Monday, July 12, 2010
Obama's selective modesty
I got this from Face Book, where a friend had "Liked" it. Interesting stuff.
Remember NASA? It once represented to the world the apogee of American scientific and technological achievement. Here is President Barack Obama’s vision of NASA’s mission, as explained by administrator Charles Bolden: “One was he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering.”
Apart from the psychobabble – farcically turning a space-faring enterprise into a self-esteem enhancer – what’s the sentiment behind this charge? Sure America has put a man on the moon, led the information revolution, won more Nobel Prizes than any other nation by far – but, on the other hand, a thousand years ago al-Khwarizmi gave us algebra.
Bolden seems quite intent on driving home this message of achievement equivalence – lauding, for example, Russia’s contribution to the space station.
Russia? In the 1990s, the Russian space program fell apart, leaving the US to pick up the slack and the tab for the missing Russian contributions to get the space station built.
For good measure, Bolden added that the US cannot get to Mars without international assistance.
Beside the fact that this is not true, contrast this with the elan and self-confidence of president John F. Kennedy’s pledge that America would land on the moon within the decade.
There was no finer expression of belief in American exceptionalism than Kennedy’s. Obama has a different take. As he said last year in Strasbourg, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and theGreeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
Which of course means: If we’re all exceptional, no one is.
TAKE HUMAN rights. After Obama’s meeting with the president of Kazakhstan, Mike McFaul of the National Security Council reported that Obama actually explained to the leader of that thuggish kleptocracy that we too are working on perfecting our own democracy.
Nor is this the only example of an implied moral equivalence that diminishes and devalues America.
Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reported that in discussions with Chinaabout human rights, the US side brought up Arizona’s immigration law – “early and often.” As if there is the remotest connection between that and the persecution of dissidents, jailing of opponents, suppression of religion routinely practiced by the Chinese dictatorship.
Nothing new here. In his major addresses, Obama’s modesty about his own country has been repeatedly on display as, in one venue after another, he has gratuitously confessed America’s alleged failing – from disrespecting foreigners to having lost its way morally after 9/11.
It’s fine to recognize the achievements of others and be nonchauvinistic about one’s country. But Obama’s modesty is curiously selective. When it comes to himself, modesty is in short supply.
It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America’s sins and the world’s to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the first-person pronoun – I.
Notice, too, how Obama habitually refers to cabinet members and other high government officials as “my” – “my secretary of homeland security,” “my national security team,” “my ambassador.”
The more normal – and respectful – usage is to say “the,” as in “the secretary of state.” These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and the Constitution – not just the man who appointed them.
It’s a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama’s exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies – both about himself.
Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama’s modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence – yet not of his own country’s.
Apart from the psychobabble – farcically turning a space-faring enterprise into a self-esteem enhancer – what’s the sentiment behind this charge? Sure America has put a man on the moon, led the information revolution, won more Nobel Prizes than any other nation by far – but, on the other hand, a thousand years ago al-Khwarizmi gave us algebra.
Bolden seems quite intent on driving home this message of achievement equivalence – lauding, for example, Russia’s contribution to the space station.
Russia? In the 1990s, the Russian space program fell apart, leaving the US to pick up the slack and the tab for the missing Russian contributions to get the space station built.
For good measure, Bolden added that the US cannot get to Mars without international assistance.
Beside the fact that this is not true, contrast this with the elan and self-confidence of president John F. Kennedy’s pledge that America would land on the moon within the decade.
There was no finer expression of belief in American exceptionalism than Kennedy’s. Obama has a different take. As he said last year in Strasbourg, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and theGreeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
Which of course means: If we’re all exceptional, no one is.
TAKE HUMAN rights. After Obama’s meeting with the president of Kazakhstan, Mike McFaul of the National Security Council reported that Obama actually explained to the leader of that thuggish kleptocracy that we too are working on perfecting our own democracy.
Nor is this the only example of an implied moral equivalence that diminishes and devalues America.
Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reported that in discussions with Chinaabout human rights, the US side brought up Arizona’s immigration law – “early and often.” As if there is the remotest connection between that and the persecution of dissidents, jailing of opponents, suppression of religion routinely practiced by the Chinese dictatorship.
Nothing new here. In his major addresses, Obama’s modesty about his own country has been repeatedly on display as, in one venue after another, he has gratuitously confessed America’s alleged failing – from disrespecting foreigners to having lost its way morally after 9/11.
