Crimes Against Liberty Page 5
CLINICAL NARCISSISM?
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines narcissism as a “mental disorder characterized by extreme self-absorption, an exaggerated sense of self-importance, and a need for attention and admiration from others.” If the condition is acute it can rise to the level of a disorder marked by “deeply ingrained and lasting patterns of inflexible, maladaptive, or antisocial behavior.”85 Narcissism is described in one physician-reviewed online health journal as featuring an “excessive preoccupation with self and lack of empathy for others; an exaggerated sense of the person’s own importance and abilities. People with this trait believe themselves to be uniquely gifted.”
They are “arrogant” and “egotistical” and are “often snobs.” “They expect special treatment and concessions from others . . . and find it difficult to cope with criticism.” They have “a powerful need to be admired” and are consumed with their own feelings, having an “inflated sense of their own importance and of the significance of their achievements.... They feel entitled to great praise, attention, and deferential treatment by others, and have difficulty understanding or acknowledging the needs of others.”86
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV-TR), a diagnostic manual used by mental health professionals, lists nine traits of a narcissist, at least five of which must be present and continue for a substantial period of time for a diagnosis to be made.87 More than five of these traits easily apply to Obama.
1. Grandiose sense of self-importance.
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Sense of specialness, belief he can only be understood by or should associate only with other special or high-status individuals or institutions.
4. Need for excessive admiration.
5. Heightened sense of entitlement, leading to unreasonable expectations that others should treat him especially favorably or comply automatically with his expectations.
6. Tendency to be interpersonally exploitive. A person with NPD does not hesitate in taking advantage of others to meet his own ends.
7. Lack of empathy, an inability or unwillingness to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others.
8. An envy of other people, or conversely, a belief that other people envy him.
9. A tendency toward arrogant behavior or attitude.
A psychotherapist called “Robin of Berkeley” wrote a fascinating and insightful profile of Obama on the American Thinker website, analyzing whether Obama is a narcissist. She says that most highly successful people have some degree of narcissism, and she acknowledges that the identifying attributes of a narcissist aren’t always clear-cut. She surmises that when people ask whether Obama is a narcissist, they aren’t talking about the “garden variety narcissist,” but more likely what M. Scott Peck called the “malignant narcissist” in his book People of the Lie. These types, she said, are “very dangerous creature[s] capable of great evil—the Hitler’s of the world, as well as the SS guards.” Peck’s malignant narcissist is “a witch’s brew of psychopathology: a narcissist, sociopath, and paranoid, with a generous dollop of delusional disorder thrown in.”88
Robin admits she can’t offer a definitive diagnosis of Obama, but believes there are reasons to be concerned about his character and his ability to “look reality squarely in the face.” She explains that for people to become well-functioning adults they need to become attached to people in order to develop a capacity for empathy, and they must form a firm and solid identity through healthy role models. She traces Obama’s background, detailing how unlikely it is that he acquired the essential personal relationships necessary to become a well-functioning adult. Without definitely stating whether Obama fits Peck’s description of a malignant narcissist, Robin paints a picture that makes the possibility quite plausible.
Whether or not Obama ultimately fits the definition, his background is instructive for anyone trying to understand his personality and his attitudes, especially toward America and its system of government, its economic system, its record on race and foreign policy, and the overall character of its people. There is simply no way to understand Obama and his grandiose plans for America without examining relevant facts about his upbringing and mentorship.
Robin summarizes pertinent information about Obama’s history that is on the public record. He was raised, she says, “with an odd assortment of characters who seemed to have no clue about the emotional needs of a child,” and “dragged like a rag doll all over the place, and subjected to conditions that had to be disturbing and alienating.” He was abandoned by both parents, “schlepped” from country to country, treated to an alcoholic stepfather and alcoholic father, and eventually left with his grandparents with whom he’d “arrived at an unspoken pact: . . . I could live with them and they’d leave me alone so long as I kept my troubles out of sight.” His grandfather had been abandoned by his own father when he was eight, and he found the body of his mother after she had committed suicide. As an adult the grandfather was so disappointed he didn’t have a son that he gave his daughter—Obama’s mother—the male name “Stanley.” Then he entrusted Obama’s mentorship to Frank Marshall Davis, who was not only a Communist but also “a pedophile . . . an alcoholic, a racist, and a misogynist.”89
According to Robin and others, Davis, who blamed racism and capitalism for most of society’s ills and injustices, strongly influenced Obama. Obama’s search for his own identity was answered when he concluded, under Davis’s tutelage, that he “could wrap his mind around—rage at the system. Obama apparently became filled with resentment and anger even though he lived a privileged life in Hawaii.” As Obama became an adult he surrounded himself with people of a similar worldview who “reinforced and hardened” his own beliefs, people such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and even his wife Michelle, whose animus toward this country prior to Obama’s ascension are quite well known. Robin concludes that dealing with the hardships he had encountered in life, “he made the personal political,” transferring culpability from his parents and grandparents to racism and the system.
