[re-post from correntewire, 12-6-10]
There seems serious pathology with Obama.
Obama's campaign "act" is discordant with most of his behavior after the election. It reveals profound pathology. (Although, let's not forget at the same time to acknowledge the profound pathology of Obama apologists who refuse to grasp he has not been and is not an ally to the base that elected him.) Also, most likely with Obama, his choices are not inadvertently made out of incompetence or inexperience, but to a serious degree from wilfull intention. There have been so many non-empathetic choices from him at an unrelenting rate. He seems to function as a conservative, Republican president rather than a Democratic one, though both war/money legacy parties have become more and more corrupt, alike and anti-citizen. Obama's heavy protectiveness and generosity to the corporate, political, media ruling classes awe much of his base, despite the crazymaking accusations from the right of his "socialism" (with the media allowing that disinformation to ricochet through its vast echo chamber).
What motivates Obama's disturbingly amoral intentions? What self-lies could he be employing to rationalize decisions that are so destructive to so many? The very people he made all those eloquent promises to not very long ago.
I'd consider that Obama's ego drove him to get elected, that brass-ring, grandiose payoff. In a way, Obama reminds me of a bride who overfocuses on her wedding -- with Obama it was the election -- rather than maturely fathoming the commitment of the marriage -- the responsible commitment to running the country. A very damaged country thanks to George W. Bush.
Obama was undoubtedly enabled in his fast political climb and further seduced by opportunistic corporate and political benefactors. Kleptocrats. Just as Bush had been. Obama's ego met up with the craven agenda of those seducing puppeteers who eagerly exploited his natural charisma with the tools of media branding. (Enter Oprah, stage right, for example.)
Obama still has charisma enough to keep on playing one of the games people play, "look how hard I am trying." He dances about effectively and rhetorically doing that one. He is rewarded with unbelievable slack still from so many. "It is only the first month or first year or first term, after all! What do you expect?" they snarl.
Psychology Today wrote a restrained analysis iirc about Obama's sizeable sense of confidence (instead of coming out and calling it grandiosity). With his brand of over-confidence, I would say dangerous grandiosity, they asserted he may be challenged to acknowledge easily when he is wrong. I found this theory worthy of consideration. Obama was an overachiever. No one would argue that. He rose far above his challenging beginnings. Excessive pride may have created an ego that is unwilling to admit to being wrong.
To adjust one's thinking and behavior as a mature response to inevitable shifts and challenges to one's reality is vital in a balanced human being. To accept one's human and understandable weaknesses and self-forgive. To learn from mistakes. To cope with them. These are all vital. An inability to surrender to one's humaness and be locked into willful perfectionism is certainly common. To lack the willingness to be wrong ever or hardly ever. How dangerous is this blind and willful egoism?
By the way, look how many still are and were in power who harmed us as a country, who harmed other countries, who carry that unwillingness to be wrong. How many captains and officers of the USS Titanic who wouldn't and still won't heed the icebergs. EVEN AFTER THE CRASHES.
"If I, Obama, make a decision, it must be right!" his ego declares? Self-image's brittle protectiveness stunts the growth of a resilience to explore and learn from reality -- to respond to it. Obama may seriously not have that necessary gamesmanship resiliency, the proverbial "chess mentality", to adjust to "in the now" circumstances. To keep his head where his feet actually are.
"Responsibility" is the "ability to respond." Lacking a sense of responsibility prevents true leadership. To me responsiblity is different from "reactivity". To be reactive is to be locked in a defensive mode, dependent on the movement of another and over-focused on making only counterpoint moves.
Obama's "grand bipartisanship goal," some may say it was a sham and he was hiding his real Republican nature, but I don't. I suspect Obama did have a grandiose fantasy that his "style" and "negotiating skills" could be a catalyst for the warring major political parties. He philosophically exalted his position as the uber-wise "centrist". He would induce the parties to find common ground. (He wasn't the only one with a big dream for him, considering how fast he was handed that peace prize!) The pathology enters here with Obama, the evidence of inappropriate ego-drivenness, because that fantasy has been thwarted so much during his term by gridlock, especially of the Republicans. Their amoral gamesmanship.
