Obama the Rorschach president
Brent Budowsky used to think highly of Obama. And he would like to think highly of him again.
But right now Budowsky’s tired of Obama’s disengaged style. Very very tired:
Obama’s governing style is to remain as distant as possible, for as long as possible, from the nasty details of major policy decisions as Congress and the nation face domestic and foreign challenges on multiple fronts in real time…
His political vision of himself, prior to November 2008, was a Rorschach candidate. He deliberately encouraged voters with widely differing views to simultaneously see themselves in him.
A Rorschach campaign for a little-known candidate might be brilliant. A Rorschach presidency when the nation faces multiple challenges delays decisions that are urgently needed, destroys the narrative of his own party and creates greater divisions within a Congress the president is triangulating himself against…
Budowsky seems to believe that Obama could change this if he wanted to, and that what’s more the change would be for the better and he would be doing something competent rather than destructive. But what struck me as I read the article is that Obama is only doing now what so many praised him for doing in his public life before he was elected: next to nothing effective, and very slowly at that. No wonder the comparisons to Hamlet are coming more often these days.
One telling incident occurred during the campaign, in September of 2008 when the financial crisis first hit. He was praised for his calm forbearance and coolness in contrast to McCain’s frenetic reaction.
I made some observations back then about Obama’s style, and I would take none of them back now (in fact, I’d probably express my judgments more harshly):
McCain is an action man who doesn’t like to dither…I think he believes his decision to return to the Senate is both the right thing to do and the politically smart thing to do in the end, because it is consistent with his political message.
Obama is not a decision-maker, nor does he really feel comfortable in the Senate, having spent very little time there. He likes to sit back and study all the angles, and even then would prefer to let things emerge rather than taking a leadership role. This is partly due to his naturally contemplative bent, and partly to being a personality type that shies away from commitment and being pinned down. This is a good thing if his role in life were to be a mediator, for example, but I don’t think it suits the Presidency. Although this stance of watchful waiting is natural to him, I believe he also calculates it to be politically useful right now because it conveys his message of cool judicious thoughtfulness.
So why should someone like Budowsky be the least bit surprised?
[NOTE: Alex Spillius, on the other hand, thinks Obama knows just what he’s doing in Libya. It’s just very very nuanced, and very very subtle. So subtle that apologists like Spillius have to bend over backwards and twist themselves into pretzels to see it.]
I agree with the thrust of these remarks – Obama is not a leader – but I remain uncomfortable with the details of the criticism.
Whenever I hear people, mostly liberals, “turning on” Obama for being a ditherer, for failing to “get involved,” to “take command,” I shudder to think what they mean by that. And that in turn makes me think that a dithering Obama has benefits as well as costs.
Furthermore, in the crucial sense – passing legislation that reflects his values and goals, obtaining regulatory decisions that do the same, appointing people of his bent to courts, etc. – he has been extraordinarily successful. Liberals can criticize his apparent passivity and bad messaging on the health care law all they want – the fact is his pigheaded refusal to back down on passing it got the monstrosity passed.
Look, I think if, say Mitch Daniels became president and seemed as aloof as Obama, but somehow, mysteriously, he managed to get tax and entitlement reform, repeal of the health care law, a new pro-market health care law, good conservative judges on the bench, and meaningful budget cutting – I wouldn’t be sitting around criticizing him for dithering or a lack of leadership. That would be more than any conservative President has ever achieved in the way of conservative policy possibly excepting Reagan and Calvin Coolidge.
Obama may like to rely on proxies. He may like to play Hamlet on the Teleprompter and in meetings. And that may have serious, bi-partisanly bad consequences in areas like foreign policy. But otherwise, on domestic matters, if he hasn’t been the progressive knight, then no one could be.
I don’t know many conservatives who would have pushed a bill as unpopular as Obamacare as steadfastly and indefatigably as Obama did.
