THE OBAMA PATHOLOGY
Saturday, October 04, 2008 11:52:25 PM · 1 of 21 nathanbedford The idea of the Authoritarian Personality originated in The Frankfurt School as a means of undermining the position of the father within the family circle and thereby undermine the family itself and ultimately the nation as a bulwark against communism. It was heavily larded with pseudo-Freudian analysis and was expanded to subvert all institutionalized authority. Every season we see an article, usually by some college professor with too much time in his hands or sometimes by psychiatrists acting either singly or in gaggles, opining that the current president, if he be Republican, is somehow psychologically deficient. No Republican president or Republican candidate in my lifetime has escaped this ritual psychoanalysis.
A recent excrescence of this genre is the book by Naomi Wolf in which she ludicrously argues that America, led by George Bush, is on the verge of descending into fascism. I have posted my objection to this sort of pseudoscience and I have tried to debunk this cheap propaganda so I am reluctant to engage hypocritically in the same game now. Well, I am going to do it anyway. I aim to indict about half of our whole society. The half, and likely more than half, that will vote for Barak Obama. My psychological conclusions do not pretend to the trappings of the "science" of the psyche and adorned with the word games of Freudian analysis, rather they are rooted in common sense.
The conclusion of anyone with common sense who has seen the films of innocent children singing their Obama songs or who has watched the quasi-military chanting and saluting of the Obama Youth in military garb must conclude that there is something very, very wrong with these people. I remember when I first saw the YouTube Children singing their Obama song I became conscious after a while that my mouth was gaping open, so appalled was I. My reaction to seeing the paramilitary gang marching into the karate hall was a mixture of embarrassment that these kids would make such fools of themselves and anger that adults would so brazenly manipulate children. Then I felt a creeping sense of unease that there was something potentially very sinister going on. Dear merciful God, this is Orwellian!
Beyond a very healthy repugnance to the spectacle of brainwashed children put on display, beyond the inescapable Maoist symbolism of it all, a commonsense person asks, what kind of man would permit this to go on in his name? What kind of parent would not seek to protect his child from such a man? What kind of pathology would lead parents who presumably love their children to consign those children to the demons of mind control? How could Americans fall for such a transparent cult of personality?
Unfortunately, we need not be uncertain about what kind of man would permit this grotesquerie to be advanced in his name. History provides us with plenty of examples: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong-Il come to mind and now we add Barak Obama to the list. Why has he not spoken out and repudiated this? Would not a decent man do so if only for the children?
If Obama will not speak out now as a candidate when a little modesty, even false modesty, would advance his chances, what will he do when he gains office with no resistance anywhere on the horizon; no opposition in either the House or the Senate, no voice in traditional media to be raised against him, no institutional resistance on a national level of any kind organized to discourage him? Because he condones this obscenity one must ask, Is Obama really a narcissist as has been claimed? If so, how far will he go when he has the levers of power in his hands when there is no effective resistance to his ego?
How dangerous is Barak Obama?
Is he too dangerous to be put in a place where he could literally get us all killed? Or Is he the indispensable man in some sense? I do not think so. There is nothing in his career that suggests that he is the man for this season. In a time of war he has no military experience. In a time of looming financial disaster, he has no economic credentials. If he is potentially dangerous and if he is not indispensable, why would so many people want to put him in a position where he could do us harm, even get us all killed?
My commonsense explanation is that there must be a pathology, a mass psychosis, that brings people to the point where not only are they eager to make him the most powerful man in the world but they are invoking his name and calling upon him to be their savior. This they do rather than falling on their knees out of fear of The Real God. This is the Obama pathology.
To a middle-class conservative who instinctively rejects conspiracy theories and normally wants to think the best of people because that's what he learned in Sunday school, this deification of an empty suit is as bewildering as it is frightening. What in the world are these people thinking? Do they not weigh the risks of consigning their fate to an unqualified man, worse, a person tainted his whole life with stunningly dangerous confederates including felons and Communists and terrorists? What is the upside? What is it about this man whose career is utterly uninterrupted by any accomplishment which would motivate these people to risk their children and my children to whatever he might do to them? How do they know? How can they be sure? Don't they have any doubts?