I ask, how much will this "community organizer" be willing to sacrifice -- of other people's well beings -- to achieve his dream of superstar "communinty organizer" with these insanely incompatible parties? It is not going to happen as he wanted. Take another tact, Obama! It is like Obama is striving to play successful marriage counselor for the Roses in "War of the Roses". Remember that movie? Forget about it!
Obama can't seem to. Like an addict he wants THAT fantasy ego payoff. Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Without a capacity for self-reflection, or the ego strength to admit the strategy is the wrong one, Obama seems to be unable to give up that ghost.
How many people are linked to fantasy scenarios? How many do not have the capacity to accept the things they cannot change? And how hateful for bruising inflated egos are the messengers, calling out this cul de sac of insanity, this wrongheadedness? This may be one of many reasons Obama is so passive aggressively indifferent to those of us on the left righteously calling him out.
People who are so willfully tied to a futile fantasy goal, and I am very much one at times and have been in the past, are locked in a "reaction formation" from their pasts. They may have been overly shamed for their mistakes or assertions. Have grown up physically, but are still haunted by the conviction that it is too dangerous and painfully shaming to admit mistakes, even to themselves. "The willingness to be wrong was abused long ago" I once read in a self-help book. And that impacts one's future lack of resilience in cultivating a healthy sense of humility and self-acceptance.
I've already posted this link from Mike Papantonio. He asserts that Obama is overwhelmed with the need for "inclusion" among the powerful ruling class. I think there may be something to Obama's being attracted to rejectors. To keep on auditioning for them. Remember the old Groucho Marx line about not respecting those in a club who are willing to have you as a member? Alice Miller has explored how self-rejection is often projected outwards at others. Having them be scapegoated for one's own self-hate. Does Obama project that self-rejection onto those of us who status-wise parallel his own early modest and vulnerable background? Also, he so rarely refers to the working class and poor in this country. As if the "middle class" is the citizenry which must be taken seriously. Rhetorically, that is. It seems in reality the wealthy class is getting the true nurturing from him and the middle class beginning to shrink and drop downward.
I wonder if the "dreams of Obama's father" he has projected now onto emotionally remote, autocratic and amoral elitist daddies. Authoritarians. I wonder if Obama is an authoritarian follower?
The campaign branding of Obama exploited at times the MLK mystique. How craven that was, especially in light of the choices he has made. Military, social, economic. "What is wrong with Obama?" I find myself asking excitedly with each fresh disappointment. But I also must ask, what is wrong with the rest of the country to let him, say, decide he has the legal right to assassinate any American at will? He doesn't. Why is he not challenged? One can blame the "emotional addict" ... even a presidential one ... and we are all "emotional addicts" at times, for acting out, wreaking inconvenience onto others with our denial and compulsions, but one also needs to blame the enablers that enable this person, no matter how high his status. There are massive numbers of people who allow our leaders to make unethical and illegal decisions. That keeps us a war criminal nation. Look at how Bush was unbelievably allowed to destroy for two terms (granted the second election was stolen). When I heard Bush had won a second term I felt like I had been literally sucker-punched in the stomach.
When emotional addicts link up with co-addict enablers, I guess it is a perfect storm of pathologies. Look at the egos of the people who voted Obama in and who are unwilling to acknowledge just how tragically and massively disappointing his leadership has been. Five stages of grief is understandable. It is a process that has a timely end. But the calcification of denial? It threatens all of us.
It is hard to discern someone who is pathological at the beginning of a relationship with you, even or especially an admired candidate by a citizen. All that projected hope. Especially after having endured a president like George W. Bush. Obama seemed the light at the end of a cruel tunnel. It is understandable for desperate people to be "snowed." Especially, again, when the fantasy object charmingly tells you everything you want to hear. You filling in between the lines yourself too much, of course. But true pathology shows if you as his original enabler continue to deny the growing evidence of betrayal! When your ego clings hard to the original fantasy. That is not the audacity of hope. It is the pathology of hope.
