By Matt Patterson (Columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
Francisco Examiner)
Government
& Society:
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of
Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and
disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin
perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did
a man so devoid of professional
accomplishment beguile so many into
thinking he could manage the world's
largest economy, direct the world's most
powerful military, execute the
world's most consequential job? Imagine
a future historian examining
Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered
into and through the Ivy League
despite unremarkable grades and test
scores along the way; a cushy non-job
as a "community organizer"; a brief
career as a state legislator devoid of
legislative achievement (and in fact
nearly devoid of his attention, so
often did he vote "present"); and
finally an unaccomplished single term in
the United States Senate, the entirety
of which was devoted to his
presidential ambitions.
He left
no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then
there is the matter of his
troubling associations: the
white-hating, America-loathing preacher who
for decades served as Obama's "spiritual
mentor"; a real-life, actual
terrorist who served as Obama's
colleague and political sponsor. It is
easy to imagine a future historian
looking at it all and asking: how on
Earth was such a man elected
president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman
Podhoretz
addressed the question
recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure,
no white candidate who had close
associations with an outspoken hater of
America like Jeremiah Wright and an
unrepentant terrorist like Bill
Ayers, would have lasted a single day.
But because Mr. Obama was black,
and therefore entitled in the eyes of
liberaldom to have hung out with
protesters against various American
injustices, even if they were a bit
extreme, he was given a pass. Let that
sink in: Obama was given a pass -
held to a lower standard - because of
the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did
such ancient history
matter when he
was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had
said) "non-threatening," all of which
gave him a fighting chance to become
the first black president and thereby to
lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on
the animating pulse of the Obama
phenomenon -affirmative action. Not in
the legal sense, of course. But
certainly in the motivating sentiment
behind all affirmative action laws
and regulations, which are designed
primarily to make white people, and
especially white liberals, feel good
about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites
can pat
themselves on the back.
Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
for which they are not qualified, yet
take no responsibility for the
inevitable poor performance and high
drop-out rates which follow. Liberals
don't care if these minority students
fail; liberals aren't around to
witness the emotional devastation and
deflated self esteem resulting from
the racist policy that is affirmative
action. Yes, racist. Holding
someone to a separate standard merely
because of the color of his skin -
that's affirmative action in a nutshell,
and if that isn't racism, then
nothing is.
And that is what
America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was
never troubled by his lack of
achievements, but why would he be? As many
have noted, Obama was told he was good
enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he
was told he was good enough for
the
US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was
good enough to be president despite no
record at all in the Senate. All
his life, every step of the way, Obama
was told he was good enough for
the
next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this
breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on
display every time Obama speaks? In
2008, many who agreed that he lacked
executive qualifications nonetheless
raved about Obama's oratory skills,
intellect, and cool character. Those
people - conservatives included -
ought now to be deeply
embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of cliches, and
that's
when he has his
Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
he can barely think or speak at
all.
Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it's all
warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has
failed over and over again for
100
years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming
anything
and everything else for
his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. It is embarrassing
to see a president so willing to
advertise his own powerlessness, so
comfortable with his own incompetence.
But really, what were we to
expect? The man has never been
responsible for anything, so how do we
expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and
small-minded man, with
neither the
temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.
When you understand
that, and only when you understand that, will
the current erosion of liberty and
prosperity make sense. It could not
have gone otherwise with such a man in
the Oval Office.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment