We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Has Obama had his “Gordon Brown” moment?

“Little does Barack Obama understand that he has forever branded himself as an incompetent and failure. His narcissism and lifelong history of receiving public adulation will not allow him to comprehend the damage. He does not understand that now few will listen to his speeches, no matter how well delivered; that few will believe what he is saying, as he has lied and obfuscated the facts so often. Many world leaders have already arrived at the conclusion that Barack Obama is a leader that cannot be trusted, the citizens of the United States are beginning to understand that he is a man without a core set of principles thus incapable of guiding the ship of state. The media, increasingly realizing their culpability in the nation’s current state of affairs, has begun to ask more penetrating questions and grudgingly question Obama’s fitness for office. Columnists once infatuated with his ability to deliver a speech and skin color have finally begun to admit their error. The Left has become more open in their criticism, as they now understand that the hero upon whom they vested so much hope is a hollow shell.”

Steve McCann.

27 comments to Has Obama had his “Gordon Brown” moment?

  • Laird

    Great quote, from an excellent essay. “[A]t his core he is self-absorbed, dishonest and without coherence in his personal beliefs.” Indeed. That’s what a lot of us have been saying for a long time.

  • the other rob

    Laird – agreed, but doesn’t that make him just like most of the other career politicians currently in or seeking office?

    It seems to me that he is but a symptom of a greater disease.

  • without coherence in his personal beliefs

    Sorry, but as much as I liked the main quote in Jonathan’s post, I don’t buy that particular part, Laird. Just because his personal beliefs are so different from yours or mine, doesn’t mean they are incoherent. What may be incoherent are the ways in which Obama is going about implementing those beliefs – but I am not entirely sure about that either.

  • That said, what is clear to me at this point is that, luckily for all of us, Obama is no FDR. Not because he is less collectivist – he probably is as much, if not more – but because he lacks his charisma and possibly even his intelligence.

  • If. Only.

    We just passed the “Barack Obama re election and debt increase act of 2011”.

  • @Alisa


    Hilarious. Changed his position on everything except “blame Bush”.

  • Of course – he may not be a genius, but he is certainly not so stupid as to make all of his real positions publicly known.

  • There is a personality aspect to the presidency that is often underrated. FDR was described as having “A second rate intellect but a first rate personality”

    Eisenhower, JFK Reagan and Clinton all had the personality ‘thingy’ down pat. Nixon, Carter and Obama all managed to come across as angry, self righteous, occasionally silly and petulant.

    Johnson, Ford and both Bushs had their flaws, but they neither depended on their charisma nor were they dragged down by they lack of it.

    If Obama had FDR’s personality qualities he might be able to convince Americas to go the Euro Social Democrat route, but I doubt it. If he did have those kinds of high level human skills he would have realized that the people didn’t want a “Fundamental transformation”

    All this shows is that Obama is not a great or near great American President , but great presidents are rare. We’ll see if he can do better after this fiasco (for him) but I doubt it.

  • Laird

    Alisa, obviously no one can really know what goes on inside his head, but the incoherence of his actions certainly supports the proposition that the beliefs animating those actions are themselves incoherent. But if it makes you feel better to think that he’s simply an incompetent bumbler, that’s fine with me.

    It’s amusing to contrast this SQOTD with yesterday’s. Obama an “intellectual”. Puh-lease. “Not a rigid idealogue”? Yeah, right. And he even has an “interpretation of history”? His actions certainly belie that. From the evidence his understanding of history is every bit as strong as his understanding of economics.

  • John B

    The worrying thing is that the people Obama works for are still in control.
    The end, I am sure, is still firmly held in sight.
    And it does not look good for freedom.

    It has not looked good for freedom for a long time. I wondered a few years ago how, exactly, genuine freedom would be made unfashionable (and being fashionable is what cuts it). And it is in large part, done.
    But there was a breathing space. At least the Reagan/Thatcher/Pope John Paul/Lech Walesa happening, with all the many people of like mind who gave it all substance, gave us a breathing space for a decade or two, or three.
    But, as I have said before, I don’t think the residual capital and moral fibre that still existed towards the end of the 1970s, is really there any more.
    It has been well and truly be-fuzzled.
    And I think the enemies of freedom know exactly what they are doing.