He has the luxury of having people loyal foot-soldiers who will make the decisions he likes for him, allowing him to act his usual pettifogging self. But in the essentials, he gets what he wants. If he actually WAS a “decider” as so many seem to think he should be, that would probably mean even more aggressively leftist policies being forwarded, or at least it would have meant that before November. I don’t think the fact that didn’t happen is something to lament.
What am I missing?
kolnai: you’re not missing a thing. I agree, which is why I wrote, “Budowsky seems to believe that Obama could change this if he wanted to, and that what’s more the change would be for the better and he would be doing something competent rather than destructive.” I believe a more active Obama would be doing worse harm.
if there is a silent war going on, all he is doing is helping friends do what they want to do without much opposition.
in baseball or basketball terms he is “throwing” the game and enjoying that the ambiguity and desire for the con not to be the con handle the people who may think so if they cant maintain their insight in light of oppositions in your face and life harming ways.
he is doing what his Secret Service code name says he would do.
and if you cant actively support something, you can support it situationally.
after all, doctors know enough not to run to help someone when everyone has decided its best not to..
its all about arbitrary belief, and the unwillingness to keep all options that fit on the table no matter how negative they may be. ignoring them means that by being negative and evil, one can find a unopposed path to overthrowing positive representative government as people do not guard against what they do not believe in. and synonyms, false distinctions and false similarities, and other conscious raising games (ie, your superior for having your mind poisoned), play on belief.
as is shown in the Screwtape letters, minimum subtle things that accomplish an end go undetected, and are easy to play on. while wathing for the elephant coming in the door, we miss the bacterium.
they turned on the scanner so its hart to post about things again..
its kind of a way to throttle conversation back by making it very difficult to post, as you get no feedback as to why its not acceptable so you cant correct it.
this favors short concepts, over long education’
Match fixing, game fixing, race fixing, or sports fixing
To international socialists its “making history”
ie. Psychopathically manipulating things so that history becomes what you want it to be and so reinforces the future over time..
ok.. after trying many many times to post a point i will now have to post it one sentence at a time till i figure out what word or symbol is not allowed.. sigh
Sand bagging may refer to
Dec eiving someone by pretending to be weak.
A racing driver deliberately drag races or qual ifies slower than what the car can actually perform
In budg eting a manager deli berately overstates financial require ments with the intent of co ming in under-budget, thus being praised.
In golfing a player deliber ately plays poorly until establishing a handicap and then raises his money bets, using the established handicap to unfairly win
Climbing a climber describes a route as being easier than it actually is
i am breaking up the words, sorry for the gaps..
and its now saying i am posting too fast.
In chess, Go, bi lliard ds or oth er such gam es, a player deliber ately lowers his compe titive rating, in order to play in a f uture event with a low er rati ng and conseque ntly have a better chance to win.
found the sentence.
your not allowed to say
slow
p l a y
po k e r
is a decp
tive
pl
ay in
po
ker
And in fantasy sports a manager intentionally talks down certain players to trade at a discounted price.
The Engl ish and other lan guages are rife with ter ms that mea n this kind of mani pulation!!!
But we won’t a pply that to the leader ship? Why?
What would a ‘de vil’ do to gain (regard less of actual existen ce, belief is enough to get us to gather ideas and conc epts into one basket) power?
Lie? Dissimulate? Ab use power in subtle ways to gain advantage, but not be called on it? Collude against merit? Invert goodness’s? Profess good works that all turn out bad? Foment discordance over harmony? Put spikes between lovers? Set the victims at each other for their own pleasure? Normalize sadism? Create a victim base to play with? Increase misery? Increase division between wealthy ub er-me nche n and und er-me nchen? Erase the econ omic bridge to prevent good hard working people (not their kind of people) from crossing the bridge to wealth and a halt to their fun?
so if you understand the method, what you do is place players that are incompetent and all that in a place to play naturally.
if they have super self confidence in their wrong abilities, then you created a losing team, stacked it for your purposes, and can if your the opposition, take advantage of it.
so..
