Obama’s immunity
Commenter “T” asks an excellent question:
I really don’t know how intentional the foundation of this [foreign policy] implosion was, but I’d bet good money on one thing: that Obama never thought he’d be diminishing his own persona to the international laughingstock he is becoming.
For the life of me I can’t understand how he believed that he could retain any grace, dignity or respect after reducing the prestige of the country he supposedly leads. If you lead a lesser nation, you are a less important head of state. Did he really (narcissistically) believe himself to be immune?
It’s a good question because there’s a lot of logic there. Under normal circumstances, it would be hard to believe that a president would imagine he could enhance his own prestige—or at least have it remain substantially intact, if already high, as Obama’s was from the start—by reducing the status and power of his own country. After all, doesn’t a president derive that status and power from that of his country (do we know the name of the president of Tanzania)?
But Obama’s circumstances are not normal, and he knows it. I’ve written before about Obama’s belief in the power of his actual person and his empty words devoid of any deeds or backup, and how that belief has been justified to a large extent by the trajectory of his life until now. For most of his adult years he has gotten kudos merely by walking into a room and speaking, and this enabled him to reach the highest pinnacle of American power, the presidency, with a resume that would not have been nearly enough to have catapulted another man into the same position or anything like it.
And until recently, this was true on the world stage as well. When Obama took office, world opinion about his gifts and potential was extraordinarily high. He got the Nobel Peace Prize for merely showing up, and whatever you or I might think of such a dubious honor and how unearned it was, much of the world (and certainly Obama himself) was highly impressed.
Obama seemed to belief in Obaman exceptionalism while simultaneously denying American exceptionalism and also apologizing for his country—remember wife Michelle’s statement about how Obama’s imminent nomination was the first time in her adult life she was really proud of her country? So the country’s pride and prestige was derived from its elevation of Obama, not the other way around.
You might ask whether Obama (and Michelle) actually believed this. My answer is that they both gave, and still give, every indication that they did and do. Variations on the theme have been repeated almost endlessly in an over-the-top manner that would probably embarrass more modest people but that don’t seem to cause even a flicker of shame for Obama and his wife. Some narcissistic bluster is merely a cover-up for feelings of inferiority. But Obama’s bluster feels and sounds like the real deal.
For example, during the 2008 campaign, when most of us were first getting to know Obama, this astounding statement of his on the subject of his foreign policy expertise made a deep impression on me. Now of course I wouldn’t have expected presidential candidate Obama to have owned up to his being a completely untested neophyte in that sphere. But something about the sheer preening juvenile brazen arrogance of his remarks (his college trip to Pakistan qualified him for the presidency?) smacked of being a lot more than a sophistic argument made for show.
Simply put, Obama seemed to truly believe his own bull and to believe others would believe it too. And hasn’t he been more or less correct until recently?
Here’s what Obama said back then:
…[T]his is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags ‘I’ve met leaders from eighty countries’–I know what those trips are like! I’ve been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There’s a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then–you go.
You do that in eighty countries–you don’t know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa–knowing the leaders is not important–what I know is the people. . . .
I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college–I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . .
Nobody is entirely prepared for being Commander-in-Chief. The question is when the 3 AM phone call comes do you have somebody who has the judgment, the temperament to ask the right questions, to weigh the costs and benefits of military action, who insists on good intelligence, who is not going to be swayed by the short-term politics. By most criteria, I’ve passed those tests and my two opponents have not.
In April of 2008 I wrote:
…[A]lthough youthful exuberance and innocence can be charming even in an adult, youthful arrogance and ignorance never is.
Is Obama really this unaware, or is he faking it to appeal to the youthful demographic? I haven’t a clue, but I fear it’s the former…
Whether or not you believe (as I do) that part of Obama’s intent was to reduce US influence and prestige in the international arena, or whether you believe it was not planned but was an accidental result of his own incompetence, there is plenty of evidence that, either way, Obama believed that his own reputation would remain mostly undamaged. That might seem to be a contradiction for some people, but not for Barack Obama.
[NOTE: If you want to see the sort of thing that helps Obama believe that his reputation will remain intact somehow, just take a look at what Andrew Sullivan has to say today.]
Neo-neocon,
“So the country’s pride and prestige was derived from its elevation of Obama, not the other way around. ”
I think this is a brilliantly accurate observation and it explains quite a bit. I suffer from the same myopia as most other people; never having been a delusional narcissist, it’s simply impossible for me to comprehend anyone who thinks that way. IMO what makes Obama dangerous is that, as you point out, this is not a charade, and because Obama believes it, it exudes an underlying sincerity that compels others (especially those of modest brain) to believe it as well.
