more dilapidated than ever. On top of that, vendors can’t get him on the phone, he’s insulted his co-workers, and he’s taken more vacation time than the company allows. The boss finally asks him what’s gone wrong. “I could never have lived up to your expectations,” the man says.
It’s not just the blaming and the excuse-making itself, it’s the fact that such behavior is unprecedented in a president in my lifetime. What’s more, it’s that nearly half of the American public isn’t yet turned off by this sort of thing in a POTUS. Back when I was growing up, such an approach by a president would be unthinkable and even (yes, I know this isn’t PC) unmanly. It just wasn’t done; it was weak and unseemly and showed lack of leadership.
The fact that it now seems acceptable is probably a result of the decades-long abdication of the idea of personal responsibility, beginning in the school system with the self-esteem movement. Obama may be the first president who not only is a product of that system, but more importantly, was elected by people raised in that system. He knows his audience well.
The last paragraph of this article identifies the problem: the education of the young has been wrenched away from our traditional religious part of society and rests now in the new “secular-religious” left.
Neo, iirc George H.W. Bush was also an excuse-maker. The specifics have faded from my memory with the years, but the overall impression remains with me.
At the time I suspected that Bush 41 acquired his behavior during his years in non-elected government service.
Neo,
I think that the school system and unwarranted self-esteem is where it begins, but I also think much has to do with the feminization of American culture and the American male.
You use the term “unmanly” and even a rational and sane person such as yourself feels the need to qualify this by pointing out that the remark is not PC.
I believe that we have reached a point in our culture where feminine attributes in males are lauded in the public dialogue (the Alan Alda male) while the classic male (think John Wayne) is implicitely thought to be a Neanderthal knuckle-dragger (my apologies to the Neanderthals).
In the public dialogue feminine attributes are positive but masculine attributes (to “man-up”) are negative (and I’m not implying that avoiding responsibilty is a feminine trait—it is not).
Couple this with the liberal media’s love affair with Obama and their willingness to go to extremes to avoid critically appraising him, as well as the elite visceral hatred of Geo W Bush, and you have a situation where constant blame might actually be seen by some as exonerating Obama for his failures. It’s certainly the goal Obama, himself, has in mind.
The old business joke of the three envelopes comes to mind when observing Obama.
A new business leader arrives at his plush office and his predecessor has cleaned everything out except three envelopes in the center desk drawer addressed to the new boss. The first envelope is labeled “open immediately”. Inside is a slip of paper that says “Blame the previous administration”. The second envelope is labeled “open after six months”. The slip of paper inside says “Reorganize”. The third envelope is labeled “open after one year”. The slip of paper inside simply says “prepare three envelopes to leave for your successor”.
It is time for envelope #3.
I can’t recall a president who so willingly attacks the public who elected him like this one does.
It started even before he became president. Remeber when he showed utter contemt for those who “cling to their guns and their bibles”? And then after he was elected, there was another video clip of a speech where Obama expressed disdain for people “waving tea bags around”.
And the attacks on banks, Wall Street, Fox News, the health insurance industry, and Arizona have been relentless (all of whom employ many tens of thousands of voters).
He has literally been contemptuous toward many millions of voters, and yet his approval rating is well in excess of 40%. It’s really astonshing to me the man can be so divisive, and yet so liked at the same time.
“The fact that it now seems acceptable is probably a result of the decades-long abdication of the idea of personal responsibility, beginning in the school system with the self-esteem movement. Obama may be the first president who not only is a product of that system, but more importantly, was elected by people raised in that system. “
Yes, there’s general agreement as to the cause among those of us not raised in such a system. That perspective allows us to see that abdication of personal responsibility ensures continued failure both by the leader and by those electing that leader. A very tough lesson is in order and reality never has any problem with providing the lesson needed, regardless of how onerous that lesson may be.
Obama, the left and liberal true believers have been blaming Bush, will switch that blame to the Republicans after the mid-terms but have run out of road. The buck still stops at Obama’s desk and taking 7 vacations and 200+ hours of golf in just his first 18 mths, while the country endures a deep recession is a formula guaranteed to reduce support.
People want results not continued excuses.
Scott,
Whatever else the may may or may not be, he is slick. Just think of the classic definition of a good salesman (actually a bad salesman), who can sell “snow to Eskimos.” Fortunately for us, the only product he’s been capable of selling has been himself. I can’t believe that this will last much longer.