if other states using our open system and lots of money colluded to stack the deck, then what you have is a bunch of losers elevated to a place of winners, in which when the time comes cant win a fight.
the only thing they are waiting for is the pull back..
that is, why stop your opponent from hurting himself, or making vast horrible mistakes? you dont..
so they are just letting violations and other things stack up.
imagine in a middle of a real war, not a kenetic action (where action is the synonym for war), the papers that show he is not a president appear?
nothing like pushing an idiot with despotic megalomania over the top, by trying to remove him from his moment in history and his moment of greatness…
he has already shown he will violate even war powers… so posse comitatus is a nothnig, as are most everything else. the police are on the socialist side, they are union, and there are so many who only worked 20 years and have 40 year retirements plus…
in one swoop, he is in the middle of a blender deligitimized, all agreements with other countries for that war, and other thigns are instantly null and void.
if this is the case, then the people he thinks are friends protecting him and making it all possible, are his enemies. and the moment of realization will not be swallowed, believed or the right actions taken.
Even the man who pays a traitor wont accept them as friends (as the traitor thinks will be his pay for such loyalty), they cant be trusted. ie. anyone who would betray his own for an outside other cant be trusted by an outside other when they are no longer the outside other but now their own.
i wonder why THAT sentence is not allowed!!!
Artfldgr: I seem to recall that there’s a lot of spam that advertises poker. Must be related to that.
neo – I see what you mean, but I was getting at your criticism of Obama for not being a decision-maker. You said it “doesn’t suit the presidency.”
Now, I agree that a true Hamlet would be unsuitable. My point is that either he is a decider or he isn’t – and the record suggests that he is, at least when it comes to something he cares about. His style may not be that of a decider – I agree with that. But that’s not the same thing as actually throwing up his hands and saying, “Whatever others decide, I’ll do that or finesse some compromise.”
Simply put, his overwhelmingly liberal string of legislative, regulatory, and judicial achievements is not exactly consistent with a characterization of the man as passive or all about mediation. Nor was he passive in Honduras, and he has been anything but indecisive when it comes to doing his part to delegitimize Israel. Usually the hard-edge is in the doing, and yes, it tends to come from proxies. So if you’re saying his style is inappropriately waffly and icy, I can see that.
Substantially, however, he’s been quite decisive.
Libya may be an exception. Stylistically, it’s all waffle all the time. But arguably he may have already achieved his objectives (which concern UN-US relations, R2P precedents, etc.). Not sure.
Obama is not a constitutional American.
When you hear that, do you think of the birther issue or Obama’s refudiation of our constitution?
Kolnai makes a good point by stating Obama’s effectiveness in destroying America. King Obama. Agenda 21. One world government. And all that.
Fortunately, there is still a strong and now activated resistance. However, that resistance should not count on Obama failing either from his own ineptness and flaws or from internal disputes of his allies and minions. We are a nation of citizens and Obama has been our wake up call to include government as a duty too long neglected. And we are making substantial victories. There is no obstacle, even the debt, which we cannot overcome. A sound energy policy where we become an oil exporting nation versus an oil importing nation would . . . well, you just salivate over the juicy inferences.
Budowsky is pretty far left. His ilk detest the status quo. They want change and they want it yesterday. I’d be willing to bet that if you google him, he has written stories about how the senate is broken, the filibuster needs to be reformed, etc. He’s always going to be a whiner until he gets his socialist utopia.
Ohhhh, puke! I just read the piece by Budowsky. I hope he’s puking the puke he puked on people with that piece. Get this sentence: “Obama did it the old-fashioned way, through brilliance leading to the presidency of the Harvard Law Review and a reverence for the Constitution.”
Obama. Ummm. Ummmm. Ummm.
It is to laugh: brilliance and reverence.
Spillius is an apologist but that doesn’t equate to being wrong about everything. He quotes Stefan Halper, a former senior official in four Republican administrations. “It will enable the Europeans to do what they want to do with American help, preserve our credibility and ensure we pull away from the cutting edge of this process.”
