I Too Have Become Disillusioned
By Matt Patterson
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, less 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? There is no evidence that he ever attended or worked for any university or that he ever sat for the Illinois bar. We have no documentation for any of his claims, He may well be the greatest hoax in history.
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. (An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)
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. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerless-ness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track). 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-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 an impostor in the Oval Office.
Great article. I wish it was in Newsweek, but alas, it wasn’t. Google Matt Patterson.
This excellent, outstanding opinion piece simply could not have ever appeared in Newsweak.
More Common Sense is right about the inaccuracy. Previous versions of the chain e-mail also said it was in the Washington Post.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/affirmative.asp
Chris, the article was for real (extremely important) and it was written by Matt Patterson (very important) who does articles for Newsweek, however his was article was an incorrect attribution to Newsweek. It appears the confusion arose because his work appears in several magazines including Newsweek, but he’s not syndicated, he only writes on occasion for them.
Wherever it first appeared the man is absolutely right. And the fact that we did this twice is very troubling!
Submitted without varification for consideration by our brilliant readership!
Mile Cornelison:
Appropriate links provided by Mr. Cornnelison
For many years I satisfied my need for news by reading an assortment of newspapers and three weekly news magazines; Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report. When I first started reading these magazines they contained news and some opinion. Over the years I noticed the opinion pieces shifting to the left. Although I prefer my opinion in more of a debate form with both sides presented, I tolerated this shift in the editorials by focusing on the news stories. Then I noticed opinion making its way into the news stories. Pure news stories were replaced with news slanted with the opinion of the author or the editorial staff. This continued until there was very little news left that wasn’t totally slanted. Then, news stories were ignored because they were so damaging to the left that there wasn’t any way to spin them. Better to just not mention them.
I gave up on both Time and Newsweek about 6 years ago but stuck with US News and World Report because they still provided some news. Eventually US News and World Report discontinued printing. I think my subscription was switched to Money magazine without my consent. Isn’t that kind of ironic?
It’s sad how the news community has forgotten their true purpose and their responsibility to the readers. When did reporters decided their role was to be propagandists for the left? When did they decide it was not their role to provide all sides of a story and let the reader decide rather than tell the reader what to think? What I wouldn’t give to have a weekly source of news with good in-depth investigative fact based reporting.
Oh, fer heaven’s sake people!
MCS, it’s not surprising we now have left-leaning news when one understands the journalist today were taught in their universities by the radicals from the 60’s, like Bill Ayers.
A resent study done by two journalism professors at Indiana U. indicates only 7% identified themselves as Republicans in 2013 down from 25.7% in 1971.
Democrats declined too from 35.5% to 28.1% for the same years. But, not to the degree as the Republicans.
The Dems numbers are in alignment with the population, but the Reps. ratio is way below.
See full article and chart here, with link to study.
Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans. That’s far fewer than even a decade ago.:
“Compared with 2002, the percentage of full-time U.S. journalists who claim to be Democrats has dropped 8 percentage points in 2013 to about 28 percent, moving this figure closer to the overall population percentage of 30 percent, according to a December 12-15, 2013, ABC News/Washington Post national poll of 1,005 adults. This is the lowest percentage of journalists saying they are Democrats since 1971. An even larger drop was observed among journalists who said they were Republicans in 2013 (7.1 percent) than in 2002 (18 percent), but the 2013 figure is still notably lower than the percentage of U.S. adults who identified with the Republican Party (24 percent according to the poll mentioned above).”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/
The study of course is based on the assumption the journalist responded honestly to the survey, which the article addresses.
Off topic.
Thank God for Judicial Watch who keeps uncovering the truth. ObamaCare only had TWO people sign up the first day.
Can’t wait to find out what the real number is for now.
Judicial Watch Has Reportedly Obtained a Secret Report on Early Obamacare Enrollments:
“Judicial Watch on Monday announced it has a copy of a report from the Obama administration that shows there were just two enrollments in Obamacare after the first day of operation on October 1.
The government watchdog group said a senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent an email to staff with a subject line celebrating “2 enrollments!”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/19/judicial-watch-has-obtained-a-secret-report-on-early-obamacare-enrollments/
Facts don’t lie.
Report: Obama’s Race Talk Distracts Black Voters From Fact That They’re Worse Off Since His Election:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/139523-report-obamas-race-talk-distracts-black-voters-fact-theyre-worse-since-election/
“Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans.”
How can you possibly feel deprived, when you just spent hours wallowing in the IJReview?
I don’t get it. Maybe persecution, paranoia and distress comprise your natural condition … externals notwithstanding?
Or maybe, the IJReview instills this sense of persecution, paranoia and distress. Did you ever think of that?
Or the left just can’t think outside that comfy bubble they’ve been constructing with such care for the last 50 years so that, no matter what, nothing strange is going on and they are not responsible.
The problem isn’t deprivation.
The problem is news that isn’t news, but propaganda.
I know it’s swell that (for now) it favors your side but the practice is not what we expect of our journalists in an open and free society. If it doesn’t bother you then you truly are firmly set in the communist (dictator) camp.
All that flippancy doesn’t mask your obvious embarrassment. You were positive that with Obama at the helm and that super majority in Congress Nirvana was just around the corner. Instead you have “son of great depression” to be proud of and horrendous scandals and failures popping up like daisies in summer.
All that crap on another thread about expecting “perfection” is laughable…your own expectations of right wing leaders being the example.
We know that behind this appeal for sanity and understanding lurks the reality that sits looking you square in the eye…your ideas suck…your leaders are actually human and capable of massive failure…and your expectations and attitude toward leaders on the right have been way over the top and not the least bit compassionate or understanding.
This is karma, baby, and its about time!
Maybe, just maybe, the millenials will have a chance to put the divisive, anti-American extremist element of the radical (Marxist) left back in it’s lonely cave where it can die the death it deserves…death by self inflicted failure.
You have an opportunity for redemption. I don’t thin you will take it. We’ll see when next a Republican sits in the WH.
“You were positive that with Obama at the helm and that super majority in Congress Nirvana was just around the corner.”
Are you insane? I’m certainly not, and only an insane person would attribute such things to political leadership.
Obama might get Gitmo closed before he’s done. That would be cool. He will have lived up to a campaign promise … one of them, anyway.
Did you hear? Mitch has won his primary? I think this rant of yours might be some classic projection … what do you think?
I think you don’t recall lecturing me about how wonderful liberal policy was going to be or how bad the economy was under Bush. You are not an honest person. This is what you praised and voted for:
You Tube.
Remember?
“Obama might get Gitmo closed before he’s done. That would be cool.”
Closing Gitmo will be a challenge since nobody wants the terrorists back that are left there. But it’s one of the few options still open that he can still screw up. What will he do with them? That’s the question. His record so far is advantage to the enemy. If he does manage to close Gitmo I foresee even stronger attempts to push Sharia by the radicals in the ME and in the West who will see it as a victory for them. One of the things they say about America and the West is that we value life less than they value death…and that we don’t have the will to see this fight through.
“Cool” seems to be the only goal of this administration.
“Did you hear? Mitch has won his primary?
And you think this means what?
“I think this rant of yours might be some classic projection … what do you think?”
I think you live in your head.