Every person has his or her flaws. Therefore every president (so far) has had his flaws, as well. I worked under four presidents in a row and observed at least one key flaw in each (and continue to look for the political Achilles heel in every successor). Richard Nixon was insecure and paranoid about his “enemies”, especially the press. Gerry Ford never aspired to be president … and his heart was never in his re-election. In one glorious moment (when he pardoned Nixon), he simultaneously saved the country and destroyed his own political career. Jimmy Carter was truly arrogant in the sense that he didn’t need help with the answers. He therefore tended to choose cabinet members who would agree with him; major decisions were made without consultation to his cabinet as answers to the world’s problems came to him from on high (I have physical proof of this trait). Hence, his problems with Iran. Reagan managed to reinvent the past to conform with the “truth” he wanted to believe; eg, his forgetfulness with regard to the Iran – Contra deal; this is a trait common to children of an alcoholic parent (in this case, Reagan’s father).
As it happens, I interviewed law student Obama in the Fall of 1989 on behalf of McGraw-Hill, just months before he became the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. My company’s human resources department had correctly identified Obama as a man with promise; my vague recollection of the interview is that he knew exactly what he wanted to do after law school, and working as a corporate attorney was not even close.
Flash forward to today and President Barack Obama. It seems clear that his potentially fatal flaw politically is an inability to hide or shed his partisanship and anger. His anger toward those who disagree with him is often palpable. A good example is a recent speech on the budget to which he pointedly invited Republican Cong. Paul Ryan who had drafted a budget proposal with serious, large budget reductions which was receiving good reviews from Ryan’s colleagues. Once Ryan was seated directly in front of the President, with almost everyone expecting a speech of togetherness, of extending the olive branch, of oneness, of coming together, of one nation, and of bi-partisanship, nothing of the kind occurred. Instead, Obama insulted the popular young congressman asserting, as had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid earlier, that Ryan and his fellow republicans had conceived of a budget that would do great harm to women, children and old men, as well as most others, using words that insulted all those Americans who believe Paul Ryan is a good and decent American, and is very possibly much closer to being on the right track for the country than Obama.
This trait of intensive partisanship is also reflected by the people he chooses to have with him in the White House and on his cabinet … many of these people are even more partisan and angry at the America his administration inherited than he. A proven dislike of the country as it was when he became president is, in fact, the single most common characteristic amongst his advisors, far and away more evident than their proven ability to perform the job they have been appointed to do..
I believe Obama’s uncontrollable, un-consolable partisan anger will be his nemesis in his re-election effort in 2012. The reason is that most of the citizens of the US do not feel he represents them; on top of that, he repeatedly reveals his contempt and dislike for those who see things differently than he, a group that is a large and growing fraction of the body politic.
It is extremely difficult for a leader in a democracy with fair elections who in fact represents less than half of his country, maybe much less, to get re-elected (Obama seems to be hovering around a 40% approval rating …. I personally believe he represents the ten percent who are extremely poor, the ten percent who are extremely rich, and almost no one in between).
In dictatorships, autocracies, and monarchies, once the people become informed and angry themselves, such leaders are often chased out of their own countries, or worse. The Shah of Iran was a very decent person, or so he seemed to Americans who knew him (Walter Cronkhite and David Rockefeller, eg). To them the Shah was an enlightened leader of the impoverished people of Iran. He was on a path to destiny. Within Iran in the early fifties, however, with the help of our CIA, he was able to boot out a popular and democratically-elected prime minister and mullah, Mahammad Mossadegh. From that day on, the Shah became a partisan leader at war with the Muslim leadership in his country.
In an interview with the Shah in 1956 (I still have my notes), when asked about the role of Islam in Iran, there was a flash of anger as he said, “Those crazy mullahs. I am going to drag this country kicking and screaming into the twentieth century.” One new secret police force (Savak) and one unnecessary, expensive and domestically unpopular coronation later, and it was those crazy mullahs who kicked the Shah out, and today are dragging their country kicking and screaming back toward the seventh century (if this analogy has any relevance, and a country in stress tends to revert to its roots, the United States would revert to a time when individual freedom, self-reliance, and christian values were king, only this time, without slavery).
President Obama is trying to drag the United States into a socialist miasma. The US, as represented by the so-called Tea Partiers, is definitely opposed, albeit peacefully to differentiate from "kicking and screaming", to Obama’s policies. Many Americans see the Obama budgets larded with huge unsustainable deficits with which to build a paradise for the less fortunate on the backs of those who do the work and pay the taxes. It won't work, and not because he and is team aren't smart and determined enough. Obama does not compromise. He’s like an angry coach who dislikes, and is disliked by, many on his team. The nation (the team) will therefore not play near the top of its game. Unemployment is hovering rather than recovering, and may get worse, despite an investment of more than a trillion dollars in ill-conceived federal spending programs. Many of Obama’s previous admirers before he was elected president now say they won’t vote for him again.
For the one-termers (more or less) since WWII, Johnson had erred terribly with the Vietnam War and didn’t run. Nixon, though winning 49 states in his re-election, resigned just as the ax of impeachment was falling. Ford was ready to leave anyway. Carter never accepted his defeat, but neither did he reveal any bitterness or vengefulness until much later. G.H.W.Bush left with his customary and predictable graciousness.
Obama ”will not go quietly into the night”, however. Anger against those he governs but who disagree with him, and an unhealthy level of arrogance that tells him he is right, will keep a tight grip on his behavior until he is literally tossed out at the ballot box, with many on his team kicking and screaming. It is unlikely that enough Americans will vote to take his verbal abuse and remain on the receiving end of his deep anger and partisan rhetoric, and highly partisan decisions, for another four years; the harder he tries to hide these ingrained traits, which we did not see before he was elected in 2008, the more they will betray him.
dickshriver@WeThePeopleBlog.net