    It doesn’t matter whether Obama is stupid or not.

  • steve

    I think Obama has a coherent set of core beleifs and even a rough plan about how to obtain them. His problem is that he knows if he articulates them in public it will make him deeply unpopular. Soo, he is reduced to lying and obfuscating half measures. He is no genius, but neither do I think he is dumb.

    Americans may vote for socialist schemes and the reductions of their freedoms but few politicians dare admit that’s what they are.

  • PeterT

    My view is that Obama has at least one very strong belief, and that is that the political system works. Even though he may not have got his way on the debt ceiling negotiations, he probably counts it as a success of sorts: people had discussions; consensus was reached; nothing too radical; hey, the bill even promises to form a few committees (that’s got to count as success in a lawyer’s world right?). Obama is a lawyer and bureaucrat at heart. He doesn’t require belief; only process.

  • Philip Scott Thomas

    This is news?

    For how many years now has our own dear Paul Marks been telling us this?

  • the other rob

    Incidentally, is a “Gordon Brown” moment the political equivalent of The Fonz jumping the shark?

  • John B.: who are those people Obama works for?

  • Chuck6134

    Actually you underestimate how many Americans want to be taken in by this guy no matter what. He still has fanatics on his side and worse, the mainstream media is still his despite nervousness on the part of some of them.

    In other words don’t under estimate the American people’s desire to believe a fantasy no matter how stark the reality. For too many of his fans, the capacity to ignore reality is sickening to behold.

  • I agree with Alisa. The supposition that Obama has ideological aims he does not wish to reveal does not contradict the supposition that he isn’t particularly intelligent.

    Of course, arguing that Obama is merely daft rather than devious is less likely to hurt your “credibility” in certain circles, but the evidence of his speeches, actions and background does not seem to contradict the conjecture that Obama is both daft and devious.

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

  • Fraser Orr

    What I find curious about Obama is summed up in that great word “chutzpah”. Some of the things he says are just so amazingly disconnected from reality I wonder if he really believes them.

    For example, with this latest suicide pact the congress has just passed he actually told us that the level of domestic spending is the lowest it has been since Eisenhower. I can only imagine that he is so far down the rabbit hole that he doesn’t realize that such a statement is not only stupid, but just plain insulting to anyone who is minimally clueful.

    However, what was the old saying, “if you repeat a lie loudly and often enough, people will eventually believe it.”

  • The question of ideology isn’t particularly relevent here.

    Obama is an uneducated fool, and the fact that he isn’t the punchline to every political joke is due to the cover from the MSM. Many of his gaffes simply don’t come to the attention of the american people. He isn’t a “great and magnificent wizard”, he’s a man promoted above his paygrade, so quick on his feet he looks like a tap-dancer.

    What we’re seeing here is the curtain being drawn back in front of a rapt audience. They can see that he’s prepared to literally gamble with America’s economy for political points. Not only that, he’s voting “present” by not producing his own cuts plan. And in the process, he’s showing that he doesn’t understand basic bits of americana.

    I suspect his “don’t call my bluff” comment could be the pivot point for a lot of people. He’s not only an elitist fool who can’t count to 50 states, he can’t judge a situation as ripe for a bluff or not. It suggests he’d be a fish at a poker table – not a good thing for a leader in middle america.

    Between the budget bodge and the Gunwalker allegations, I suspect he’s going to be a one-term president. He isn’t smart enough to lance the Gunwalker boil. Obama is going to be an interesting case study for the next 3-4 decades. Progressively over time, his reputation will decline to the point that he’s viewed as the worst president ever.

  • “The question of ideology isn’t particularly relevent here… He isn’t a “great and magnificent wizard”

    The one does not imply the other.

    Obama’s ideology, or if you must, perceived ideology, is relevant to his purportedly new found unpopularity.

