Two Reasons Why I Mislike President Obama

After nearly six years of watching this man in action, the first four of which I was fairly vocal (inasmuch as one can be vocal in a blog that no one reads), expressing a veritable alphabet of emotions: anger, bewilderment, bitterness, concern, disgust, dismay, exasperation, frustration. You get the idea. 

Now nearly six years in, emotion and agitation have been replaced. I'm less angry and more resigned. There's a dullness, a sinking feeling, even a sort of sadness. I, like so many, was right about this man. But the truth is, he's so much more than what I suspected. I don't think he's malicious, malevolent, conspiratorial. It's almost worse. He's a narcissist of the worst order. He's arrogant, intolerably so. Narcissism is bad enough, but it's not necessarily a deal breaker. Bill Clinton was (is) narcissistic. But his narcissism wasn't fatal. Combine narcissism with arrogance, put it in a place of power, surround it with fawning yes-men, prop it up with an acquiescent, uncritical media, and you really do have a problem, big time.

A new alphabet, this time of adjectives: arrogant, condescending, duplicitous, haughty, manipulative, narcissistic. 

At first, as I said, one gets all worked up and agitated and exercised. And early in this game, one genuinely believes that by pointing out these blindingly glaring character deficits, those who haven't seen them yet will suddenly see them, will have their ah ha! moment, agree, and, at the very least, be a bit more scrutinizing. But it doesn't happen. And after awhile, it dawns on one, that not only will those people not see the deficits that you so clearly see, they actually regard those deficits as qualities! 

About that time, one remembers pithy sayings, like, "There is none so blind as he who will not see," realizes one is fighting against a blindness, of sorts, and little by little, day by day, stops saying anything, and only sits back and gapes, open-mouthed, as the fundamentally transformed world that this man promised (the one promise he kept), continues to unfold. Deception runneth deep. 

Emotion mutates into resignation, with surreptitious glances at the calendar: two more years, two more years. Will this nation survive two more years with this foolish, arrogant man calling the shots? 

Fortunately there are a few who haven't stopped trying to explain. Today, for example, I'm reading Dan Henninger (Wall Street Journal) and Victor Davis Hanson (scholar, historian, author). Henninger illustrates Obama's arrogance, while Hanson focuses on his dishonesty. Two of the main reasons I mislike this president.

Who is listening? Surely not the members of my immediate family. But I'm resigned to this, as well. 


The Humbling of a President, by Dan Henninger

Brief excerpt (in case the article is only available to subscribers): 

There is a story about Mr. Obama relevant to the war, battle or whatever he declared Wednesday evening against the Islamic State, aka ISIS. It is found in his former campaign manager David Plouffe's account of the 2008 election, "The Audacity to Win." Mr. Plouffe writes that during an earlier election race, Mr. Obama had a "hard time allowing his campaign staff to take more responsibility." To which Barack Obama answered: "I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I'll hire to do it." 

Audacity indeed. In a 2008 New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza, Mr. Obama is quoted telling another aide: "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors." Also, "I think I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters." 

And here we are. 

In the days before Mr. Obama's ISIS address to the nation, news accounts cataloged his now-embarrassing statements about terrorism's decline on his watch—the terrorists are JV teams, the tide of war is receding and all that.

What we now know is that Mr. Obama is not even close to being his own best Secretary of State, his own best Secretary of Defense, his own best national security adviser or his own best CIA director.  The question is: Does he know it? Can a humbling experience of such startling proportions have sunk in? It had better. What the U.S. needs if it is to prevail in the battle Mr. Obama put forth Wednesday is the genuine article of presidential leadership. What the U.S. does not need in the Oval Office is a utility infielder playing everyone else's position. We are competing against global terrorism's heaviest hitters, who have established state seizure as a strategic goal. 

If Mr. Obama still thinks he's better than Susan Rice, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and John Brennan, then he and the nation supporting his anti-ISIS effort are being poorly served. 

Obama's Untruth, Inc., by Victor Davis Hanson 

Brief excerpt:

Obama’s prevaricating has lost him any thought of a legacy, all the more so because for years as a candidate and as president he pontificated about his new transparency and the need for executive candor — itself an untruth at best, and at worst a cynical ploy to provide cover for a deliberate effort to enact policies that could not be honestly presented to the American people. 

The two fuels that run Untruth, Inc., are, first, a realization that most of the president’s policies, whether deliberately or as a result of indifference and laziness, run counter to what most Americans support, and, second, a media establishment so invested in his agenda that it will not call the administration to account. So the engine of lying keeps humming. 

On any given day the president of the United States can step up to the teleprompter amid the latest disaster and swear that he did not do what he just did, or insist that someone else, not he, did the dastardly deed, or simply skip over recent history and make things up. The press at first quibbles, then nods in agreement, and Obama is empowered to do it again and again. We have not seen such a disingenuous president since Richard Nixon — but he, at least, was countered rather than enabled by the media.