You mention Andrew Sullivan’s risible column. let me add Joe Klein who recently wrote about Obama’s “inexplicable incompetence.” Perhaps inexplicable to those Obamaphiles of modest brain, but almost half the country has been pointing this out for the past five years.
Sullivan is an idiot. If Putin owns the ME, does that mean he owns the oil and gas and can use it to bring fuel-dependent Europeans to bend to his will? Does it mean that he can deal with disruptive Muslims in the ME as he dealt with Chechnya? Does it mean that he will distribute favors there to all the corrupt who cooperate with the corrupt of Russia? Does it mean he will control Iran’s nuclear weapons? And if he owns the ME, doesn’t that give him more leverage elsewhere in the world?
I hope that I don’t really believe what I have been thinking about with relationship between the President and biblical prophecy. The cartoonist, Scott Stantis, in my favorite cartoon, Prickly City has all but said what I had been wondering about for quite a while. That is as close to being in the mainstream as those thoughts have been. I don’t believe in that stuff, generally, but it is “out there”, waiting to be said explicitly. As I say, I hope that I am only joking about it.
T:
Well, as a delusional narcissist myself, I can understand it :-).
Thanks for the post neo. I think you’re right about what Obama believes a bout his own brilliance and Im sure he’ll find away to spin this as a positive (he’s strenuously working on that now), but the rest of us dont reside in his fantasy and can properly identify this fraud as it is.
It is a greater phenomenon than Obama himself that he should, at this stage of his currency, warrant serious reasoned discussion — as though it were possible, as though it had any meaning. Obama is so disordered a personality that he defies every category of dysfunction except one — ‘all of the above’.
Obama merits little consideration of fool or knave or insane* – not because any one might be merited but because all three are actively immanent and all three contribute to his character deformity. The most discouraging thing about the phenomenon is that it had been apparent to many that the candidate was a hoax or a huckster, and yet, to this day, the great plurality go about muttering to anyone who will hear “he does too have clothes”. All of which speaks more to to what ails the people than what warps the president.
*If Obama has done nothing good — and he hasn’t — he has, at least, made a contribution to science. Scientist must now be aware that an ego may metastasize beyond the corpus majorus. If it were surgically removed there would be nothing left.
BTW — it would not surprise me if the self-besotted (Peggy Noonan’s observation — alas too little too late) stepped down from his office what with another 3+ years of probable humiliation staring at him. Very few will cut a blowhard a break once he’s winded and flaccid.
Narrative is truth.
I never got to say what an excellent article that AT article was, Neo.
You know why it was great. It was simple, brief and devastating. The author made it about the subject not the author (not even a little bit). There was another article in AT that day about the same thing. That article got top billing (Neo was second) and it wasn’t near as good. Neo’s had fact after fact after fact, understandable chronology, and a simple understandable premise that the article did not stray from. You know, good writing like that is often hard to recognize because it doesn’t seem fancy, scientific or intellectual. But writing like that is harder than writing fancy, scientific and intellectual.
George Pal, about Obama resigning: It’s a lovely dream and one I’ve had for the last few days, but I don’t think it’ll come to that.
Remember how he looked during his first debate with Romney, and how his minions in the press turned on him over his miserable performance? But he came roaring back, with their help, of course.
Maybe he’ll give some speech and riff on Putin, the way he did on Romney with a who-was-that-guy routine: “When I got on the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney”. Watch the video; such swagger.
Neo,
Thanks for the chuckle in the midst of a very serious discussion. Apparently you do understand this, although certainly not for the reason you admit. I expect your training in social work and perhaps clinical experience has given you that insight. I, OTOH, have never experienced this; I lead a sheltered life.
Good piece here on Sullivan’s take:
And, apparently, Andrew even gave Christiane Amanpour a bit of a jolt:
Crazy and callous does seem to capture his essence.
“So the country’s pride and prestige was derived from its elevation of Obama, not the other way around.”
This.
Ann,
It might not come to that, but Putin is not Romney, nor are the other ‘sharks’ disposed to disregard blood in the water. Another thing in his favor at the time — he, an inveterate campaigner, was in the middle of a campaign. He presently finds himself in more than a popularity contest.
Were he a praying man he might make supplication to his favorite idol, himself, but a fat lot of good that would do.
One last thing, people are fickle, front runners more so, and world leaders exemplars. The problem with having so high a pedestal is, once it begins to wobble, people are more likely to run for cover than provide stability.
Obama claimed that he was the messiah, that he could lower the sea levels like Moses, and a light would shine down upon him.
A God does not need to worry about the petty opinions of bitter americans or people in the world.
Obummer has certainly been doing a good job of “fundamentally transforming America” these last 4.66 years; yet the very fact of his elevation, er, election showed that the fundamental transformation had already occurred.