    It’s very simple: his ideology demands more government spending and control, yet it is precisely the spending, in the form of debt, which is beginning to be recognized as the major problem – even by some on the Left.

    To claim that he is spending more money when he shouldn’t because he is stupid rather than motivated by a bad ideology is splitting hairs. It may even be worse than that, since it is imperative to the true Liberals (not the debased U.S. use of the term) that this bad ideology be discredited, not merely excused on account of the “stupidity” of a particular politician.

  • Obama’s ideology, or if you must, perceived ideology, is relevant to his purportedly new found unpopularity.

    We differ on our interpretation of this. Obama has found himself unable to borrow, meeting resistance from wiser heads. In negotiations, he has been inconsistent WITH HIS OWN EARLIER STATEMENTS. The key play from his political opponents should be to inter-cut video of his own statements as Breitbart did, contradicting himself.

    The point about the stupidity is that Obama has made pointing out inconsistency extremely easy. He twists and turns like a junkie begging for a fix. He claimed to be able to reach across the aisle, but simply ran a presidency as a four year political campaign.

  • I am in furious agreement with Mike.

    But IMO, none of this is mere hair-splitting: either we want to understand the man (and the reasons why, as may well turn out, he is the worst PotUS ever), or we don’t. I suggest we do, if only to be able to help the useful idiots supporting him learn from their mistakes.

  • John B

    They would be pretty much the successors of the same ones that Roosevelt was working for.

    Incidentally I don’t think they make things happen so much as slope the playing field, design things pointy and sharp one way and soft and round the other, and then wait for things to move.

    The pattern of modern history is the increasing concentration of power.

    Dead Dog’s suggestion of an Obama cut and splice video reality check could be a good idea.
    Of course Average Joe American is becoming so punch drunk by events he might not even notice the contradictions.

  • Paul Marks

    It was obvious that Comrade Barack was going to win in 2008 – the media are always biased, but with Comrade Barack they turned into a fanatical cult (as did the education system).

    Also John McCain proved to be hopeless – he still is (for example he spent some of the recent debt argument attacking Tea Party people as “hobbits” and so on).

    However, I still went into shock when Comrade Barack won (even though I knew he would) and watching the events of Janurary 20th 2009 (which I could not avoid – as I was visiting my aunt for the day, ironically in part to avoid the events, and the lady insisted on watching it all) was one of the worst experiences of my life (it was on a par with when my father died in my arms).

    I believe that most people (even most critics) have not got a clue just how bad Barack Obama actually is.

    I profoundly hope he is removed from office (by the election of November 2012 – effective January 2013) without finishing his task.

    His task being the utter destruction of the West.

    My fear is that, building on the evil deeds of the Progessive movement (Democrat and Republican) going back a century or more, he may have done so much damage by then that restoration (saving the West) will already be impossible by January 2013.

  • John, I meant actual names.

  • John B

    Paul. Indeed.

    I find it impossible to accept that those who control our circumstances (such as the media, the financial structures, academia) do not realise that they are tipping western civilisation into the abyss.
    And so I try to work out what on earth they can be playing at.

    As you say, the media made Obama. It was deliberate and extremely enthusiastic. I don’t buy that this has been a ghastly accident. Effective opposition to the train smash has been neutralised. (Where now the Tea Party?)

  • Paul Marks

    John you will have your answer (one way or another) in 2012.

    That is the last chance for the United States – it really is.

    However, it is not the last chance for humanity – even if things like the secession of Texas (and other States – in the West as well as the South) in the face of the establishment of a de facto totalitarian system failed.

    Remember the key enemy of collectivism is NOT us.

    The key enemy of collectivism is objective reality.

    Sooner or later a collectivist system (even on a world scale) would fall (because it just does not work – it is not in accord with the nature of the universe).

    And from the ashes of this collapse new civilization would grow.

    It would be terrible stuggle and it might take a very long time indeed (which is why it should be avoided – why the collapse of this civilization should be prevented if possible).

    But it would happen.