Two retirements

The New Neo Posted on by

The first is no surprise at all: Supreme Court Justice Stevens, who is nearly ninety, and as a liberal wanted to wait to retire until he knew another liberal would be appointed to fill his place. Now he can do just that. And if anyone thinks such political considerations don’t play a huge part in the timing of such things, he/she is profoundly and hopelessly naive.

The second is none other than Bart Stupak, Congressman from Michigan who kept a fairly low national profile in his eighteen years in the House—until recently, that is. His swan song contained the following whopper:

Stupak told The Associated Press that attacks on him for his role in the abortion debate did not influence his decision and he could win re-election if he tried.

Of course. And then:

Stupak told the AP he wants to spend more time with his family and start a new career after nine terms in Congress.

I wonder what that “new career” will be. What was he promise—first for his cooperation, and then for this valiant falling on his sword to allow another more viable Democratic candidate to enter the arena?

Cows off the hook–for now

The New Neo Posted on by

This is not—I repeat, not—an April Fools joke.

For quite a while scientists who study global warming have claimed that (and there is just no way to be delicate about this) cow flatulence and excrement—or what this article refers to as their “wind and manure”—have been significant contributors to the phenomenon, because of the methane produced. This has acted as a sort of twofer for the AGW crowd: they get to blame people for raising so many cows, and they also get to promote vegetarianism for humankind.

Now comes the startling news that under certain circumstances, cow grazing reduces global warming rather than increases it (scientists often have such difficult making up their minds!). The mechanism in this case is—I kid you not—laughing gas.

Yes, apparently the grass on which cattle would graze shelters microbes that produce nitrous oxide in the spring if it is kept long. But when cattle have grazed there and the grass is short, the microbes have trouble wintering over and less of this particular greenhouse gas is released come spring.

This has thrown some environmental scientists into a tizzy. To wit:

Dr Butterbach-Bahl said the study overturned assumptions about grazing goats and cattle.

“It’s been generally assumed that if you increase livestock numbers you get a rise in emissions of nitrous oxide. This is not the case,” he said.

Estimated nitrous oxide emissions from temperate grasslands in places like Inner Mongolia as well as vast swatches of the United States, Canada, Russia and China account for up a third of the total amount of the greenhouse gas produced every year. Nitrous oxide is the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane.

But Dr Butterbach-Bahl pointed out that the study did not take into account the methane produced by the livestock or the carbon dioxide produced if soil erodes. He also pointed out that much of the red meat eaten in the western world if from intensively farmed animals in southern countries.

He said the study does not overturn the case for cutting down on red meat but shows grazing livestock is not always bad for global warming.

If one thing is clear from the above excerpt, it’s that the state of knowledge on even such a small part of the larger global warming picture is meager, to say the least. The interactions are mind-bogglingly complex and poorly understand, even among the known factors, and there are probably countless unknown factors as well that have not even been considered.

[NOTE: And has anyone else realized that the name of the good doctor is somewhat reminiscent of a type of turkey that used to be very popular in supermarkets around Thanksgiving time?]

Is Larry Summers leaving?

The New Neo Posted on by

The answer is “yes,” if this report by Joshua Green at the Atlantic can be credited.

I wondered about something similar last fall, in which I quoted this article by Charles Gasparino, who reported:

I’m told that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers have both complained to senior Wall Street execs that they have almost no say in major policy decisions. Obama economic counselor Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman, is barely consulted at all on just about anything ”” not even issues involving the banking system, of which he is among the world’s leading authorities…

As one CEO of a major financial firm told me: “The economic guys say that when they explain the costs of programs, the policy guys simply thank them for their time and then ignore what they say.”

In other words, the economic people feel that they have almost no say in this administration’s policy decisions.

According to Joshua Green, Geithner’s star has risen as Summer’s has remained fallen. Green ascribes Summer’s dissatisfaction to his hurt massive ego and lack of power. And while I don’t doubt that Summers has a very hefty sense of his own self-importance, I think (actually, I hope) it may be more than that that’s eating him.

