Posted on 08/05/2014 5:31:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
I'm not a psychologist, but I'm intrigued by the work of those who study the mind and behavior, especially when it accurately explains why people do what they do -- or can't do what they would like or are expected to do. Case in point, President Barack Obama.
In 2008, I wrote a column titled "A Personality Profile of Barack Obama's Leadership." The warnings of mental health professionals then have come to fruition today. And other brain and personality experts, many of whom cast their votes for Obama at the ballot box, have since learned the nation appointed a man to the highest position in the land who cannot lead in or out of crisis, especially in the face of opposing forces.
Six years ago, I pointed to the research of the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, at St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict, which did a professional personality profile "for anticipating Obama's likely leadership style as chief executive, thereby providing a basis for inferring the character and tenor of a prospective Obama presidency." The study concluded: "The combination of Ambitious, Accommodating, and Outgoing patterns in Obama's profile suggests a confident conciliator personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype, though self-assured and ambitious, are characteristically gracious, considerate, and benevolent. They are energetic, charming, and agreeable, with a special knack for settling differences, favoring mediation and compromise over force or coercion as a strategy for resolving conflict. They are driven primarily by a need for achievement and also have strong affiliation needs, but a low need for power."
Samuel Barondes, a leading psychiatrist and neuroscientist, explained in his 2011 expose of President Obama: "Obama's temperament, his combination of dispositional traits, is emphasized in psychiatrist Nassir Ghaemi's essay 'Maybe Washington Needs More Craziness.' As Ghaemi puts it in his opening sentence 'If President Obama stumbled in his handling of the debt crisis, in my view, it was because he is too normal: too rational, willing to compromise, a rule follower, conventionally wise.' And he then goes on to contrast Obama with Franklin D. Roosevelt whose greater success he attributes, in part, to Roosevelt's 'hyperthymic temperament ... such people have very high energy levels, and are extroverted, talkative, sociable, humorous, charismatic, productive, libidinous, and workaholic.' To Ghaemi the more moderate temperament of 'no-drama-Obama' keeps him from confronting his adversaries in the manner of FDR.
"Drew Westen, a psychologist with interests in both personality and politics, emphasizes Obama's sense of identity. In 'What Happened to Obama's Passion?' he raises the possibility that Obama hasn't figured himself out yet: 'Perhaps those of us who were so enthralled with the magnificent story he told in "Dreams From My Father" appended a chapter at the end that wasn't there -- the chapter in which he resolves his identity and comes to know who he is and what he believes in.' Later Westen suggests that Obama is conflicted about his identity and 'ran for president on two contradictory platforms: as a reformer who would clean up the system, and as a unity candidate who would transcend the lines of red and blue.' But in the end he concludes that Obama is really most comfortable 'consistently choosing the message of bipartisanship over the message of confrontation.' This, then, appears to be an essential element of what Obama stands for."
Obama's glaring and greatest weakness -- namely his inability to make hard decisions in crisis and lead opposing forces through or out of them -- has cost America on every front. It has further divided Washington and our nation and jeopardized our standing with the global community and even our allies, leaving us in a much more unstable place in our world.
Though most people in 2008 seemed to laud Obama's personality as a needed polar opposite to George W. Bush's, especially in an era that required the repairing of international relations, I posed to readers that Obama's personality pendulum swing was way too far to the other side. An "accommodating-agreeable-conciliator-favoring compromise" type of personality might be good for closing a used car deal when all parties are amicable, but it's not the one that can lead our country through war, divisive crises or emergency conflicts, which often require unpopular actions.
Obama's voting record as an Illinois state senator showed his inability to take a stand in a crisis. His own Democratic colleagues couldn't understand why he had voted "present" (instead of "yes" or "no") 129 times, including a number of noncommittal tallies on gun rights and abortion.
Gone are the days when strong leaders and personalities, such as House Speaker Tip O'Neill and President Ronald Reagan, reached across the aisle in order to lead our country. En vogue today are pitching polarities, demonizing your opposition and casting blame to justify one's own divisiveness and inability to bridge gaps.
But what we need now more than ever are leaders like those three decades ago who knew how to agree to disagree agreeably, confronted tough challenges together and advanced our nation forward despite their differences. That is particularly true of our president.
Let me sum the analysis up succinctly: FAIL
Obama biggest flaw is that he is a homo Marxist.
correction: America-hating homo Marxist
So what if Obama has “flaws?”
As long as the Republican Leaders in the US House refuse to hold Obama accountable and punish Obama, Obama will continue to cash in AND SPEND the endless supply of blank checks that Speaker Boehner freely gives Obama.
As long as Speaker Boehner refuses to punish Obama by appointing a Special Prosecutor, Obama will continue his very successful campaign to “Fundamentally Transform the United States of America.”
Boehner may make yet another fiery speech about “we must make sure that this never happens again,” to which the grateful members of the DEMOCRAT BROTHERHOOD Party always say:
“OBAMA AKBAR!”
I am not impressed by the assessments of these professional psychologists.
