By Matt
Patterson (Newsweek Columnist – Opinion Writer
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, less 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 liberal Dom 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 clichés, 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. (An example is his 2012 campaign
speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches
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. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned
for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to
advertise his own powerless-ness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The
other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get
our economy and country back on track). 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-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 an impostor in the Oval Office
No comments:
Post a Comment