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 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.
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.
~ Matt Patterson -- columnist - Washington Post, New York Post and San Francisco Examiner
~ Matt Patterson -- columnist - Washington Post, New York Post and San Francisco Examiner