So far Holder has indicted us as a nation of cowards, Biden has claimed it is “too hard” to secure the borders, and the DoJ is apparently in the open on operating on ‘pay back whitey’ rules.
It’s not that they are bent on evil and demonstrably incompetent – they are both, in spades – it is that their postmodern girlyman whining is antiethical to every quality Americans demand in their leaders.
Well, the Americans who love their country, at least.
Evil. Not mistaken, not good intentioned but flawed.
Evil.
I’m starting to think of Obama as Wally from the Dilbert comic strip.
Enlarging on the 200 hours of golf:
Putz!
Since Bush gets blame for Obama’s poor performance he should get credit for capping that oil well?
If I recall correctly, although the details aren’t there, still the memory remains, I suspect that Obama’s blame shifting was acquired in his non-governmental (ACORN) service.
Scott wrote “He has literally been contemptuous toward many millions of voters, and yet his approval rating is well in excess of 40%. It’s really astonishing to me the man can be so divisive, and yet so liked at the same time”
That has struck me as well Scott. I could understand a small proportion of the public being in denial a la OJ is innocent, but this is so widespread. I can attribute some to simple indifference to anything beyond one’s pleasure, misinformation campaigns by the MSM, genuine hate America leftist ideology, an assumption by some senior citizens that they are voting for the party of Roosevelt and Truman, groupthink in places where it is socially unacceptable to be anti-Obama (you must be a racist), simple immaturity and the search for sense of security in belief rather than a genuine recognition of a threat to their freedom, safety and likelihoods, the ostrich solution. But does all this add to 45% of the electorate? Whatever psychological mechanisms are feeding Obama’s unjustifiably high poll numbers it is frightening.
Obama the lame skunk.
Oh isn’t he cute, what’s he doing, why is he turning around like that?
(Sorry I’m hogging the comments. Last one promise)
Bob from Virginia: Three possible answers to Obama’s popularity continuing beyond any reasonable explanation.
1. Satan
2. People are stupid.
3. Polls are wrong.
Maybe if we give 5 points to each, things look a little better.
And also all the valid points you made!
Curtis, I hope answer 3 is the most correct, answer 2 is undeniable, as for answer 1, it figures.
Obama’s numbers are in the context that people still blame Bush for the economy. As time passes and they start to blame him, that approval will slowly ebb.
I blame the 2006 congress myself. Well, first in line for blame, not all the blame.
gs – if you can’t remember the specifics on Bush 41’s blaming, you probably should hold that idea ever more lightly. Or research it.
Obama should be given a good slap on the backside and sent to his room to study Kipling’s If. He must have missed reading it when he was 12.
And on this topic is an interesting article in The Washington Examiner by Scott Payne (h/t Instapundit):
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/The-end-of-the-popularity-contest-presidential-edition-98627319.html
I did not finish the above article but if the poll numbers are correct then the American public are genuinely stupid.
There is no other word, however I suspect that poll was taken with the purpose of producing exactly those numbers.
And a further comment on de-masculinizing (?) public policy and the public narrative.
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/
[see her post “The End of Men” posted July 18, 2010.
Bob from Va,
While it is always possible for a poll to be designed to produce desired resuts, Scott Payne’s point is to demonstrate that Obama was sold as a personality and a likeable guy. Think of someone like Charlie Rangel; he’s probably as corrupt as any politician, but he’s a likeable rogue, unlike Bob Etheridge who is a definitely unlikeable and arrogant buffoon.
I don’t agree with Payne’s point, but perhaps a large number of Americans do. Even to the extent I can understand Obama personnally I find him to be the kind of arrogant morally superior snob that I tried to avoid in high school and college. I’m not at all interested in “having a beer” with him because he has convinced me that he would rather be sipping Chateu LaFitte if only because of the panache of its label.
Obama wouldn’t be sipping a good wine, he’d be sipping some bargain-basement swill with a pretentious label. That’s what’s so disturbing about Obama: he’s not just a jerk, he’s a fool who thinks he’s smarter than you.
Trimegistus,
But isn’t that true of just about everyone who purports to be smarter than anyone else? The people who are really smarter than. . . usually don’t need to advertise it, they just do what needs to be done in any given circumstance.