Michael Gerson Sums Up Obama’s Narcissism
September 26, 2009 / 8:03 pm • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierWow:
On several occasions, Obama attacked American conduct in simplistic caricatures a European diplomat might employ or applaud. He accused America of acing “unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others” — a slander against every American ally who has made sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan. He argued that, “America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy” — which is hardly a challenge for the Obama administration, which has yet to make a priority of promoting democracy or human rights anywhere in the world.
The world, of course, has its problems, too. It has accepted “misperceptions and misinformation.” It can be guilty of a “reflexive anti-Americanism.” “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone.” Translation: I know you adore me because I am better than America’s flawed past. But don’t just stand there loving me, do something.
And, wow again:
Twice in his United Nations speech, Obama dares to quote Franklin Roosevelt. I have read quite a bit of Roosevelt’s rhetoric. It is impossible to imagine him, under any circumstances, unfairly criticizing his own country in an international forum in order to make himself look better in comparison. He would have considered such a rhetorical strategy shameful — as indeed it is.
At the United Nations, Obama set out to denigrate American goodness so he can become our rescuer. The speech had nothing to do with the confident style of Democratic rhetoric found in Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. It insulted that tradition. And no one is likely ever to quote the speech — except to deride it.
Here’s my take, though. President Obama is no different from candidate Obama. What did you moderates out there think he meant when he said that he would rise the tides and save the planet and BE the change you can believe in? Why do you think President Obama wanted to “remake America”?
I’ll answer it for you: Because he felt that America is fundamentally flawed. Because he believes HE is the fix. Pretty simple. And he’s no different today than he was a year ago. it’s just rather startling to hear the President of the United States apologize for his own country inherent badness and say that his inherent goodness is the cure.
Arrogant and narcissistic? Yep. But he had a lot of useful idiots help him get elected. His America-hating speechifying is nothing new. Some people are just hearing for the first time.
H/T @allahpundit
10 Responses to “Michael Gerson Sums Up Obama’s Narcissism”
September 26 2009 / 8:23 pm
Reply
When you’re right, you’re right.
September 26 2009 / 10:48 pm
Reply
We talked about this last week, Melissa. I opined that there is an insurgency budding within the Democrat Party, headed up by familiar faces in order to damage Obama and elevate one woman in particular.
Last week, it was two major players firing the first shots across the bow.
Dana Milbank: Clintonite.
George Stephanopoulos: Clintonite.
And now,
George Gerson: Clintonite.
Hillary Clinton’s days as SecState are numbered. She’s about done with President “I” Obama referring to her as “MY Secretary of State” to the entire UN General Assembly of heads of state.
And I suspect there’s a bitterness, personally, regarding Health Care, Hillary’s biggest political black eye. He can’t be allowed to succeed. That’s *her* baby.
As I see it:
Clinton will step down as SecState in a matter of a few months, citing whatever she can come up with. She will pause, then engage in a battle to position herself as the proper DNC presidential nominee for 2012. The problem is that she needs some sort of title or position. Would have expected her to run for NY Gov, but may be a bit late to pick that shoe up now.
Soon after her, David Petraeus will retire and leave CENTCOM and command of the Artist Formerly Known As The War On Terror. (Folks, DP runs the show. Obama nods.) Obama asserting himself (oddly, assertive in indecision and by lacking resolve) will be the cause for Petraeus stepping down. His command will not matter in the way that it did when he (with SecDef Gates) was given complete control of war efforts (because Obama lacks depth on these issues.) And when the shallow begins to ‘take charge,’ Petraeus will light his own exit sign.
And Dave Petraeus will begin to shed the (properly) restrictive military tradition of avoiding political issues. He will, in a high profile manner, engage the full spectrum of conservative political philosophy and emerge a strong presidential candidate.
He may (should?) emerge as the widely accepted conservative outsider that Palin seems to fall just short of. Folks will like this Princeton PhD’s conservative credentials and approach. They’ve just never seen it because he honors the important military tradition of avoiding political debate lest the military be (and be seen as) loyal to a party rather than Country.
And in 2012, whoever emerges from the RNC will have strong conservative credentials with a grassroots less bashful than ever about it and less sensitive than ever to criticism of being mean (ie: Not liberal enough for media support.)
Meanwhile, the DNC will have a sight yet unseen: A high profile bloodbath of a political fight within its own party between a sitting president and a well-organized Clinton insurgency.
And the Democrats – regardless of how badly they are viewed after 4 years of Obama – will beat themselves up so badly that the Conservative Republican will have a relatively smooth go of it and win the election.
Personally, short of anyone I don’t know of yet that may well emerge, Petraeus is the sharpest tool in the shed.
Caveat: If his leaving will hurt the hot-war efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, he will not step down and all of this will be moot. But I happen to think that, in an ironic twist (to him), he will conclude that it won’t matter whether he stays or goes. The Obama course will be set and it will be unacceptable to Dave Petraeus.
Just my thoughts. Needed a spot to put them down. Thanks for open comments, Melissa.
Cheers.
September 26 2009 / 11:33 pm
Reply
Gerson worked for Bush, not Clinton. And it doesn’t change the fact that what he said here is true. But I must say, Obama is not different than what he represented himself to be in the campaign. He and his wife kept telling us they’d do this. People did not listen. They’re still not listening. People projected themselves onto Obama. Obama never was an American.
September 26 2009 / 11:41 pm
Reply
I will share below what I just wrote in an email response to a few friends who gently elbowed my ribs about Gerson. Argh. Apologies. To readers …and Gerson!
————–
AARRGGGHH!!!! Thanks.
Who am I confusing him with? What the hell is wrong with me? I KNOW who Gerson is, for crying out loud. I need to pray taht God please re-wire my brain and fix the short circuits. Oy vey.
Someone shoot me in the head, please. I need to impose a midnight writing curfew.
[End excerpt.]
———————–
One of those moments when you want to punch yourself in the face.
That said, do keep a keen eye on the mounting insurgency. My eye was too keen by half tonight, and my brain a few cycles behind.
And do keep an equally keen eye on both Hillary and Dave Petraeus. That part stands regardless of whether my brain re-wired stored Gerson recollection. Yikes.
September 27 2009 / 12:01 am
Reply
Friend Lorie Byrd sneds along:
—>>> “I wondered if Steve was thinking of David Gergen. ” <<<—
We have a winner!!!!
I can now go to sleep tonight…
Apparently, I need it.
Thanks, Lorie…
September 27 2009 / 6:50 am
Reply
The more he’s in the public eye, the more the curtain is pulled back. The Kool-aid isn’t strong enough to keep more and more people from seeing the light. (But don’t worry – there will still be plenty of worshi…I mean followers – ref. NJ school teacher and principle)
September 27 2009 / 6:01 pm
Reply
All plausible, of course. Will Petraeus retire as soon as you think? I don’t see him retiring after the end of Obama’s term, but when between now and then is open.
Be careful portraying Petraeus as a conservative. In foreign policy he is probably more a pragmatic realist than ideologue to one end of the spectrum. As for domestic issues, he’s a complete cipher.
But one thing’s for sure – he’s lived his whole adult life since age 18 in the bosom of the most socialist society in America – the US military. Active-duty military pay nothing for health care, for example.
Literally, the military can be cradle to grave socialism – a baby can be born in an Army hospital, grow up on military bases attending DOD schools to high school graduation, then go to West Point and live to his/her 50s enjoying a huge panoply of government-provided largesse at no out-of-pocket costs.
This is not exactly a recipe for social conservatism.
PS – I retired from the Army in 1995 and I am conservative, so there’s hope for Petraeus yet!