Perhaps—just perhaps—he thinks the Obama administration is doing the wrong thing economically? I realize that by saying this I am probably giving Summers far more credit than he deserves. But I retain a naive hope that someone in the Obama administration actually retains some sort of intellectual and moral integrity about what’s been happening, and will ultimately act on it by refusing to be part of it any more and spilling the beans.

I know, I know. That’s why I referred to myself as “naive.” Most of these people long ago sold out whatever integrity they may have ever possessed. But, like Diogenes, I keep searching—in the most unlikely places.

One place I will never search again, however, is anywhere near Hillary Clinton. There has been much speculation on if and when Hillary will leave the administration. I don’t think it matters, and I don’t much care—unless she goes out soon, and with a mammoth tell-all speech or book that will expose and shame the Obama administration for all time.

Otherwise, my opinion of her is fixed: she’s been completely co-opted and corrupted, and has no credibility left with the more centrist Democrats and moderates who had previously supported her. Her hypocrisy is profound—and although that probably always was true, it never before has been so crystal clear.

Most intriguing and yet curiously disappointing headline of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

“China Offers High-Speed Rail to California.”

Just picture it: across the bridge to end all bridges or the tunnel to end all tunnels, the high-speed rail shoots off, flashing us straight from Shanghai to San Francisco in record time.

But alas. It’s only China “supplying the technology, equipment and engineers to build high-speed rail lines” within the state of California.

Obama the Great will settle the Middle East conflict

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama’s grandiosity continues.

All of the stubborn world problems that previous presidents—Democrat and Republican alike, none of them possessed of his transformative and inspirational qualities—grappled with and yet were unable to solve, Obama will settle.

Like, for instance, Palestine and Israel:

Apparently Obama and his team are frustrated by their inability to get Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a deal, and have therefore decided we’ll just impose one.

The inability of Israelis and Palestinians to get to the negotiating table is, in this administration, an iatrogenic disease: Our diplomatic doctors have caused it. The astonishing incompetence of Obama and special envoy George Mitchell has now twice blown up talks””direct talks last year, and proximity talks more recently””by making Israeli construction plans a major world crisis, thereby forcing Palestinian leaders to back away from engagement with the Israelis. So the administration will, in the fall, just do it the simpler way. Why bother with Israelis and Palestinians, in whom the president apparently does not have “growing confidence,” when you can just have your own brilliant team draw up the terms?

[NOTE: See also this.]

HCR: Pelosi tells the simple-minded American people not to worry our pretty little heads about it

The New Neo Posted on by

What an oily, condescending, manipulative, lying piece of work she is. Referring to the HCR bill, Pelosi says:

It’s like the back of the refrigerator. You see all these wires and the rest. All you need to know is, you open the door. The light goes on.

I don’t mean to be anti-female, but Pelosi’s suggestion strikes me as something only a woman could have come up with. I have that attitude myself to most mechanical and/or electrical gadgetry and appliances, including computers: don’t tell me how it works, just make it work.

But for a supposed servant of the people to use such a metaphor to refer to a bill that affects us all in such important ways is outrageously and offensively paternalistic (or should I say “maternalistic?”) and flies in the face of what the relationship between the citizens and Congress in this country is meant to be.

Obama and Karzai: a foreign policy of schoolyard taunts

The New Neo Posted on by

This WSJ editorial (hat tip: expat) points out once again that Obama seems to have a knack for making enemies of former friends, the latest being Hamid Karzai.

No one says Karzai’s an angel. But if Obama can figure out a better partner with whom to work in Afghanistan (and who has any chance of being elected and reforming the country), he has yet to indicate it. The WSJ piece observes that Obama has been critical of Karzai from nearly the day Obama took office, leaking criticism of him in a way that was intended to shame him.

At the time, I was put in mind of JFK and the disastrous end of South Vietnam’s Diem, although that seemed an extreme comparison. And yet some are making it now, reminding the history-challenged Obama that this may not be the best course to take.

The WSJ uses the same comparison:

This treatment of an ally eerily echoes the way the Kennedy Administration treated Ngo Dinh Diem, the President of South Vietnam in the early 1960s. On JFK’s orders, U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge refused to meet with Diem, and when U.S. officials got word of a coup against Diem they let it be known they would not interfere. Diem was executed, and South Vietnam never again had a stable government.