Many of us, including me, have struggled with what I am suggesting Obama may be coping with or have coped with in his life. And we and he deserve compassion for the character defects that were really "defense mechanisms" that helped us as children survive stress and trauma, more than likely. The difference in many of us who have pockets of dysfunction (who doesn't?) is in degree and, significantly, the amount of impact our character defects can have on others. The negative impact of Obama's character defects are phenomenal, tragically. Look at what those of George W. Bush have wrought.
------------------
Superb references, elegant and eloquent prose and arguments presented by You.
I have, only one question to ask. Why do You limit the fact that bush the lesser stole only the second election, when it is clear that the first, was stolen, even more blatantly?
-R-
I have, only one question to ask. Why do You limit the fact that bush the lesser stole only the second election, when it is clear that the first, was stolen, even more blatantly?
-R-
I can see the points you make and how you came to them. This post is well written and passionate in making those points. I somehow feel that their are nefarious forces at work to derail the real man. Things we will never know because the forces that enforced them do not wish to be known. I believe that the heart and mind of the man are in the correct place but that he doesn't have what it takes to go to battle with these lost souls. Perhaps that puts me in the conspiracy theory bunch, but I see the divine spark in him, just as it is being extinguished.
rated with love
rated with
rated with love
rated with
mark, thank you for your ever early and emphatic launchings of support for me with my sharings! This is a re-post and as I reread I wondered why I said that about the second election myself. Though as I remember I had heard a radio show around the time I wrote this post about the Ohio election shenanigans that really angered me.
Did Bush steal the first election? Not by himself and even not by just the Republicans themselves. They were enabled by Gore himself and the Dems who watched cronyism and amorality prevail -- along with a captured SCOTUS! Their passivity was awesome. Old Jeb ... remember. What a horrifying crock. But the media now focuses on "gamesmanship" NEVER ethics and seems to nominate and anoint American leaders.
And, tragically, as usual, a country that didn't want to invest critical thinking. Bush was on Oprah (there she was again) and everyone decided having a beer with Bush preferable to beer drinking with stiff ol' Gore. What more of a presidential vetting would one need as a citizen? Anyway, YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN, my friend! I let it ride on the re-post. libby
RP! How open-minded and (unsurprisingly!) open-hearted of you. I thank you. libby
Did Bush steal the first election? Not by himself and even not by just the Republicans themselves. They were enabled by Gore himself and the Dems who watched cronyism and amorality prevail -- along with a captured SCOTUS! Their passivity was awesome. Old Jeb ... remember. What a horrifying crock. But the media now focuses on "gamesmanship" NEVER ethics and seems to nominate and anoint American leaders.
And, tragically, as usual, a country that didn't want to invest critical thinking. Bush was on Oprah (there she was again) and everyone decided having a beer with Bush preferable to beer drinking with stiff ol' Gore. What more of a presidential vetting would one need as a citizen? Anyway, YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN, my friend! I let it ride on the re-post. libby
RP! How open-minded and (unsurprisingly!) open-hearted of you. I thank you. libby
nice [psycho] analysis. a character deconstruction. the word "pathology" is too strong. he's just a weakling. spineless. as MLK said "he who doesnt stand for something will fall for anything". he doesnt seem to have any principles, any nonnegotiable dealbreakers. as far as his dream of centrism, I think its cool, but its just not really gonna work except maybe in an economic boom I would say. also, obama has been very weak on ENFORCEMENT. he had the opportunity of a lifetime to put the crooks in jail, the public would have supported him fully. thrown away.
the decision to avoid public financing is very telling. he has to raise a fortune in advertising. hundreds of millions. I guess theres no way to do that without selling your soul. and it really is true-- you just cant win without millions of bucks to blow on media/advertising. the public says they want something different but they only vote for glossy, packaged candidates.
the decision to avoid public financing is very telling. he has to raise a fortune in advertising. hundreds of millions. I guess theres no way to do that without selling your soul. and it really is true-- you just cant win without millions of bucks to blow on media/advertising. the public says they want something different but they only vote for glossy, packaged candidates.