“There are numerous causes for Washington’s reticence. The Pentagon is worried about cost and overstretch. The president is concerned about not wrecking what he [Obama] sees as progress in repairing the Arab world’s trust in Washington.” [my emphasis]
Those are, for Obama, valid concerns. Where clarity is lost in evaluating Obama’s actions in Libya is in the premise that his actions in Libya, concern Libya at all. They do not. Libya is an opportunity, an excuse.
In order to understand how, look at what Obama gains by doing this and strategically, he certainly does gain a lot.
Through it, Obama has supported the establishment of the new UN principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
That moves the US toward the accomplishment of two of Obama’s goals; reduction in US national sovereignty with the UN assuming ascendancy over US autonomy… and laying the groundwork for a UN imposition of a Palestinian state upon Israel. An imposition that might well entail a reduction in Israel’s borders that would greatly reduce Israel’s ability to defend itself.
I suspect Obama does knows what he’s doing in Libya. It’s just that his goals have nothing to do with Libya, per se.
It is very nuanced and, very subtle. In war and we are in an undeclared war with whom and what Obama represents, the most fundamental tactical mistake we can make is to underestimate our opponent.
While I agree that Obama is not a leader, I think his appearance of passivity is somewhat of a smokescreen. He’s relied on being a blank slate as a way to keep his true beliefs and goals under the radar. While he may be publicly hands-off, he actively works behind the scenes to implement his agenda. Look at the actions of Napolitano, Holder, Salazaar, Lisa Jackson, etc. They’re taking action beyond the bounds of their position (i.e., selectively enforcing/ignoring laws, stopping offshore drilling, usurping greenhouse emissions oversight, etc.). And by having them do this while he stays above the fray he can keep a lot of the heat off himself.
So, I don’t worry about what he would do if he were more engaged, I worry about what he’s doing, outside of Congressional oversight (or in spite of it), that we just don’t know about.
“”Obama’s governing style is to remain as distant as possible””
That’s not a governing style. That’s the black man’s culture in America. One where once you seem flustered or overly concerned about an issue you’ve already lost face and respect. You go play golf and make sure everyone knows nothing rattles you.
It also allows you to sit back and wait until the correct path is almost totally clear and go that direction. It’s not exactly hindsight and doesn’t work 100% of the time (Obama non-support of the Iraq Surge), but it can certainly make you look better than you really are. Lots of people are masters of this and get promotions they should never have gotten.
When you are the leader it is obvious what you are doing and isn’t well liked. Especially when you have a number of other people sitting back and waiting on you so they can do that too 🙂
BTW, for those that recall the post a while back – I’m still alive for now. The stomach tumor shrunk enough I can take pills and eat “soft food” and the lymph node tumors are not expanding and they haven’t found any new tumors. The oncologist says that is responding extremely well to the Chemo, it usually doesn’t work that fast.
So it appears as if I will most likely be one of the ~30% that survive 6 months after diagnosis of the cancer at that stage.
We will have to wait and see about making it a year and getting the cancer to regress enough to lead a semi-normal life yet. I’ve been feeling stronger after each round of chemo but unless the cancer shrinks it’s going to be tough and we still do not know.
Obama is fundamentally lazy. As we saw with the ugly, secretive health care reform mess. He doesn’t want to get his hands dirty. The dirty work is to be done by his minions. And, as I’ve stated before, I think he truly believes all he has to do is say something and viola, reality conforms.
I see his inaction/action/inaction/equivocate sequence in Libya as being different than his mode of operation that we have seen before. As kolnai notes, “Nor was he passive in Honduras, and he has been anything but indecisive when it comes to doing his part to delegitimize Israel.” This inept and embarrassing performance concerning the turmoil in Libya might be a signal of something else entirely different going on behind the curtain of the democrat party establishment.
Qaddafi can not be destroyed from above unless we (not France, not UK, not Nato) are willing to bomb until no brick stand upon another brick. So it will take boots on the ground and Obama can not afford to make that commitment even if he actually wanted to, which he doesn’t.