She says she hopes Obama is not, in the end, a malignant narcissist, but closes with a chilling description of such people from People of the Lie: “The evil are ‘people of the lie,’ deceiving others as they build layer upon layer of self-deception. . . . Evil may be recognized by its very disguise. . . . We see the smile that hides the hatred, the smooth and oily manner that masks the fury, the velvet glove that covers the fist.... The evil hate the light—the light of goodness that shows them up, the light of scrutiny that exposes them, the light of truth that penetrates their deception.”90
James Lewis, also writing for American Thinker, further examines the question of Obama’s narcissism. Lewis acknowledges many people talk like narcissists, such as when teenagers “get grandiose,” but Obama has “turned all his grandiose talk into irrevocable action.” He observes Obama might well be the most radical president in American history. “We don’t have a national crisis today,” writes Lewis. “Obama is a national crisis.” Not only is he trying to cram his agenda down America’s throat almost without regard for whether it will damage his chances for re-election, but he has exhibited consistently odd behavior over the last two years, from giving Hillary the finger in the campaign, to “thrilling to the sound of his own voice” in Berlin, to presuming to speak to the whole Muslim world in Cairo at the Al Azhar Mosque, to personally trying “to rescue a scientifically phony climate treaty in Copenhagen,” to reacting with rage when Congressman Paul Ryan dismantled the fiscal credibility of ObamaCare straight to Obama’s face during the healthcare summit.91
This final incident, by the way, seems eerily similar to M. Scott Peck’s description of those hating “the light of truth that penetrates their deception.” Even CNN aired a montage of Obama’s peeved facial expressions at the healthcare summit. Host Candy Crowley observed, “All we’re saying is this is not the face a man who ou
ght to play poker anytime soon. Whether you heard it or saw it, the message was pretty clear, patience and the days of debating health care are growing short.”
As Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters noted, this was a mild way of putting it. What Crowley would have said, had this been a Republican president, was, “The president acted like a spoiled child not only in front of America’s leaders but also on national television. The President demonstrated a surprising lack of leadership and diplomacy with his behavior, and not at all what we expected from the most powerful man on the planet whose greatest skill was supposed to be communicating and being able to bring people together.”92
This arrogance was evident in the sheer pretension of the ObamaCare legislation itself. Senator Lamar Alexander described ObamaCare as “the most brazen act of political arrogance since Watergate . . . in terms of thumbing your nose at the American people and saying ‘We know you don’t want it, but we’re going to give it to you anyway.’”93
James Lewis could have cited many other examples of Obama’s narcissistic behavior beyond the healthcare issue, from saying small town Americans “get bitter and they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them,” to Obama’s alarmingly pedestrian, unpresidential, $3 million, taxpayer-funded jaunt to Copenhagen, with his wife flying on a separate plane, to lobby for the Olympics to be held in his hometown of Chicago.94 It was remarkable both in terms of Obama’s audacity in believing he could personally deliver the prize, and his egotism in placing himself center stage in such an endeavor and in demeaning his office by reducing himself to a glorified sports agent.
But in Copenhagen it was evident he truly believed his very presence would make a difference. Additionally, it was a chance to demonstrate how the world already viewed this nation more favorably simply because he was now president. When his bid for the Olympics failed, his team blamed it on some nefarious activities among those making the decision. Aide David Axelrod said Obama is held in “very high esteem by leaders around the world,” but “there are internal politics at the IOC [International Olympic Committee] that were at play,” and the president’s appearance didn’t overcome them.95 Clearly, it couldn’t just be that the IOC believed the Olympics should be held elsewhere or, Heaven forbid, that Obama’s presumptuous personal intervention backfired.
Lewis goes on to explore, without rendering a definitive opinion, whether Obama fits the description of a malignant narcissist by citing a partial checklist of attributes of such a person. The list includes a person’s rage in reaction to criticism or resistance to accomplishing his grandiose goals; his grandiose sense of self-worth; his attempt to pull down the self-worth of others when he senses his own self-worth is under attack; and his two-faced personality where the creation of a “false-self” is linked to the narcissist’s fear of being inadequate and results in his projecting a sense of superiority at all times.
Whether or not Obama can be fairly considered clinically narcissistic, it is hardly in doubt that he has a larger-than-life view of himself and his role in history (“when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”); that he has grandiose plans (“transformational change”); that he expects to get his way simply by virtue of his self-perceived importance (“I won the election”); that he often reacts adversely to criticism (“I don’t want them to do a lot of talking”); that he tries to bring others down who resist him and thus challenge his self-esteem (reminding John McCain “the election is over”); and that he attacks the honesty of those who challenge him (Senator McConnell’s claims are “just plain false”).
Surrounding himself with sycophants and egged on by an adoring media, Obama assumed the presidency with the arrogant ambition of transforming America. He believed he was The One—a visionary whose great deeds would be remembered generations from now. But while his charisma was a great asset on the campaign trail, as president he quickly found that his trademark oratory could not convince a skeptical nation of the wisdom of his extravagant plans. Moreover, his personal magnetism proved ineffective on foreign leaders—including those of our enemies, whose fists remain stubbornly clenched against us.