I’m in the odd position of almost rootin’ for Putin. He’s a slimeball in his own way so I’m not quite there…
Does traveling in foreign countries give one insights that are valuable toward providing effective foreign policy leadership? Does actually living in foreign countries give such experience? I recall that Truman was pretty effective in foreign policy, and he gained his experience by reading history. It seems to me that a knowledge of history including the relationships between nations is far more effective at giving a person the right perspective to craft effective foreign policy than traveling the world and hob-knobbing with foreigners.
“How can you be so stupid?” is usually a rhetorical question. In Andrew Sullivan’s case it it is a legitimate expression of an known unknown that deserves scientific investigation.
George Pal:
Obama would never, never resign voluntarily.
sharpie:
Thanks!
Oscama is in so many ways exemplary of our twisted culture; obsession with celebrity, for one thing. He’s the ultimate celebrity, the ultimate triumph of style over substance. All surface and zero depth.
My hat is off to Putin. He knows what he wants and plays very hard to win. Agreeing with his ambitions is immaterial. One has to be tough in Russia to make it to the top, not just black and smooth.
This is like the mens’ finals at the US Tennis Open, except that only one showed up to play. Barry lost in three sets, all 6-love, and went back to the showers, telling himself, “I’m one of the best. I made the Finals, didn’t I? I am still one of the best.” That a crappy ratings system (the voters) and biased seedings got him there has never crossed his basilisk mind.
Oh, come now. Barry knows (KNOWS) he’s the smartest guy in the nation and everybody else is a chump of one kind or another. He’s got a stately mansion in the state of Cognitive Dissonance.
The thing I find interesting is the response from the rest of the left. One might think that they ostensibly believed that America needed to be taken down a notch, but now that it’s happening (and especially that Europe is laughing at us, too) they seem increasingly horrified by it. Maybe they thought there was a nice, painless way for a superpower to lose influence?
Matt_SE,
Which part of the Left?
There’s the Left that believes an “unbelievably small” ineffective attack by America in Syria targeting chemical weapons is a world crime because it’s hegemonic but is unfazed by the mountain of atrocities committed by the terrorists and Assad regime in Syria.
Then there’s the Left that started from the same liberal origin point of FDR, Truman, JFK but has since become corrupted and delusional.
Sullivan’s response reminds me of two playground things. One is when a child is excluded from play and remarks, “didn’t want to anyway,” and the other comes from Peewee Herman when he wrecks his bike and says “I meant to do that.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJXU7EVXs2A
Presidential address upon the loss of American support:
“Where have we heard Mr. Putin’s principles before? They are in fact basic articles of faith among American liberals who have been saying for decades that the U.S. should not use military force without United Nations authorization, we should not intervene in civil wars abroad, and the idea of American exceptionalism is a myth used to cover up crimes against women and minorities at home and the poor and oppressed abroad.”
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/09/13/putin-exposes-the-secrets-of-a
Putin Exposes the Secrets of American Liberalism
By James Piereson on 9.13.13 @ 6:11AM
Neo, I think you are missing the real intention of Obama.
I think he set out on the apology tour and “lead from behind” strategy to FEIGN humbleness and deference to the Europeans, Arab world, and so on. But he expected to be embraced, loved, and respected for his open mindedness, and that his big show of international high mindedness would increase his influence and prestige. The whole act was supposed to win over the world and he would be looked up to as the reluctant leader- the healer, the reasonable one, the great organizer. These admissions of US wrongdoing, selfishness, and insensitivity were meant to impress the world and win him goodwill, and respect- not the opposite. talking down the US was designed to increase his personal prestige and influence. The fact that he diminished us in the process was an after thought, not the main goal. we are just another expendable entity to inflate his galactic sized ego.
I think this explanation is a lot more consistent with his narcissism and naé¯veté, than to believe he wanted to preside over the demise of US influence and power as an actual goal, while allowing himself to become an international buffoon in the process.
southpaw:
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I never said he purposely “allowed himself to become an international buffoon in the process.” He thought it was a “win-win” proposition: he would deflate the US on the international scene AND win enhanced prestige for himself in the process. The two were not mutually exclusive. He most likely thought they would have a synergistic effect on each other.
southpaw, 1:03 am —
VERY on-target here. Yes.
southpaw: I agree nearly entirely with what you wrote. However there is a subtle but important point – while Obama may not have been actively trying to diminish American power, he has not been actively trying to maintain it, either. That is exactly why the Syria debacle has occurred, because it has not been important to him to craft a foreign policy and defense posture that keeps America the pre-eminent power in the world. His stumblebum performance is nothing if not reactive; he obviously never bothered to develop contingency plans or consider “what if” scenarios.
The policies of the Bush administration may have been right or they may have been wrong. But I am certain that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld cared very deeply about maintaining America’s place in the world and they spent a lot of time thinking and planning how to achieve that.
