|
| |||||||
April 2, 2012
Who Shrank The President?By Monty PelerinPresident Obama has had lots of bad weeks in his tenure. None has been as bad as last week. Charles Hurt discussed Obama's week:
The week brought to the forefront questions about Obama's loyalty, competence, coherence, and leadership. In an election year, concerns like these do not portend well. Peggy Noonan described the goodwill that Obama came into office with. According to Ms. Noonan, that goodwill is ebbing away:
The ebbing process started right after Obama assumed office. The events of the last week merely brought the doubts and distrust to the surface again. Ms. Noonan is too kind in her assessment. The dislike for Obama among his opponents is greater than anything I have ever witnessed against a Democrat president. Believing he is evil and intentionally out to destroy America is vastly different from "inclined not to like him." Jimmy Carter was ridiculed but never described the way Obama is. Obama entered office as little more than a complex Rorschach blot. Much of his past had been hidden. What was known had been carefully scrubbed and scripted. His campaign avoided specifics. His speeches sounded great but contained no substance. Nothing defined him except what observers chose to imagine. He was a master in allowing you to believe whatever was most important to you. Obama was little different from a Hollywood façade that could serve any purpose. In a sense he was the perfect candidate, a political chameleon seen by voters as whatever they most wanted. He was a blank slate for voters. As a political "newbie" and the first serious African-American candidate, he played well. He was an outsider who would clean up Washington. For many he was the great healer who would bring unity to Republicans and Democrats, blacks and whites, and America and its enemies. His kumbayah campaign was hailed by the media and a large naive segment of the electorate believed it. Obama was attractive, charming, articulate (at least while on teleprompter), commanding, and charismatic. He dressed immaculately, with a perfect crease in his trousers, as noted by New York Times columnist David Brooks. He caused a tingle to run up the leg of a particularly excited media midget. His background was irrelevant. He was The One, perfect for the job. Never mind that he had never accomplished anything of substance in his life, short of claiming degrees from two prestigious institutions. The lack of familiarity, his "unknowness," was Obama's greatest asset. It enabled him to be all things to most people. It was marketed brilliantly. He disposed of what seemed to be the unbeatable Team Clinton magically. Then he easily defeated the hapless, shop-worn John McCain. Mr. Obama's greatest attribute, his unfamiliarity, is now gone. He is no longer an unknown shaped by the wishes, wants, and imagination of the public. He is inconvenienced by reality. He is known and has a track record. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, it is replete with stumbles. He is arrogant to a fault and a narcissist. These may be his good qualities. Obama is seen as an elitist, above the people. His gaffes, broken promises, duplicity, and other imperfections are a matter of public record. Although still an inkblot in many respects, his positions on issues are known and generally not popular. Consider just a few of his self-inflicted liabilities:
Obama's re-election problem is simple: too many people know him. Obama was never presidential material. He had no experience and no accomplishments (just what does a "community organizer" do?). His primary attribute was newness. Also, he could make a teleprompter sound inspiring. As a result, we have a president with the managerial skills of a hippie, the integrity of a con man, and the lust for power normally associated with dictators. That he has been a disaster for the country should be obvious. To suggest that he is unelectable should also be obvious; however, it would be incorrect. Despite the increasing recognition of our empty-suited president, the election cannot be called against him. No, it is not the admittedly weak Republican field. It is more complex than that, but that is a story for another day. To answer the titular question of the article: no one shrank the president. His size has not changed at all. Only people's perceptions have changed. It was only the hopes and dreams of the public that saw him as oversized. He was and still is a small man. He always has been. Monty Pelerin blogs at Monty Pelerin's World. |
||
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
|
|
||
|