My problem is that I am seeking after that which I cannot find. I want to find an explanation in logic for a phenomenon of emotion. It is easy for middle-class conservatives to overlook the power of emotion even though history provides plenty of examples even within our own culture in America. Can logic explain why so many drank Jim Jone's Kool aid? Why Charles Manson commanded such blood loyalty? How many cheered OJ Simpson's acquittal? Why did princes Diana's passing traumatize a nation? These are not questions which are answered with everyday commonsense. One almost has to go to the Bible to see the answer in Old Testament allegory which lets us know that evil is and there will always be worshipers of the golden calf.
I fear that in November we conservatives might find ourselves involuntarily embarked upon a journey that is foreign to our epistemology. We may be going into dark places and we might well be pushed into a netherworld where our common sense values are of no use because it is a place where down is up and black is white, a place where gravity does not pull but pushes, a place where we will need a pocket translator in order to converse in English with our government, our children's teachers, and our keepers even though they superficially use the same words we do. We sense we are about to be overwhelmed by forces guided by the ghost of Saul Alinsky.
I fear the downside of the Obama Pathology after his election may extend to dimensions we cannot begin to fasten to our everyday understanding or to our common sense. We have no way of knowing what will come because we don't know anything really about Barak Obama. We do not know if he is purely evil, we do not know if he is a committed communist, we do not know if he is a racist, we do not know if he wishes to see the submergence of the United States into a greater world order, we do not know if he is a megalomaniac, we do not even know, God help us, if he hates America. We do not know, in short, if we are backs - to- the- wall confronted with the Liberals' quadrennial nightmare: A real Authoritarian Personality.
We do know that Barak Obama has already encouraged a cult of personality whose implications are truly frightening and fundamentally un-American.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
About one month ago in response to an article which appeared here a Free Republic recounting Obama's achievements in organizing the voter drive in the Illinois which led to the election of Carol Moseley Braun, I commented as appears below. At that time I did not draw a distinction between a sociopath (public model for which to me has always been Bill Clinton) and a narcissist. As you point out, I am still not sure that the distinction is valid or at least useful.
And I am very wary of indulging in a favorite pastime of the left which is to psychoanalyze Republican candidates to their discredit. On the other hand, can one truly understand Richard Nixon if one does not put searchlight on the Demons? Can one understand the near superhuman drive of Lyndon Johnson without seeing a super human ego? The distinction between Nixon and Johnson on the one hand and Obama on the other hand is twofold: the former two have real accomplishments to their credit and Obama, as I try to point out in my reply below, does not. Nixon and Johnson in their own way betrayed personal foibles which illuminated their psychological conditions. But Obama does not philander, does not drink, at least in excess, maintains a healthy workout regimen, in public at least is always in possession of his savoir-faire, and his worst personal character flaw seems to be an occasional furtive cigarette.
Indeed, the opposite is true, he asked almost perfect pitch for his audience. If one listens to the replay of the old public radio tape of his calling for a civil rights movement to redistribute wealth, one would swear one was listening to it professional announcer on National Public Radio. When he addresses SEIU Or Acorn he can get down for the struggle. He has no difficulty whatever in appearing presidential. The man is a chameleon-a sign of a sociopath.
The article poses a warning which I think bears attention:
As things go badly wrong and adulation turns into antagonism, we may see a very different side of Obama than he has succeeded in presenting to the public during the past two years.
I have been posting for a long time that I see danger in Barack Obama getting us into a war when his personal power is challenged. This, of course, is contrary to the views customarily expressed here on Free Republic that Obama is neutered by his ideology and his foreign policy will be a reprise of Jimmy Carter's, but on steroids. I think that you this is a real danger in the man which the author points alludes to.
Here is the reply:
To those conservatives who indulge a psychological need to disparage the talents of Barack Obama, this article should serve as a well earned slap in the face.
To those conservatives, like myself, who are arm chair bean counters in the game of handicapping elections, let this article be a disquieting wake-up call that many of our assumptions upon which we hope conservatism will build a come back may be as ill-founded as the bluster of those who downgrade Obama's talents.
First, the matter of Obama's talent, or better put, his charisma. Sometime ago I wrote a post which I think captures Obama and explains why his combination of charisma and shallowness make a very dangerous political combination, but one with undeniable electability:
"I think he is a narcissist who survives and prospers not by addressing problems but by manipulating people. Narcissists like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama are not stupid, they are wonderfully clever and exceedingly effective in reading their victims and manipulating them.