It will be interesting to see now whether Obama still has cover for his incompetence in other areas: the spying scandals, Obamacare, etc. If Germans are turning anti-US because of NSA spying, how will Obama avoid being blamed? If Obamacare creates huge problems, can Obama still deflect responsibility?
Steve,
Obama may or may not have personal cover, but the Democrats and the Left never lose focus of their enemy.
NEO
It may be that misunderstand your meaning. I think you’re saying deflating the US on the international scene was a goal he set out to achieve. I don’t think that is true; I think he set out to criticize our past and our flaws as a means to gain acceptance with our critics, in the same way an adolescent wants to be accepted by his peers. It is my contention that Obama fully expected that our critics would see him as a something special, or at least different from the typical American. But that is a natural part of his upbringing- in his early life he was surrounded by anti-American influences, and later on his college life , he chose to surround himself with similar influences. All of which everyone already knows. And he gained immediate support for his efforts to apologize for America, it won him a Nobel prize. Being critical in the 60s radical vein, and disloyal to the US is ingrained in his personality.
But where I believe we differ is that Obama wanted to diminish us as being an actual goal. As the new leader of the USA, that would also make him less relevant, and I do not think it was intention to be less relevant, or by extension, for the country he leads to be less relevant. His intention was to convey the message to the rest of the world that we were all sorry and he was ready to lead us in a new direction. This international act of contrition was intended to gain us greater influence- by showing he was not ‘us’, but a great reformer. We disagree that taking us down the crapper was a ‘win’ in his calculations.
A win-win for Obama, is that he is personally more popular, and our influence, and therefore his own, is greater on the international stage. He failed miserably. None of our allies and many in his own party have followed his lead. I contend he did not expect that- he fully expected that being a critic of the US would win him immediate trust and loyalty from wary allies and his own party. he expected the same blind loyalty and groupie following from our allies, that he gets from our MSM. He expected greater US influence, because well, he’s Obama, and nobody before him had the wisdom or vision that his greatness brings to the world.
I agree he calculated some of this, making him a knave, but in the end he is a fool. His calculation, such as it is, is driven by adolescent instincts and sophomoric views of the world, and rooted in an arrogance that badly underestimates the intelligence of wiser, more experienced men.
FOAF- I agree, and maybe I am not clear but I think that everything he does is to satisfy his ego. At least from my perspective, his actions and words did that. Bringing America up or down was not the main idea or interest. All his actions are about Obama. If it serves Obama to speak badly of the US, he will not hesitate. If the opposite is true for the moment, he will do that. It’s obvious that he’s a lefty, and generally anti American in his thinking, but Obama calculates first and foremost what’s in his own best interest, and he has no trouble contradicting previously held positions to achieve it. He lives in the moment of Obama.
When he trashes America, he expects the opposite reaction from the world – greater influence rather than less – to say he wants both high personal popularity and low US appeal and influence influence doesn’t coincide with the way things work. He represents the US, and as far as the world is concerned, american interests and influence and what Obama does or wants to do are one in the same thing. Only he did not understand this.
Now that his first approach has made him look weak and indecisive, He is trying out the Rush Limbaugh theorem on the world stage – trying to pretend he’s outside the loop and looking in, blaming congress or whomever he can, and washing his hands of any policies or responsibilities. He’s in Obama image protection mode first, last and always. That is Obama’s true ideology- if he can come down on the side of the left, that’s good, but he’s going to do his best to protect and promote the grandiose view he has of his abilities and inherent understanding of everything. He will throw anyone or anything under the bus to that end, and not give a thought to the contrary. His supporters and critics alike are always off balance because they cannot understand a person who is this duplicitous.
When people speak of Obama’s intentions, it is useful to correlate their personal judgment vis a vis other people’s judgment in similar situations.
For example, what did they think of Zimmerman’s judgment? Was it intentional, unintentional, etc?
What did they think of Democrat education and Democrat police unions, intentional or unintentional destruction?
southpaw et al:
Obama is a narcissist AND a leftist ideologue. The two are hardly mutually exclusive. He wants to undermine the traditional role of the US in the world and replace it with a new role as a leftist nation among many, and very cooperative with the larger international community. Obama sees his role on the WORLD stage, not just as the head of the US and with power derived from it, but with his own larger status as a major international figure above it all. That was his goal even before he was elected, and his behavior and speeches made it very clear. He has been very consistent about it, too.
In other words, Obama is a domestic enemy, traitor, or at least anti-American sleeper saboteur agent.
The Left has always been sensitive about Democrats being called unAmerican or having the public think of Democrats as being anti American or something of that nature.
I suppose the reason was that they knew they were going to destroy America, so it was best not to give the game away too soon.