Go to Dr. Sanity’s and read some of the posts on narcissism and malignant narcissism.

I am trying to think of recent POTUS who did not suffer from this type of extreme narcissism, i.e. who did know what they believed in and stood for. Going backwards:

GWB
GHWB
Reagan
Ford
Eisenhower
Truman

I might, also, include LBJ. He was an incredible ego, yet he knew what his principles were, and what he believed in, and he acted on that. Close call. He did say “I won’t be the first American President to lose a war”, and that statement is evidence of being a narcissist who is acting in search of adoration, and who is not acting upon principle.

I think you both have hit on factors which are in play – including for me. I look at Obama as a prime opportunity to contrast, for benefit of voters, the failures of leftist philosophy against the solutions provided by conservative philosophy. McCain at this. Romney is using Obama as a prime opportunity to contrast capability (Romney’s) against lack of capability (Obama’s). I am less interested in contrasting capability than in contrasting philosophy.

There is, also, the factor that campaigning on first principles is a superior campaign strategy, yet Romney follows an inferior strategy of pandering.

There is, also, a factor, for me, of distaste for Romney’s personality. He is supercilious and arrogant. He is entitled. He is, worst of all, an extreme narcissist who solicits adoration.

I compare his extreme narcissism to that of Bill Clinton. That type of narcissism does not engender principled understanding and principled action. Rather, that type of extreme narcissism creates a politician who dances around, always seeking the warm bathing glow of adoration from the maximum number of people. It creates an insecure POTUS who does not know what he stands for.

I spent much of my life as this type of extreme narcissist. Like a former smoker who hates smoking, it now drives me crazy to see this trait in others – it reminds of my own shortcomings. And, seriously, this is a terrible trait in a POTUS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now that Romney is upon us, I will say this:

though he does not understand first principles, he is a conservative politician, and that is something;

he is very capable, and that is also something;

he is energetic; he is experienced in how the world works; he is grounded by his religion and his family and his solid spouse. These are all valuable things.

A good insight, I think. Not only for McCain’s loss, but for the fact that he was nominated in the first place–a man who is not just not especially conservative but doesn’t seem to like conservatives, and does seem to enjoy annoying them.

Also of course there’s the fear that Romney is McCain II. But while I am not a Romney enthusiast I don’t think that’s true.

It hardly makes up for the Obama presidency, but one benefit of McCain’s loss is that we did not have to endure Megan McCain as First Daughter.

http://legalinsurrection.com/

This had been on of my fundamental reasons for supporting Gingrich; he was really the only candidate who took the fight to the opposition and forced THEM to play on HIS turf. Let’s hope that this isn’t Romney’s long-term campaign strategy to Nov 6th.