Replies

For one, I think your use of disconsonant was very appropriate. There's something about the violence that is hard to pin exactly on Obama. The authors attempt to do probably resonates more clearly with a liberal or a recently converted conservative audience, one more accustomed to emotional thinking.

Here is the distinction in more concrete terms. Obama sees himself as a revolutionary. He's an agent for change who is singularly blessed to operate from within the beast he intends to tame. His heart is with the people in the streets. His ability to make his sympathies known is vast, directly and indirectly. It would be very easy for him to lend that street agitator credibility as a stabilizing force. He chooses not to.

In a very fundamental sense, he thinks that American society has to be transformed, and what we live in now is a profoundly unfair and immoral existence. He wants class envy. That's why he stokes it. He wants government control of industry, to support those workers who support his vision. He doesn't trust the police. His view of the justice system is as a weapon, not an establishment of stability.

In countless ways, he's taking the spirit of our times, and channeling it down a very selfish and shortsighted path. This path appeals to his emotional vanity, and the vanity of rich, guilty liberals and poor, dependent folk. As far as that goes, he really is a man for our time, to a great many Americans. Buyers remorse aside, I still know people utterly transfixed by him, as an agent for societal change.