Posted on 04/27/2011 2:02:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
When I covered George W. Bush’s White House, my job was made easier by the simplicity of the subject. The president had a few defining mantras — Cut taxes! Rally the base! Terrorists hate freedom! With us or against us! — and most of his decisions could be understood, even predicted, by applying one of the overarching philosophies.
With President Obama, there is no such luxury. The political right is befuddled as it tries to explain him: First, Obama was a tyrant and a socialist; now he’s a weakling who refuses to lead. The political left is almost as confused, demanding to know why Obama gave away so much on health care and in budget negotiations. Nearly everybody puzzles over Obama’s ad hoc responses to Egypt, Libya and now Syria, grasping for a still-elusive Obama Doctrine.
Seeking a template to understand the enigmatic president, I consulted three leading academics in the fields of psychology and behavior. With their help, I put Obama on the couch and came away with a reasonably coherent diagnosis: There’s too much going on in the poor guy’s head.
[snip]
...........In an ideal world, complex and rational thought would be virtues. But in politics, these attributes can make Obama seem ambiguous, without toughness or principles. “It isn’t because he lacks a moral compass — it’s because he understands there are a lot of moral forces at play,” U-Va.’s Haidt says. “This is why people get frustrated with him. The more of a partisan you are, the more simple-minded you are.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Nearly everybody puzzles over Obama’s ad hoc responses to Egypt, Libya and now Syria, grasping for a still-elusive Obama Doctrine.”
Not me. Obama’s pretty much been what I’ve expected based on the two main things I see in him:
#1 He’s incapable of “thinking on his feet” or understanding that there are problems in the world that don’t play by orderly rules or (esp. in the case of foreign affairs) are even particularly rational. Obama lives in a world where you have to measure thrice before writing a paper on cutting once. He’s very good at that. But anything else “rushes” him. And IMHO, that further extends to a thought process that naively believes any issue, including those related to foreign affairs, can be reduced or controlled into a neat, lawyerly proceeding with the “right” policies. The reality is far messier, and always has been, even with the smartest diplomacy.
#2 I firmly believe Obama is just far too soft for the job of President. Ever since George Stephanapolous (sp?) had Obama reeling in the May 2008 Democratic primary debate, I’ve seen him as someone who just isn’t very tough. Since then, he has (among other things) let Pelosi and Reid walk all over him, reminded us “he won” on several occasions, dragged his feet on dealing with Afghanistan for so long that Dianne Feinstein jumped his case in public, and most recently snarled at a Texan reporter for not giving him “enough time” to answer tough questions. A leader has to be able to take a punch, and give as good as he (or she) gets. I just don’t think Obama can do that.
All MHO, of course.
Good comments but the professors (anticipating such arguments) counter with:
1. He’s disadvantaged because “The complex thinker can suffer from ‘analysis paralysis’ and confusion; he can be prerceived as unprincipled or disloyal to the values that elevated him to power; and he can be seen as too willing to make trade-offs.”
2. And: “As Obama’s capacity for complex thought can become a liability, so, too, can his cool rationality. Politics often rewards the emotional over the rational. Nuclear deterrence, for example, works only if your enemy thinks you are crazy enough to destroy the world….But because Obama is unfailingly rational, opponents aren’t afraid of him doing something crazy”
Actually I play guitar and keyboard ;)
Obama wouldn’t know a clear thought if it set camp on his lower lip and plucked nose hair with the jaws of life.
You do realize, I hope, that he hesitated because a mentally challenged individual seated a couple rows in (you can see him in part of the clip) was shouting out to him. Don't underestimate this child-king's ability to weave the words for the masses.
Oh my. What a visual. LOL
It’s a good picture of him in prayer, oh wait they left the mirror out of the photo.
I have to agree with much of the analysis, and I think you're spot on with the counter, Cincinatus' Wife.
Even our hypothetical toothless rube, who cares for an animal and makes music, brings more of value to the world than any Marxist in high office.
He can't hold a simple thought in his simple mind.
He has to piece together the marxist tinker toys in his head until he comes up with an approved saying.
But he didn't. According to most, Obama's picks were uninspired and just a regurgitation of the teams' rankings.
Obama is not a "deep thinker". Liberals love to believe they "think" about things far more than conservatives, but this is just to mask their own doubts and contradictions.
Liberals are emotionally driven and do not consider logic. That is why they are so inconsistent and incapable of making a decision based on core principles.
Remember Clinton and how the media kept trying to identify his "core", waiting for every State of the Union speech where he would finally define his "center". He never did because Clinton was a politician more than a liberal and would say/do whatever to be popular.
True liberals cannot keep things simple. Why do you think their healthcare ideas become convoluted, complex bureaucracies that scare everyone else?
It is why our government does not work.....it is a creation of liberalism with overlapping agencies and redundancies for no apparent reason....a reflection of the liberal mind.
“The more of a partisan you are, the more simple-minded you are.”
_______________________________________________________________
Milbank is as simple-minded as they come, then.
I really like the absurd "poll" question and the choice of answers:
Dana Milbank argues Obama's capacity for complex thought can be an attribute or a liability. Which do you typically perceive it as?
An attribute
A liability
So, readers, there's a controversy here and we'd like your opinion - is the President's awesomeness and wonderfulness and perfectness (praise be upon him) an asset or a liability in this crude and cruel world that is unfit to worship the hallowed ground at his feet? Remember to keep your head bowed while answering this poll question, and then take three steps backwards before pressing the Enter key...
A Communist Manifesto Thumper.
That’s a good one!
"What?s a complex guy to do? Simple. It is important, Haidt says, for the president not to be rational and fully honest.?
See, the old Bill Clinton defense dusted off.
Mussolini was once a committed Socialist who initially opposed Italy's involvement in World War I. Then he got nationalist in his outlook. And that is where he diverges from Obama.
But Mussolini was a control freak who was also a weak and vacillating leader. And after reading about how Mussolini assumed power, I became convinced that only the incompetence of his foes made it possible.
LOL! An apt comparison on many levels, 0 and Neville Chamberlain!
At any rate, 0 has demonstrated very little in terms of intellectual power. His decisions are almost universally bad. That is not the signature of a great thinker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.