IMO, this intervention in Libya will turn stinky very soon and there will be political hell to pay. Here, in France, and in the UK. It may just be that this fiasco will usher in more conservative leaders here and elsewhere.
BTW, Palin weighed in on this yesterday, paraphrasing: If you get in it get in it to win it or get out.
Strcpy,
Thanks for the update. So glad to hear you’re doing better!
Good news, strcpy! If mental and spiritual concentrations help, they’re being sent your way.
Parker, I think you’ve hit on a good phrase which would be a great name for Obama: stinky.
strcpy, best wishes for continued improvement!
Kolnai wrote, “And that in turn makes me think that a dithering Obama has benefits as well as costs.
Repost because of a missing carat…
Kolnai wrote, “And that in turn makes me think that a dithering Obama has benefits as well as costs.
Brilliantly said.
Unfortunately, liberals might just chalk up failures in liberalism to failures of Obama and still remain unswayed in their stupidity.
They can pin the tail on Obama and say, “We really didn’t try liberalism / progressivism”
Hillary is looking pretty presidential right now (1905) announcing the latest command and control agreement.
I’m glad to hear that, strcpy. Like I said in the earlier post, the longer you can hang on, the better the chance someone will come up with a breakthrough in treatment.
“We will have to wait and see about making it a year and getting the cancer to regress enough to lead a semi-normal life yet. I’ve been feeling stronger after each round of chemo but unless the cancer shrinks it’s going to be tough and we still do not know.”
Bravo to your attitude! Keep your spirit strong and defy the odds.
Unfortunately, liberals might just chalk up failures in liberalism to failures of Obama and still remain unswayed in their stupidity. They can pin the tail on Obama and say, “We really didn’t try liberalism / progressivism”
Ah, but there is a problem here, they have put all their eggs in one basket. Obama is the multi-cultural, post racism, post-ideology messiah. A messiah must be perfect, a less than 100% perfect messiah is no messiah at all.
Apologies for my presumption to vanderleun if he is here – I know he visits here. This very convincing recent post of his resonates deeply with me, and goes to the heart of what we seem to be facing.
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/enemies_foreign_domestic/presence_of_malice.php
Alex Spillius, on the other hand, thinks Obama knows just what he’s doing in Libya. It’s just very very nuanced, and very very subtle.
After pondering a number of subtle possibilities (on BeldarBlog) a commenter there was finally left with, “Nope! He’s just a dummy, in way over his head.”
I thought that a very succinct and accurate application of “Occam’s Razor” and felt that there was no 3-D chess being played here.
–
Strcpy, good news, keep swinging..
The problem with Budowsky’s “jump in the hole” solution is that Obama, once in the hole with us has this solution to getting out: He digs the ground and surrounding walls for the dirt to make an ascending ramp. That might work for a shallow hole, but we’re not in a shallow hole and the truth is that all of Obama’s diggings are only making a deeper hole.
passing legislation that reflects his values and goals, obtaining regulatory decisions that do the same, appointing people of his bent to courts, etc. – he has been extraordinarily successful.
He was extraordinarily successful because he had Democrat majorities in both House and Senate as well as a mesmerized MSM. It would have been hard not to be successful. The majorities are gone and the emperor has no clothes. He still enjoys strong media support. It is fun to watch the explanations of him being so smart that mere mortals cannot conceive of his level of intellect and nuance. I think he likes to bask in the glory but doesn’t enjoy the job, it is beneath him.
This is on a bit of a tangent, but Michael Knox Beran has written a fascinating, eloquently moving, and provocative essay on conservative compassion versus liberal pity:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_conservative_compassion.html
For the City Journal. He illuminates the ideas of thinkers and rulers from Disraeli and Bismarck to Dostoevsky and Dickens. And there are several pearls of information in there that I’ve never seen, re TR and FDR; Nixon and Bush, and more.
It’s a feast for the mind. I linked it here because I think you all will relish it, and find it stimulating.