Obama is not easy-going and compromising. He is lazy, but that is not the same. Actually, another of Obama’s characteristics is lack of any expertise (he is a complete beginner), and his willingness to be manipulated by behind-the-scenes managers.
The latter characteristic he shares with FDR in his last stages of decline: for FDR was almost totally controlled by his aids, with his “great initiatives” being fed to him by socialistic ideologues.
Obama is uncompromising because his handlers want him to stick to the line; but also because he would not even know how to strike a reasonable deal. He is not oriented toward any sort of compromise. Narcissists see no reason for compromise! He is a rule or ruin politician, and even if he rules (gets his way), ruin will be the result.
Obama is a complete disaster. The narcissistic personality almost always leads to the same end.
“the nation appointed a man to the highest position in the land who cannot lead in or out of crisis,”..........
And to think he gave several warning signs before the first election when he voted “present” more than yes or no.
He wants no part of being a leader other than the perks that go with the title. He will and should, go down in history as the WORST “leader” in history.
Bump
“... Accommodating, and Outgoing patterns in Obama’s profile suggests a confident conciliator personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype, though self-assured and ambitious, are characteristically gracious, considerate, and benevolent. They are energetic, charming, and agreeable, with a special knack for settling differences, favoring mediation and compromise over force or coercion as a strategy for resolving conflict. They are driven primarily by a need for achievement and also have strong affiliation needs, but a low need for power.”
Is there anyone who can read this quote and not conclude the Psychiatry is a pseudo-science? The so-called experts perceived Obama be the polar opposite of what he truly is.
Not only is he lazy, he’s also arrogant and his narcissism points to the fact that he believes everything must go his way, and only his way
It is as though you said to me that my behavior were repugnant to Zoroastrian beliefs. It would not have the slightest effect on my thinking or my behavior. So he does not deign to have a relationship with Congress and he does not respond to crises because the crises are the normal part of a misshaped world which he alone knows how to transform. So it is with Obama. He is a Marxist who believes the system is illegitimate; he is utterly detached from that system except to exploit it and transform it into the utopia he and Saul Alinsky envisioned.
That is the philosophy which Obama in his youth has seized upon as a compensation for his inadequacies made all the more blatant by his terrible character flaw: his narcissism.
If Chuck Norris can refer to an old article of his, I can reproduce an old post of mine that goes back to 2009:
-----------------------------
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 an 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 rank apostasy than 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.
I wonder how many times that guy pulled the lever for The Won?
EXCELLENT!
I disagree with these people also. Obama is inexperienced and a con man. He’s cool, because he doesn’t know what to do. Juan Williams adores him, because Juan doesn’t understand the danger we’re all in today because of what is going on overseas in Iraq.
It’s like we’re sitting on a time bomb waiting to blow up.
The only problem with your brilliant analysis is in getting people to believe it.
Or maybe getting them to see it in the first place.
I agree with you 100% but I suspect that is because through the vagaries of fate (and independence of mind) I have lived up close and personal as a non-Leftist in various Leftist venues in various places. I have seen the army of Leftist narcissists Corporal Obama belongs to.
Even anti-BO commentators wildly miss the mark, often because they are hung up in looking at things within the context of electoral politics, or (as in the case of the original post) through the incomplete and somewhat trite categories of personality diagnosis.
To say, for instance, that BO is incompetent misses the mark. Yes, BO is breath-takingly incompetetent, if by competence you mean managerial ability and the array of talents needed to build or improve something.
But that sort of competence is irrelevant to BO, in the same way (as you so well explain) the usual personality measurements are irrelevant to understanding BO.
As they say, any jackass can kick down a barn. BO is a jackass, and he is kicking down the barn, but the aphorism is inadequate to describe the cunning that the Left uses to kick down the barn.
Alinsky methods are really nothing more than cunning kindergarten psychology, the use of emotion and deception to present a “reality” which permits obtaining what you could not otherwise get by “competence.”
Kindergarten psychology is available to almost any human being, although some are more cunning and even masterful in its use.
The most difficult aspect of the kindergarten method is in addressing those who see through the phoniness and deceit. They must be eliminated by whatever means because they are impervious to the baloney, and might help others to see the fraudulence for what it is.
To BO, it’s all good, if it results in more hatred, more division, more chaos, more of anything which creates the instability and gnawing fear needed for “revolution.”
And of course, getting back to the kindergarten psychology, part of the “cunning” is to condemn hatred and division, and accuse all those who see clearly what you are going of fomenting hatred and division.
It is a dreary and tedious game loved only by the shriveled souls and deformed intellects such as BO.
The problem is, it works, as reflected by the countless articles devoted to irrelevant explanations.
TY for giving me hope, nathanbedford.
“Kindergarten psychology is available to almost any human being, although some are more cunning and even masterful in its use.”
I meant to add: “Available to any human being sufficiently devoid of a conscience as to use it.”
Also the word “going” should have been “doing” near the end of the post.
Alas, editing is hard work!
allow me to add EPIC if you don’t mind . .
He has spent the last 5 years insulting half the American population and then chastises them because they don’t work with him.
> allow me to add EPIC if you don’t mind . .
Not at ll. the more gas on this fire the better...
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.