Like most people, Obama is a child, not an adult. (It's funny the number of people who think putting on a suit and talking about "serious issues" makes them an adult. The only serious issues are one's own.) But what he shares with his predecessor is a high degree of confidence in his lies - which should not be confused with actual confidence.
Because O-man has a D by his name, I wide swath of the political left are more than happy to sell their political soul and look the other way no matter how much damage he does. Obama himself, of course, has completely sold out to do anything to remain in power. (Click here to read of his latest outrage protecting bankers' predatory practices)
I would call him an abused child bought off with candy. He seeks to please the abuser above all. The more the right beats on him the more he seeks to serve them. On some level he must know he's sick. But that's made up for by the carrot of the Presidency. In his mind, as long as he retains that then he has done no wrong.
And of course anyone who supports that behavior is not supporting him, but condemning him, just as someone who gives heroin to an addict does.
Because O-man has a D by his name, I wide swath of the political left are more than happy to sell their political soul and look the other way no matter how much damage he does. Obama himself, of course, has completely sold out to do anything to remain in power. (Click here to read of his latest outrage protecting bankers' predatory practices)
I would call him an abused child bought off with candy. He seeks to please the abuser above all. The more the right beats on him the more he seeks to serve them. On some level he must know he's sick. But that's made up for by the carrot of the Presidency. In his mind, as long as he retains that then he has done no wrong.
And of course anyone who supports that behavior is not supporting him, but condemning him, just as someone who gives heroin to an addict does.
Your analysis may be good to a point; however I suspect you may be overlooking one fundamental flaw. Obama may not be the one making the majority of the decisions, or at least not entirely on his own; instead he may be for the most part a puppet for a large group of people who have had access to power for some time. Obama was given the opportunity to rise to a position where he had a chance at the presidency by the political and media establishment and he is still beholden to them.
Therefore it may be advisable to consider the group psychology and the true objectives of the group and how Obama, and others, responds within that group. If they were truly interested in democracy would they behave as they have, or somewhat close to this? I don’t think so.
If they’re trying to maintain maximum power for the corporations and the other elites would this be the best way to do it while pretending to do what is in the best interest of the public? Once again, I don’t think so but in this case it could be close and a big part of the explanation could be incompetence and internal bickering. This may be closer to the true explanation; however I suspect that there is more to it than that and there are some big unanswered questions that need to be considered before the public can get to the bottom of it.
Therefore it may be advisable to consider the group psychology and the true objectives of the group and how Obama, and others, responds within that group. If they were truly interested in democracy would they behave as they have, or somewhat close to this? I don’t think so.
If they’re trying to maintain maximum power for the corporations and the other elites would this be the best way to do it while pretending to do what is in the best interest of the public? Once again, I don’t think so but in this case it could be close and a big part of the explanation could be incompetence and internal bickering. This may be closer to the true explanation; however I suspect that there is more to it than that and there are some big unanswered questions that need to be considered before the public can get to the bottom of it.
Don't forget that Obama has some very clever and effective tools within the Democratic party. Using and supporting key members in both the House and Senate, the party can stop any reform while making it appear that the resistance to change is coming from the Republicans. Senator Feinstein, Senator Liebermann, Senator Specter, Senator Lincoln, Senator Landreaux, Senator Nelson and others. If the left tries to run anyone against these Senators they will face strong opposition from the Democratic Party leadership and corporate fatcats.
So Obama's 'pathology' simply makes him the most effective tool in the corporate worlds toolbox.
13STRAGGLER.
So Obama's 'pathology' simply makes him the most effective tool in the corporate worlds toolbox.
13STRAGGLER.
quick note of appreciation for wise and thoughtful comments and will address soon. my wifi is down at home as hurricane approaches nyc or just a time warner situation? i am out at one of the few wifi coffeeshops still open on sat. in nyc. will get back to open salon when i can but not for a few days maybe. to be continued!!! :) libby
No comments:
Post a Comment