Karzai has reportedly retaliated by saying in a private meeting that, “if the Americans kept it up, he might join the Taliban.” Then yesterday the execrable Robert Gibbs subjected Karzai to what the WSJ aptly referred to as “schoolyard taunts” (somewhat a specialty of both Mr Gibbs and Obama, I’ve observed):

“We certainly would evaluate whatever continued or further remarks President Karzai makes, as to whether it is constructive to have that meeting,” said Mr. Gibbs, in a show of disdain he typically reserves for House Republicans.

Meanwhile, American military men and women fight, serve, and die in Afghanistan. And Obama continues his contemptible course of being kind to enemies and dismissive and even insulting to allies. We can speculate on whatever possible policy objectives he may be chasing by this type of behavior—I happen to think it is part of his destructive leftist agenda for America—but there is now every indication that, on a purely personal level, the man simply gets off on being a bully.

[NOTE: The article also made me think of the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, killed by suicide bombers two days before 9/11 in preparation for the terrorist attack on the US. They realized that America might retaliate against the Afghan government for harboring Osama bin Laden, and knew that the strong and popular anti-Taliban fighter Massoud would be the obvious choice to head a new government there in the aftermath. So they killed him. Current developments indicate how prescient the terrorists were, since Karzai hasn’t the same sort of broad support and respect—although I have little doubt that, had Massoud lived and been the present leader of Afghanistan, Obama would probably have found a way to pick a fight with him as well.]

[ADDENDUM: More.]

CNN article tries to be fair to Tea Partiers—and nearly succeeds

The New Neo Posted on by

See that pig flying overhead? It’s CNN’s relatively fair article about the Tea Partiers.

The only flaw (and it’s a biggie; but hey, CNN’s just a news outlet, so we can’t really blame them for spreading undocumented “facts”) is that it repeats the unverified claim that the Washington DC Tea Party crowd voiced racial slurs at Reps Lewis and Cleaver and spit at the latter. But other than that, African-American political producer Shannon Travis is—dare I say it?—fair and balanced in his coverage of the many other Tea Party Express gatherings that he actually did attend in his thousand-mile trip with the movement (and yes, Shannon’s a man; I thought from the name that he was a woman, until I saw a photo):

But here’s what you don’t often see in the coverage of Tea Party rallies: Patriotic signs professing a love for country; mothers and fathers with their children; African-Americans proudly participating; and senior citizens bopping to a hip-hop rapper…

[B]y and large, no one I spoke with or I heard from on stage said anything that was approaching racist.

Almost everyone I met was welcoming to this African-American television news producer.

The only “racist” things Travis saw with his own eyes at countless rallies on the Tea Party Express? “[A] few signs that could be seen as offensive to African-Americans.”

Note the careful wording: “could be seen.” This is often the new and more inclusive definition of racism: anything that might be perceived by the beholder as offensive. Of course it’s possible that some of these signs actually were offensive and racist in the objective sense (the only one that should matter). But my guess is, if that were so, they would have been described quite differently.

Since overt expressions of racism have become so relatively rare these days, would-be victims are forced to either (a) try to provoke it, as with Lewis and Cleaver; (b) make it up if it cannot be provoked, as with the DC Tea Party reports; or (c) impute it from other non-racial words which are felt to be “code words” for racism (such as, for example, socialist). Or even, if all else fails, to see it in the fact that a crowd is white, which by definition must be racist.

I would not be at all surprised if CNN had sent Travis—a rather large and imposing African-American man—on this assignment in hopes of encountering and reporting on the racism he found at Tea Parties. Travis is to be commended for not falling into any of those particular traps. He honestly reported what he saw, and what he saw was uniformly good.

Not that it will matter; the public has already been well-saturated with the competing meme, and quite a few will unquestioningly believe it.

Krauthammer: Obama’s nuclear policy is “either insane or ridiculous”

The New Neo Posted on by

Hey, why not both? And remember, Krauthammer is a psychiatrist, so he doesn’t use the term “insane” lightly.