It’s fine to recognize the achievements of others and be nonchauvinistic about one’s country. But Obama’s modesty is curiously selective. When it comes to himself, modesty is in short supply.
It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America’s sins and the world’s to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the first-person pronoun – I.
The more normal – and respectful – usage is to say “the,” as in “the secretary of state.” These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and the Constitution – not just the man who appointed them.
It’s a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama’s exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies – both about himself.
Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama’s modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence – yet not of his own country’s.
# posted by Ingineer66 @ 7/12/2010 08:13:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Yeah and the decider was so modest *s* I know Obama is not doing what the right wants. Bush didn't do what the left wanted either. It's the price of elections and by the time they get up there, they all have big egos however they try to cover them up. My suggestion is you righties concentrate on getting someone to run against him next time with a real chance to win and go the direction you prefer. What Obama is doing is what he ran on doing and if that's not what the country decides it wants next, it would be good to have a good choice to vote for. If you run an extreme rightie or say a charismatic beauty, you might find yourself using these articles for four more years! Surely you have somebody you can run who can do a good job-- but you can bet if you do, they will also have a big ego. But you won't care so much as they will be carrying out the policies you want. Being president is a big ego job whether Obama knows it or admits it or not.
"What Obama is doing is what he ran on doing and if that's not what the country decides it wants next, it would be good to have a good choice to vote for."
Wow. Unbelievable.
I'm flabbergasted at that statement Rain, and won't embarrass you with the laundry list of broken promises made by this man, starting with one you already mentioned at your blog...
Guantanamo.
Wow. Unbelievable.
I'm flabbergasted at that statement Rain, and won't embarrass you with the laundry list of broken promises made by this man, starting with one you already mentioned at your blog...
Guantanamo.
Refresh my memory, Greybeard. What did he say he'd try to do and did not. I think he said health care, financial reform, stimulus as the big ones and while I am not totally thrilled with all he did (I was a single payer proponent) he never promised that. He said he'd downsize our effort in Iraq and he has but Bush would have also by now I think. He said he'd upsize in Afghanistan, with which I disagreed but it's what he's doing. I'd like to know what you think he said he'd do that he hasn't. I think mostly what people hoped he'd do was what they expected, not what he said. And Guantanamo ran into a Republican blockade when they were blocking funding for removing the prisoners and then did a number on convincing Americans that American prisons didn't have the power to hold them. I also think that Obama doesn't want to see trials in this country that might reveal all that was done by the Bush administration. While he does say Bush led to our current problems, he also doesn't want trials over it. The power that Bush got over the spying and all, that was not something Obama said he'd end but if he had, the Republicans would say he was trying to help the terrorists.
Every president gets in office and it doesn't all go as they hoped. Bush was a compassionate conservative before he got in, remember that...
Every president gets in office and it doesn't all go as they hoped. Bush was a compassionate conservative before he got in, remember that...
I did a quick search after leaving here of what Politifact regarded as broken promises... although since he has two more years, who knows. It was one page. Then I looked for what they had as kept promises. Here's the link for that: Promises Kept...
I have said many times I am not totally thrilled with Obama. I don't even know if I will vote for him next time if the Republicans put up a viable choice with policies that I see as good for the country; but one of his problems is not that he hasn't worked on a lot of the things he promised. It's that he has had a Republican Congress eager to block anything to prove he's failing and they can then regain power to start impeaching another president. That went so well when it was Clinton and it distracted him and themselves from going after bin Laden. Yeah, it's great to impeach presidents while ignoring the real problems the country faces. Unless a president has abused their power, done something that undermines our system of government, is a traitor, I think better efforts are to all work for the good of the country and get them out of office next go round. But then I am pragmatic, not an idealist and make no secret of that fact.
I have said many times I am not totally thrilled with Obama. I don't even know if I will vote for him next time if the Republicans put up a viable choice with policies that I see as good for the country; but one of his problems is not that he hasn't worked on a lot of the things he promised. It's that he has had a Republican Congress eager to block anything to prove he's failing and they can then regain power to start impeaching another president. That went so well when it was Clinton and it distracted him and themselves from going after bin Laden. Yeah, it's great to impeach presidents while ignoring the real problems the country faces. Unless a president has abused their power, done something that undermines our system of government, is a traitor, I think better efforts are to all work for the good of the country and get them out of office next go round. But then I am pragmatic, not an idealist and make no secret of that fact.
-He said he'd unite the country.
