The New Neo

I’ve figured something out about Obama, and that is this: nearly everybody’s trying to figure Obama out.

That’s one of the few things that unites America at the moment. Left and Right alike, people are busy asking the question “Who is Obama, what is he?”

I cannot recall another president about whom this question could be asked so often and with such great urgency. To be sure, some of them gave us unpredictable moments, or favored policies that surprised us (think Nixon and China). Some of them changed while in office, such as the pre-9/11 vs. the post-9/11 George Bush.

But in some essential way, we knew who each president was and what he stood for, even if we might heartily disagree with every bit of his agenda or even dislike him personally. Obama is the first president we’ve ever had about whom many of us are beginning to suspect he has been lying not just about this or that topic, but about his very essence: who he is and what he wants for America.

Obama’s obfuscating and lawyerly language, his deliberate vagueness, and his propensity to lie without blinking, coupled with his affable personality and the unprecedented protection afforded by the press, constitute a carefully constructed screen. But his actions are troubling, even to the Left, who continue to make excuses for his ineptitude; and to the middle (take a look at this by Mickey Kaus, for example) who want to think he’s a thoughtful moderate but see little evidence for it any more. The Right (and I include myself here) thinks it knows that Obama is a man of the far Left, but we argue and wonder about just how far he wants to go, and how successful he will be.

One of the reasons Obama has been a relative cipher compared to past presidents is at least partly because each of them had a longer track record in the public eye than Obama did. It is also partly because they were more forthcoming about their pasts (a good example is the release of academic records). But it is also because they were basically upfront about who they were and what they intended, and/or the press was still doing at least some of its homework back then.

For example, we knew Clinton was a womanizer. How far this would go in the White House was unknown, but we all knew the basic fact of it, which even supporters had to admit. Plus, his womanizing was an issue which, although it spoke to important questions of character and honesty, did not involve a matter of state but instead involved a personal arena.

With each of these previous presidents, if most Americans (not the fringe on either side, of course) had heard some preposterous rumor about him, we could say with some conviction: “No, of course he won’t do that!” But many of us have come to think of Obama, “Yes, he could. Or, could he?” We wonder, ex-post-facto, whether the meaning of Obama’s campaign slogan: “Yes, we can!” was, “I can do anything I want to; just try and stop me.”

Case in point for today [emphasis mine]:

Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country’s arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon’s first draft of the “nuclear posture review” as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials…

The review [of ways to reduce our nuclear arsenal] is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: “Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president’s weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role.”

False? True? Rumor? Fact? Will it all be revealed in the fullness of time? And most importantly, what are Obama’s motivations here? We somehow felt that in the past—even with a President such as Jimmy Carter, whose foreign policies were somewhat similar to Obama’s—that each man was driven by a sincere desire to protect America, even if he might be mistaken in the way he went about it. Most of us who didn’t like Carter saw him as dangerous, but misguided and naive. But Obama’s disarmament plans are embedded in a host of other signals we get from him that make us doubt not only his judgment, but whether even his basic motivations are good ones.

Richard Fernandez notes the Obama pattern that is emerging:

Here’s the thing: if you have to read between the lines too much then the text becomes more of a puzzle than a narrative and a President can’t be like an onion without creating problems. He sends a variety of signals to his supporters, to his enemies, to the ordinary citizens of the country. And every leader ”” even Stalin and Hitler to use extreme examples ”” had an implicit duty to be consistent. Consistently bad, maybe, but consistent. So supporters and enemies could know which end was up.

Suppose he were as Leftist as say ”¦ Bill Ayers. If he were consistently that you could calculate what he would do. You might not like what he would do, but you know what it would be. If you didn’t know you are in one of those Who-dunnit Agatha Christie rooms where nothing is known for sure until Inspector Poirot figures out the one angle from which all makes sense. I think Klein is truly perplexed. He doesn’t know what Obama did, so he’s guessing.

It’s like being confronted with an optimization program whose objective function is secret. It’s like being in front of a giant Krell machine and not knowing what it does. Maybe I’m making too much of it, and it is just my personal opinion, but I’ve always felt there was something that I wasn’t quite getting about the President. It’s there, just on the edge of vision. And then it’s gone. One day I’ll see it clearly, but it’s an elusive thing.

A unified field theory of Obama would explain all his moves. I think that the idea that he is a covert far Leftist and statist up to no good does exactly that. But saying that aloud is still unconscionable to most people (not to mention racist!). And the difference between Bill Ayers and Obama is that, although Ayers may not be the most straightforward guy in the universe, he’s honesty itself compared to Obama. The reason for Obama’s stealth is clear, however: a person as far to the Left as Obama could not be elected President of the US while being clear and upfront about his agenda, so dissemblance about the essential self and its goals is required.

But there’s something else in that elusive “something” to which Fernandez refers, and it has to do with Obama’s personality. It’s that certain “something” that really good con men (and sociopaths) have, an indefinable thing and people can’t quite read. But its a good part of what makes them successful. Do you think that you could always spot a good con man? Think again; despite a certain offness, the whole point of a con is that enough people fall for it. Obama knows that full well, and he counts on it, as do most good con men.

However, over time people often become aware of the con, because of subtle cues: things just don’t add up, the affect doesn’t match the words, the actions are suspicious. This is beginning to happen with the American people and Obama.

Here’s a quote from commenter Leo Linbeck III, who gets it. He has the interesting approach of separating Obama the Man from Obama the President:

I have to admit that Barack Obama qua Barack Obama is an enigma to me. I’ve read all of the various theories ”“ psychological and political ”“ that attempt to explain his behavior. I’ve played close attention for months, and I can confidently say I have no idea what he truly believes in his heart. (Of course, that is true of most of us.)

However, President Obama is not mysterious in the least. He is a man who found himself thrust into the Presidency on the strength of his symbolic power and the electoral collapse of the opposing party. He has risen to the top of the political world, and now “in charge.” He has virtually no executive experience, and very little in his background would lead you to believe he would arrive at this job, at this time. So he is completely unprepared for the task.

And over his head. Way over his head.

I agree. But along with this commenter, I agree that this isn’t really the point, because Obama the President has certain beliefs by which he is operating, and will continue to operate, to wit:

1. He believes government is a force for good in society, so more government is better.

2. He believes the government must intervene to solve social problems, and most problems are social problems.

3. He believes that everyone’s (and every nation’s) point of view is equally valid, but that historic oppressors have a special responsibility to be accommodating to the historically oppressed.

4. He believes that profit is a bad thing, the result of exploitation, and that the government has the responsibility to protect the public from profiteers.

5. He believes that wisdom is a function of knowledge and education, and knowledge comes from education.[I’m not sure I agree about this one, but that’s a minor point]

6. He believes he can tell people what they want to hear and they will support him, regardless what the facts may be, or what he has told others.

In other words, despite all of the rhetoric of outreach, reconciliation, listening, and the rejection of “false choices,” President Obama is a classic [sic] collectivist liberal…The last 90 days have been President Obama’s coming-out.

Yes, indeed. The evidence is there for those who are willing to face it. It is still possible to speculate on what drives Obama the Man—as one can do endlessly about most people with character disorders, or con men or sociopaths. But it’s a losing game, and not necessary.

We may never know much about Obama the Man, but I believe we now know enough about Obama the President, despite his efforts to hide: he is a statist of the far Left, who wants to implement a statist Leftist agenda for America both domestically and in foreign affairs, and he will do everything he can to achieve these goals.