But rather than adjusting his policies to these unpleasant realities, he persisted—and still persists—in his maximalist course, convinced that his growing legion of critics simply don’t comprehend the beneficence of his actions. The notion that his detractors, and the American people overall, do understand what he’s doing, and that’s precisely why they are increasingly hostile to his agenda, is an unacceptable concept to our budding autocrat.
Chapter Two
FRAUD AGAINST THE ELECTORATE
CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRUST
President Obama came to office with a strong wind at his back. He established high expectations for himself, and the public took him at his word. He set himself up as having extraordinary gifts that could unite people around a new consensus to solve America’s problems. Though distinctly ideological—the nonpartisan National Journal ranked him as the most liberal U.S. Senator in 20071—he managed to convince many Americans he was above ideology and partisanship and was committed to implementing the best ideas, no matter on what side of the ideological spectrum they originated.
Even a disappointing number of conservative intellectuals came to believe he transcended ideology and possessed a refreshing mental acuity. Pete Wehner, former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, admitted Obama was “an appealing figure to many Republicans,” who “would find it hard to generate much enthusiasm in opposing him.” Why? Because of his “eloquence,” his “personal grace and dignity,” and because he appeared to be a “well-grounded, decent, thoughtful man” who came across as “nonpartisan” and seemed to “transcend politics.” “Even when he disagrees with people, he doesn’t seem disagreeable,” marveled Wehner. Beyond Obama’s personal attributes, Wehner credited part of Obama’s appeal to his message, which “at its core, is about unity and hope rather than division and resentment.”2
Wehner’s praise for Obama was no isolated incident. As conservative philosopher and columnist Thomas Sowell observed, many Republicans were planning to vote for Obama, Republicans whom fellow columnist Robert Novak labeled “Obamacons.”3 Pollster John Zogby said he had “polling showing one-fifth of conservatives supporting Obama.”4
Christopher Buckley, the son of the godfather of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley Jr., endorsed Obama, citing his “first-class temperament” and “first-class intellect.” Buckley acknowledged Obama is a “lefty” while insisting, “I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and oldfashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets.” But, said Buckley, “I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate.” Oddly, Buckley persuaded himself that through the sheer power of his presumed intellect, Obama would “surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves.”5
Similarly, Doug Kmiec, head of the Office of Legal Counsel under President Reagan and George H. W. Bush, endorsed Obama, believing “him to be a person of integrity, intelligence, and genuine good will.” Like Buckley, Kmiec was impressed with Obama’s books and what they supposedly revealed about his intelligence and bipartisanship. “I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions [abortion, traditional marriage, constitutional interpretation, and religious freedom] he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.”6
David Brooks, the New York Times’ reputedly conservative columnist, gushed that he was “dazzled” by Obama’s intellect, based on an interview with him where Obama effortlessly expostulated the “very subtle thought process” of Reinhold Neibuhr, which is “based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you.” Brooks was also impressed with Obama’s “tremendous powers of social perception,” in part, at least, because Obama
noticed that Brooks, in a column he had written attacking the Republican Congress’s excessive spending, had thrown in a few sentences attacking Democrats to make himself feel better.7
Francis Fukuyama, author and Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University, a neo-conservative who had become disillusioned with the war in Iraq, endorsed Obama. Like Obama’s other center-right supporters, Fukuyama expressed optimism in Obama’s potential for “delivering a different kind of politics.”8 Scott McClellan, a former spokesman for President George W. Bush, jumped on the Obama bandwagon for similar reasons: in his view, Obama had “the best chance of changing the way Washington works.” Ken Adelman, described by the Wall Street Journal as “a prominent conservative on foreign policy matters,” 9 told the New Yorker he was supporting Obama “primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and judgment.”10 Former Massachusetts governor William Weld, while by no means a staunch conservative, endorsed Obama as a “once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore America’s standing in the world.”11
Shortly before the election, former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein announced his support for Obama. 12 Around the same time, a group of five former appointees of Republican president Dwight Eisenhower released a statement endorsing Obama, saying he “has the judgment, the intellect, the character, the vision, the values, the empathy, the natural leadership ability and the capacity to attract the most qualified people to his administration—all the qualities that would make him a great President.”13 Even the Economist magazine, whose editorial board is considered fiscally conservative, backed Obama, citing his “style, intelligence and discipline.”14
THE EXPLOITATION OF A GIFT
Alas, Obama’s self-portrait as a uniter was at best an exercise in self-delusion, at worst an example of old-fashioned deceit. As Newsweek revealed in its behind-the-scenes retrospective of the campaign, Obama knew he had a gift, “a way of making very smart, very accomplished people feel virtuous just by wanting to help Barack Obama.” He exploited this talent in his successful run for president of the Harvard Law Review in the mid-1980s. Though his politics were “conventionally liberal,” he garnered the support of conservatives because he “was a good listener, attentive, and empathetic, and his powerful mind could turn disjointed screeds into reasoned consensus.” But there was something more—something deeper. As a black man, he appeared to have moved beyond racial politics and narrowly defined interest groups, seeming indifferent to “the politics of identity and grievance” and showing “no sense of entitlement or resentment.”15