Government & Society

by Matt Patterson

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 teleprompter 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.