I think that Barack Obama has a worldview provided to him, posthumously, by Saul Alinsky which gives him a framework for analysis. In other words, Obama does not "analyze", rather he "sorts" and puts data into their appropriate slots provided by the philosophy of Saul Alinsky. He has learned a vocabulary which enables him to contrive a front of effectiveness, a seriousness of purpose and depth of character which is all a sham.
Think of Barack Obama as the professional coordinator at its Alinsky meeting. For those old enough, think of Barack Obama as the leader of an EST meeting of the 1970s. These experiences give him an eschatology, a vocabulary, a forensic ability to manipulate, and ego satisfaction. What was he doing as editor of the Harvard Law Review if he was not producing actual work? He was acting out as a community organizer with the shtick modified to fit a new venue. If one examines his career at every level the pattern is the same. As a constitutional law lecturer he produced no written work but he was evidently perfectly fit to the culture of the law school. In the Illinois Senate he voted present but ingratiated himself with the Daley machine. He barely passed go in the United States Senate but he knew the vocabulary and he passed muster with the likes of George Soros. In each instance, Barack Obama behaves as a narcissist, very shallow, producing no work product, but selling a great package.
If one takes away the Marxist belief system provided to him or reinforced in every step of his development from his mother to Frank Marshall Davis, to Columbia University, the Harvard Law school, William Ayres, to Reverend Wright, one is left with a truly hollow man. That is why Obama is such a dangerous ideologue. There is no Obama apart from a lifelong sham, a compensation for always being advanced beyond his competence because of his race and his ability to manipulate. He simply cannot stop the act and get off stage because there is nothing but the act.
Obama is a man without a soul and without a spiritual compass. His relationship to Reverend Wright reveals that he has no real spiritual quality to him for there could hardly be a more right apostasy in the church which he attended for 20 years. It has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with ego satisfaction. It is the opposite of the Judeo-Christian message.
Obama cannot abandon his radicalism because there is no other there there. He is a massive compensation system. His body is a life-support system for his narcissism and the narcissism is utterly dependent on the received wisdom from Saul Alinsky and the rest of them."
Viewed from the perspective of this article, one might properly question whether I got it wrong about Obama relying on his ability to manipulate rather than upon him a capacity to produce honest results. Reading the article, it appears that Obama's success was primarily a public-relations phenomenon in enlisting black McDonald's owners and black radio station owners. The worry is that the voter registration drive is a model of both public-relations sensitivity and dynamic management skills in organizing and harvesting the black vote. If I got it wrong, if it is the latter, if the Chicago voter operation is truly an example of honest results, it is ominous in the extreme.
This interpretation is ominous because we can find parallels to the 2008 election and to Obama's course of governing. The enlistment of black radio station owners and the attempt today to kill talk radio by forcing it into African American hands stands as an example.
The article speaks of Obama's training 700 registrars. This echoes my remarks about his forensic skills and narcissistic needs merging as was the case for EST trainers of the 1970s. This explains much of Obama's need daily, actually by count more than daily, to appear on television. It also confirms the foolishness of those who complain that Obama cannot speak without a Teleprompter.
Is Obama only a narcissist, a Bill Clinton style sociopath, or is he the real deal as his supporters claim, a man who has unperceived talents to produce honest results and organize a Chicago voter drive, a successful primary campaign, a successful presidential election campaign? Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that when pressed for a single qualification which entitled Obama to be president, his supporters fell back on his ability to run a campaign.
Before we conclude that Obama has wonderful organizing skills, let us note that in each of these three incidents, all three of them campaigns, Obama was working with race. In the voter drive it was 100% a race effort. In the primary campaign it got down to a nasty slugfest over race between Obama and the Clintons. In both the primary and in the election campaign Obama enjoyed virtually 100% black voter loyalty. Equally important, in those two campaigns he enjoyed unprecedented media support and that media support was predicated on race.
Conservatives clearly will observe that Obama's alleged organizing skills are not so apparent when it comes to governing. But let it be considered for a moment that the governing of the Obama administration still rests on only two legs: the race card and the Saul Alinsky world view.