Krauthammer also asks a question: “If you’re an ally, what are you going to think about America as your defender and America as a deterrer of an attack on you?”

Good point. With this policy Obama has achieved the feat of managing to betray all of our allies simultaneously.

Krauthammer’s words also remind me of something I asserted in this post, that Obama has negated a certain continuity and predictability that the US has long had, despite many changes of administrations and parties over the years. Obama may think he’s presenting himself as a man of peace, but he’s really the first loose cannon president.

[ADDENDUM: Tunku Varadarajan calls it “auto-emasculation.”]

Obama’s new policy on nukes: I guess he wants to earn that Nobel ex post facto

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s a new thrill on the roller coaster ride that is the Barack Obama presidency: “Obama limits when US would use nuclear arms” [emphasis mine in the following excerpt]:

President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Just when you think Obama cannot shock further, he goes ahead and surprises you with the depth of his knavery/foolery.

It’s almost as though our country is now being run by a leftist college sophomore, a guy who’s used to getting really good grades and thinks that means he’s smarter than anybody else because his gift of gab helps to wow people in those bull sessions at midnight in the dorm. He’s full of nifty ideas about how the world works, and wants to try them out—based on the “understanding” acquired during a few childhood years in a foreign country and a trip to Pakistan to visit friends.

That’s fine for a person who really is a sophomore in college, because the damage he/she can do is usually quite limited. But putting somebody like that in charge of the country was a really, really, really bad idea. And that’s giving him the benefit of the doubt, and imagining his intentions are good, although there’s no particular reason to think they are.

The phrases I highlighted in the article all point to the transformative nature of what Obama is announcing, breaking with decade upon decade of policy that his predecessors—both Democrat and Republican—have supported. His own Secretary of Defense is against it. But what do those pikers know? Not as much as Obama the Great.

No new nuclear weaponry; that’s a good way to be prepared for anything. Plus an engraved invitation for nonnuclear states to use chemical or biological weapons against us without their previous fear of nuclear retaliation. No doubt the lion will now finally lie down with the lamb, everyone will beat those swords into plowshares, and—well, you get the idea.

Now granted, it might be that even in the past we wouldn’t actually have retaliated with nuclear weapons if we had been attacked biologically or chemically. Then again, we might have. That’s why I highlighted the word “deliberately” in the sentence “It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war.” To deter effectively, the possibility of the strongest retaliation needs to remain on the table.

Of course, it’s possible that enemy nations won’t believe that Obama can be so stupid, and that they’ll assume he’s lying through his teeth; after all, it’s not as though the man has earned a reputation for veracity. They might think this is a clever rope-a-dope strategy, and proceed with caution.

I sincerely hope so, because otherwise it’s an invitation to disaster, a telegraphing of weakness the likes of which even the notorious Jimmy Carter never attempted.

It is instructive to look at the comments responding to the article, which appeared in Monday’s NY Times. The piece had already been linked by Drudge, so that (unlike most Times discussion threads), the preponderance of the responses (at least the first few hundred; I got no further than that) were of the “WTF?” variety. A lot of them said Obama is a fool. Others called his act treason, and said he should be impeached (no surprise there; it’s the dichotomy of the old “fool vs knave?” question).

The reaction of the regulars at the Times was to alternate between praise of Obama’s impressive moral stance, anger at the unwelcome influx of knuckle-dragging tea partying outsiders to their comments section, and ridiculing the newcomers as fraidy-cats lacking the resolute intestinal fortitude of the superior liberal temperament.

A few—just a few—comments were of the “I voted for Obama but I regret it; this is the last straw” variety. I assume they may be real, but it’s hard to tell.

Those who praised Obama’s announcement offered remarks that indicate they seem to be living in a benign dreamland, one the word “naive” does not even begin to describe. I offer a few of these for your study:

…[I]t is the “Holier than thou” attitude of the US that has been the major obstacle in global nuclear disarmament. Whilst US Foreign Policy continues to be fundamentally flawed on many counts (which other nation has military bases around the world, all in the name of corporate definitions of Freedom and Liberty, for Pete’s sake!), this move allows Pres. Obama to look at the other leaders of the nuclear club squarely in the eye.