Wow, mezzrow. Thanks for that link.
I check vanderleun’s site most every day, but I somehow missed that. He eloquently expresses what I have been thinking since day one.
That should conclusively answer the “fool vs. knave” question.
Mezzrow, thanks for the link to Vanderleun’s chilling essay. That’s been my thinking for a long time as well: The Creature’s actions all make sense if you simply stop believing that he doesn’t hate our nation.
Two commandments: Love the City Journal and read your Dalrymple.
On the essay, here, I think is the organizing idea:
“The error the socialists and the welfare-state liberals made was to suppose that love’s efficacy can be gradually extended beyond the bounds of the family and the tribe, where it spontaneously creates desirable patterns of order, into larger communities, where it does not.”
Obama, like Marx, a malcontent: “They shall pay for my carbuncles,” said Marx.
My question isn’t “Is Obama a sociopath,” but “Does he know it?” Take away the dissociated sociopath personality of Obama and he would lose what small amount of “greatness” he has. Kind of like Tiger Woods. (Whoa, did I just say that!)
strcpy – I crochet a LOT and make afghans and caps for cancer patients (warriors) and donate them to a local cancer center. I know that the temperature in cancer centers is often set low and is cold to warriors who are receiving treatments. I make the afghans so that warriors can cover up and keep warm. The caps are for the same purpose since losing hair can make ones head very cold. I can’t begin to imagine how difficult this is for you. I would be very happy if you would allow me to assist you in your fight with an afghan to keep you comfortable. Please drop me a note at (lori brown 48 at hotmail dot com) – remove spaces and replace the ‘at’ and ‘dot’ with the correct characters. If you have a favorite color let me know. I have made afghans for people with colors (Jamaican flag colors, US flag colors, earthy green, serene blue, camoflage, pink, purple) that remind them of good things and can easily do so for you. I can generally complete an afghan in about 3 weeks.
God bless you in your fight.
It’s amusing how Budowsky’s article manages to be an example of the very thing he decries. Obama’s too disengaged — and if he were to get more involved he’d do all the stuff Budowsky wants!
Re Spillius, most of the commentators over at the Telegraph weren’t buying it. If you guys aren’t already doing so, fly patrol over at the Telegraph. Love your piss & vinegar, strcpy!
“”The Creature’s actions all make sense if you simply stop believing that he doesn’t hate our nation.””
Beverly
To some extent the 53% who voted for him must hate it on some level too. The man spent twenty years in a racist, America hating black liberation church for God’s sake.
Or maybe we’re really talking about a lot of people including Obama who hate themselves and literally despise those around them that aren’t similarly afflicted.
Army Mom, you’re a champ.
Strcpy, Someone has to be in that 30%!
~
I think the true believers may be disappointed, but won’t change their basic outlook. I voted for Bush for 2 reasons, and was *relatively* pleased with him. I thought he committed some blunders, but I certainly didn’t reexamine my basic beliefs.
It also allows you to sit back and wait until the correct path is almost totally clear and go that direction. It’s not exactly hindsight and doesn’t work 100% of the time (Obama non-support of the Iraq Surge), but it can certainly make you look better than you really are. Lots of people are masters of this and get promotions they should never have gotten.
i just lost five years of my life my job security and a future to a left liberal academic who does that.
lucy and her football, meet charlie brown, the sucker
strcpy, best wishes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, he’s got to get a good feel for how the wind blows, otherwise, when he throws whoever The Victim is under the bus, he might miss.
I mean — some of the muck might splash on HIM.
And we CAN’T have that!
No doubt you think I’m being snarky.
You may be right.
Nonetheless, it’s still True.
Wow. Just wow. That crap he wrote in Nov 2008 is just amazing. What a fool. Wow.
There are none so blind.
Hi Webmaster, commenters and all people else !!! The blog was completely improbable! Numerous great data and inspiration, each of which we all want!Hold ‘em coming… you all do such an important job at such Ideas… can’t tell you how much I, for one admire all you do!