Friday, October 22, 2010

Obama diagnoses what is wrong with the American electorate

Charles Krauthammer notices that Obama has diagnosed a whole new psychological disorder among the American people.
Opening a whole new branch of cognitive science -- liberal psychology -- Obama has discovered a new principle: The fearful brain is hard-wired to act befuddled, i.e., vote Republican.

But of course. Here Obama has spent two years bestowing upon the peasantry the "New Foundation" of a more regulated, socially engineered and therefore more humane society, and they repay him with recalcitrance and outright opposition. Here he gave them Obamacare, the stimulus, financial regulation and a shot at cap-and-trade -- and the electorate remains not just unmoved but ungrateful.

Faced with this truly puzzling conundrum, Dr. Obama diagnoses a heretofore undiscovered psychological derangement: anxiety-induced Obama Underappreciation Syndrome, wherein an entire population is so addled by its economic anxieties as to be neurologically incapable of appreciating the "facts and science" undergirding Obamacare and the other blessings their president has bestowed upon them from on high.
As Krauthammer goes on to explain, what Obama just can't get his great mind around is the fact that this is not a liberal country. It is a country that is a bit to the right of center. Poll after poll shows that.
No fanciful new syndromes or other elaborate fictions are required to understand that if you try to impose a liberal agenda on such a demonstrably center-right country -- a country that is 80 percent non-liberal -- you get a massive backlash.

Moreover, apart from ideology is empirical reality. Even as we speak, the social-democratic model Obama is openly and boldly trying to move America toward is unraveling in Europe. It's not just the real prospect of financial collapse in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, with even the relatively more stable major countries in severe distress. It is the visible moral collapse of a system that, after two generations of increasing cradle-to-grave infantilization, turns millions of citizens into the streets of France in furious and often violent protest over what? Over raising the retirement age from 60 to 62!

Having seen this display of what can only be called decadence, Obama's perfectly wired electorate says no, not us, not here. The peasants have seen the future -- Greece and France -- and concluded that it does not work. Hence their opposition to Obama's proudly transformational New Foundation agenda. Their logic is impeccable: Only the most blinkered intellectual could be attempting to introduce social democracy to America precisely when the world's foremost exemplar of that model -- Europe -- is in chaotic meltdown.

And it isn't as if this political message is new. It had already been sent in the last year with clarion clarity in the elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts where independents -- the swing voters without ideological attachment one way or the other -- split 2-to-1, 2-to-1 and 3-to-1, respectively, against the Democrats.

The story of the last two years is as simple as it is dramatic. It is the epic story of an administration with a highly ideological agenda encountering a rising resistance from the American people over the major question in dispute: the size and reach and power of government and, even more fundamentally, the nature of the American social contract.
Perhaps Obama is the one who is suffering from delusions - delusions of liberal hegemony.

Liberals tend to jump to the conclusion that only psychological anxieties could account for people believing something different than they do. Note how the CEO of NPR joked in public that his views should be between “his psychiatrist or his publicist." She later apologized, so I guess that we're supposed to ignore that she made that statement in a public speech.

Her statement demonstrates the liberal assumption that an opinion that they disagree with must indicate a need for a psychiatrist. Obama is just giving voice to this mindset. If the majority of people disagree with his assessment of how wonderful his policies have been, they must be suffering from some sort of delusions brought on by economic uncertainty. He needs to understand that it may be perfectly rational to disagree with him.


Stan said...


Here's an interesting comment from a very liberal (but apparently honest blogger named Stephen Budiansky):

"My three years at Nature left me painfully aware that scientists are about the worst people on earth when it comes to confusing their political inclinations with objective fact — and absolutely the worst in the concomitant certainty that one's opponents must be liars, frauds, or corruptly motivated, since (obviously) no honest person could possibly have reached a contrary conclusion through objective reasoning. As absurd and unwieldy as democracy is in handling scientific matters, I found myself constantly thankful that scientists weren't running things, mainly because of this supreme intolerance for differing political conclusions."

Nature has been in the tank for Global Warming Alarmism for years. It is likely that the overwhelming majority of scientists they publish are political liberals. Most are. Perhaps what he witnessed was simply liberal scientists showing their liberal tendencies.

LarryD said...

ClimateGate confirmed that the AGW clique have been over the line in suppressing anyone who disagreed with the party line. "Climate Science" is where it is the worst, but other fields have similar problems, just in less degree. The peer review process has been known to have problems across the board, for years.

2421Rich said...

Since Obama has tried his hand at diagnosing the American electorate I'm sure he won't mind if we attempt to diagnose Him.
I don't believe for a second that Obama is dumb, blind, deaf or delusional. Obama is on a mission to fundamentaly transform America and he is perfectly willing to drag us, even though we are kicking and screaming, where he wants to take us. He does not care if the Democrat Party is savaged in the process nor does he mind if he turns Americans against each other. Ask yourself, what has he done to promote racial harmony in the last two years or have his policies and actions instead exacerbated racial tensions and promoted the feelings of victimhood among Blacks?
I won't go through the litany of all he has done but instead let me go to my conclusion. Obama is trying to bring America down. Any American who loves this country would call him evil but in his mind any deception (shovel ready jobs)and any destructive policy that ultimatly weakens us is a good thing.

Bachbone said...

Let me say (as a now retired psychologist with thousands of meetings behind me), that practically everyone thinks because (s)he has seen Dr. Phil's show, heard Dr. Laura on radio, taken that mandatory Psych 101 class or read Men Are from Mars and Women Are from Venus, (s)he knows as well as or better than a professional, who has trained for eight or ten years, precisely what is causing everybody else's problems, and has absolutely no qualms about telling you, but has almost no insight into their own nor any interest in changing. For politicians, that goes double.

princeofpeeps said...

The wisdom of the liberal Democrats, Obama in particular, isn’t getting through to the American populace. The people just don’t get it, and the purveyors of leftist ideology are frustrated that they can’t quite get their point across to these dimwits to make them understand that Obama knows best. Good plebeians should be quiet and do as they are told. So the left seems to think. Regarding their failure to convince the citizens of Obama’s brilliance, they chalk it up to the obtuseness of the recalcitrant masses. The elitists, in their sense of pompous self-importance, can’t conceive that their political precepts could be wrong. The people are just too stupid to understand what is good for them.

mselflea said...

Telling is the recent exchange in the Nevada Senatorial race-Senator Reid - "my job is to create jobs" Sharron Angle "your job is to create a framework for the private sector to create jobs". While the quotes are not exact, the idea that one candidate thinks the govt needs to create the jobs while the other candidate thinks the govt needs to create an environment where the private sector can thrive is telling.