While I continue to observe an astute politician in the President, there are clear indications that, notwithstanding the cant of the naysayers who do so because they can’t but, Mr. Obama’s accomplishments are going to be truly monumental!

It is way passed [sic] time to take this position on use of nuclear weapons. I unhesitatingly support the president in the adoption of this humane new stance on reduction of threats. It is time to take a chance on the ability of other countries to see the wisdom in threat reduction and respond in kind. Might makes right is, and always has been, an overly simplistic way of interacting with the rest of humanity and indeed, the planet.

It is time for the binary (either/or) thinkers to broaden their horizons. Everything is not as they seem to prefer to interpret it. There is more to life in this country than left or right, up or down, good for me and my family or completely wrong. There are shades and subtlety to everything.

He’s right to do this. In retrospect, historically, this will be seen as a daring, bold, and controversial move toward a better world. I guarantee it.

The innovators are always heckled and screamed at. This isn’t a move of weakness by Obama. This is courage to do the right thing, even when he knows the ignorant will be further enraged and fueled by such actions.

This world should NOT have nuclear weapons. A true visionary with power would do something about it.

And that’s what he is.

And what he’s done.

This is totally symbolic, but it is welcome. There is nothing legally binding about this– if attacked, the President can still use nuclear weapons if the circumstances warrant. But it also messages that we will think before we act. The fact that Obama is stating that the most powerful nation in the world can react with strength and restraint, and not mindless rage like an injured animal, will reduce the impulse of other nations to act out of fear, and take the world one step back from the road to annihilation. Make no mistake about it– nuclear weapons are attractive to other countries only because they fear our unbridled rage. Take away that fear, and we are all safer.

…[W]e need to lead by example. Many countries that do not currently have nuclear arms wish to develop them because they are threatened by the big powers. By removing the looming “we can bomb whoever we want when we want attitude”, we are leading by example. Its just like parenting. You can’t expect your children to treat others with respect and stay out of fights if you as a parent are incapable of acting as an adult. Finally we have a president intelligent enough to realize when and where force is needed, while backing down in other areas. It is wise diplomacy. Less is more in the long run.

USA is the strongest country militarily and economically. To lead one should lead by examples. If it wishes to have a nuclear free world it should first declare never to be the first to use nuclear weapon under whatever the situation as a sign of its sincerity. One reason why so many nations are going for the nuclear options is powerful military countries like USA not making a clear and unequivocal declaration of no-first-use nuclear option in any war or warlike situations. By having complicating nuclear policies whereby nuclear weapon is used under this ambiguous situation and not that ambiguous situation it leads to misunderstanding and more importantly lack of trust. Lack of trust is precisely why there are so many nuclear countries in this world today.

It would be wonderful if the world worked that way, wouldn’t it? I too wish the world worked like that. But even when I was a liberal Democrat I knew it didn’t, and I continue to be puzzled at those who do.

Do they lack all historical context and any sense of the ruthless power struggles that have always existed among nations? Have their personal lives been so protected that they are not aware of the nature of aggressiveness and how it works? Do they believe in the power of their own thoughts to create reality? Have they been hypnotized by Obama? Or some or all of the above?

I also think that one of the psychological mechanisms operating in this group is that many find it too terrible to contemplate that the world is a dangerous place full of dangerous people, and believes that—much as an abused child blames him/herself for the conduct of a bad parent, and thinks that if he/she only acts good enough, the mistreatment will stop—the US is the source of the problem and thus can be the source of the solution if it’s just kind enough and moral enough.

In much the same way, the child blames him/herself but maintains the illusion of control in a dangerous situation. If nuclear proliferation only happens because countries are afraid of the big bad United States, then all that needs to occur in order for things to get better is for the US not to be so big and so bad any more.

Unfortunately, if our president actually thinks the same and acts on it, then we are in enormous trouble, because that would mean he’s a fool. And if he doesn’t think the same or something like it and is still acting as though he does, then we are also in enormous trouble, because that would mean he’s a knave.