-He said he'd put proposed legislation on the internet for at least four days for folks to view and comment on.
-He said he'd lower taxes on the majority of taxpayers.
-He promised Lobbyists would not have access to his administration.
-He promised small businesses would receive a $3,000 tax credit for each "full time" employee.
(Man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel!)
-He promised enemy combatants would receive a review and either be tried or released.
No one will argue Pols don't overpromise. But some (many) of these were impossible on their face, and only the naive believed them to the point of voting for the guy.
GUANTANAMO!
Ha.
-He said he'd put proposed legislation on the internet for at least four days for folks to view and comment on.
-He said he'd lower taxes on the majority of taxpayers.
-He promised Lobbyists would not have access to his administration.
-He promised small businesses would receive a $3,000 tax credit for each "full time" employee.
(Man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel!)
-He promised enemy combatants would receive a review and either be tried or released.
No one will argue Pols don't overpromise. But some (many) of these were impossible on their face, and only the naive believed them to the point of voting for the guy.
GUANTANAMO!
Ha.
Well I am used to politicians promising things they cannot deliver. I was not terribly pleased to learn Bush had plans to invade Iraq from day one of his administration but never ran on it. It's not shocking to me as it's what they do.
As for Obama, while he failed at some or never intended to or never could have to begin (like uniting as that takes two sides and cannot be done by one anymore than a warring couple can make it back together if only one wants it). He was naive about that to say the least and some think he still is as he tries to get Republican cooperation but won't get it. So goes life.
And they had a page of them at Politifact, probably the same ones.. but six pages of kept promises. He had like over 500 they had ranked. Who knows he might yet deliver on the undone ones like civil rights for gays although he never favored gay marriage as I do. That one might be decided by the Supreme Court. Interesting how it might turn out as it is it about special rights or equal rights? That's the argument they will make.
A lot want Republicans to nominate someone who cannot win next time. I want them to offer a real choice on government staying out of our business (something republicans talk a lot about while they invent new laws that invade our private business but just in different avenues than Republicans), on fiscal responsibility, on fighting wars that make sense, on sensible border policies, and on goes the list. I want a pragmatic choice, not an idealist.
I have no regrets in voting for Obama but given my choice, I think the option would have been horrible. McCain proved his incompetence to me when he chose Palin to run with him). I hope next time I will have a hard time deciding. That's the kind of candidates I'd love to have, not the worst of two choices but the best of.
As for Obama, while he failed at some or never intended to or never could have to begin (like uniting as that takes two sides and cannot be done by one anymore than a warring couple can make it back together if only one wants it). He was naive about that to say the least and some think he still is as he tries to get Republican cooperation but won't get it. So goes life.
And they had a page of them at Politifact, probably the same ones.. but six pages of kept promises. He had like over 500 they had ranked. Who knows he might yet deliver on the undone ones like civil rights for gays although he never favored gay marriage as I do. That one might be decided by the Supreme Court. Interesting how it might turn out as it is it about special rights or equal rights? That's the argument they will make.
A lot want Republicans to nominate someone who cannot win next time. I want them to offer a real choice on government staying out of our business (something republicans talk a lot about while they invent new laws that invade our private business but just in different avenues than Republicans), on fiscal responsibility, on fighting wars that make sense, on sensible border policies, and on goes the list. I want a pragmatic choice, not an idealist.
I have no regrets in voting for Obama but given my choice, I think the option would have been horrible. McCain proved his incompetence to me when he chose Palin to run with him). I hope next time I will have a hard time deciding. That's the kind of candidates I'd love to have, not the worst of two choices but the best of.
Greybeard . . . You will never convince Rain that the liberal left ever makes a mistake. It just isn't going to happen. If, despite the overwhelming facts, she still supports Obama's agenda, there is no hope for her. The guy hasn't done anything since his election that he promised beforehand. Nothing. He was elected on a pack of lies, he has peed all over the country, he has an agenda that makes even ultra liberals sick, his appointment of so many anti-Americans to high offices, his promotion of known criminals from his sleazy background, his failure to provide a resume of any kind of accomplishment, his absolutely stupid attempts to ingraciate himself with our known enemies, his dissing on Israel at a desperate time for them, and the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, very determined liberals like our friend Rain just can't see any of this. America is self destructing while liberals worry about "charismatic beauties" and support an anti-American President.
I know, I know. It's Bushes fault.
Bump
Post a Comment
I know, I know. It's Bushes fault.
Bump
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