We are in enormous trouble.

[ADDENDUM: John Hinderaker at Powerline thinks the main problem with Obama’s announcement is the end of ambiguity and the loss of deterrence. He asks, “Does anyone doubt that the administration would use nukes in a heartbeat if it considered such measures necessary? I don’t.”

Actually, John, I do. And I hope we don’t ever have to find out which one of us is correct, although I agree with you that Obama’s actions today make it more likely that we may.]

[ADDENDUM II: The execrable Robert Scheer agrees with the title of this post—only he means it as a compliment to Obama.]

Are older people happier?

The New Neo Posted on by

Do people get happier as they get older? I’d like to think so, at least. And if this sort of research can be believed, there’s a fair amount of evidence that it’s true.

But it seems to me there’s a huge glaring flaw in many of these studies. Any research that compares the attitudes and/or reactions of present-day young people to those of present-day old people would be comparing apples to oranges. Even if the populations are matched socioeconomically, educationally, and in every other which way, one cannot ignore the huge elephant in the room represented by generational differences.

Since the world in which today’s young people were raised is exceedingly different from the one in which today’s old people were raised, there’s no reason to believe any variations found between the experimental groups are not due to such distinctions, Longitudinal studies—in which the same people are followed from youth to age—would avoid that problem. But the obvious drawback is the length of time needed to get results.

Another problem with non-longitudinal research on this issue is that there’s no reason to believe that old people represent a random group. After all, the elderly are by definition survivors, and perhaps those who last longest and manage to get old were happier to begin.

Retrospective self-reports—as in one of the studies at the link, in which 6 out of 10 elderly respondents said “they get more respect and feel less stress than when they were younger”—rely on memory (and you know what they say about old people’s memories!) and are therefore suspect.

And of course there’s also the question of how “elderly” is defined. For some of the studies it’s somewhere in the 60s (too close for comfort, if you ask me). But in today’s world, 65 is the new—well, I’m not sure, but it’s not the old geezerhood it used to be. Let’s hope so, any way.

Here are some of my favorite old people from the past—who don’t look quite as old to me as they used to when the ad was first made in 1984:

Looking back at Obama the narcissist

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s another trip back in time, to an article about Obama written before the election, in September of 2008. The author, Ali Sina is an ex-Iranian who remembers Khomeni’s ascension to power, and especially his effect on the people.

Sina gets to say “I told you so”—bigtime—because looking at his piece in retrospect he nailed a lot about the man. I don’t agree with everything in his article, but I do agree with its main points about Obama’s narcissism.

Sina writes:

This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?

I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evinces symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them trecherous.

Vaknin says, “When the narcissist reveals his true colors, it is usually far too late. His victims are unable to separate from him. They are frustrated by this acquired helplessness and angry at themselves for having failed to see through the narcissist earlier on.”

Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party.

Let’s hope it at least puts an end to the dominance of its progressive wing. But as events have transpired, that is by no means certain. Sina probably did not foresee the cooperation of Congress in thwarting the will of the people, nor the possible swelling of Democratic voter rolls by 2012 through the mechanism of amnesty.

In his piece, Sina quotes this article by Vaknin, who is the author of several books on narcissism. Vaknin is describing what often happens when the will of the narcissist is thwarted by public opinion turning against him:

The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply – have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. “The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)”, “they don’t really know what they are doing”, “following a rude awakening, they will revert to form”, etc.

When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail – the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized – is now discarded with contempt and hatred.

If Obama’s polls continue to fall (as I sincerely hope they do), will we see this phenomenon occur? Although I think Obama is at bottom an angry man, I also think he is an extremely well-controlled one. He already has contempt for the people, but so far he has been careful not to verbalize too much of it; it only emerges in the rare off-the-cuff statement (like “bitter clingers”), and is usually couched not in rage but in condescension. So I don’t know.

The blank screen Obama initially tried to project cannot help but be filled in over time, as he reveals himself to the American public. The picture that emerges has not been a pretty one, although some who study Obama saw its outlines long ago (I can claim some small prescience on that score myself).