The media is abuzz with criticism of Obama's response: "Cold fish", "Weird", "Who is advising him?", "Were there problems with the teleprompter?" More interesting, the criticism is not coming only from the right: A Boston Globe editorial, entitled "Obama's delayed empathy", stated:
"IN TIMES of national tragedy, Americans expect their president to capture the mood and moment with the right blend of emotion, empathy, and urgency. It’s a delicate act of timing and tone. And President Obama, despite his eloquence and dignity, has yet to master it, as illustrated by his awkward response to the deadly shootings at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas.
. . . .
It takes more than scripted eloquence for presidents to connect with their fellow Americans. It requires a visceral ability to grasp the scope of tragedy, calculate its impact on the national psyche, and react swiftly to it. Ronald Reagan did it after the Challenger explosion took the lives of seven crew members on Jan. 28, 1986. So did Bill Clinton, after the Oklahoma City bombings of April 19, 1995, left 168 dead and more than 600 injured.
When a gunman fired those shots at Fort Hood, the country immediately felt the pain. Obama missed the first moment to show he understood just how much it hurt."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/11/07/obamas_delayed_empathy/
There is indeed an "emotional disconnect" here, an ability to say but not feel the "right" things, but from where does this stem? Has it anything to do with the father who separated from his mother when Obama was only two-years-old, returned to Kenya, and saw Obama only once more before dying in a car crash in 1982? Has it anything to do with Obama's separation from a mother, who left a teenaged Obama with his grandparents in order to pursue a career as an anthropological field worker in Indonesia?
Perhaps it is because of the pain that he experienced as a child that Obama can "intellectualize" events and problems, but remains emotionally detached as part of a preordained defense mechanism.
Possibly, Obama lacks the visceral ability to grasp tragedy and react swiftly to it. And if we take this one step further, does this inability to react stand behind Obama's vacillations regarding Iran and Afghanistan?
You may be correct that his troubled childhood contributed to this narcissism. But there is something in his worldview that makes this detachment justified for him.
ReplyDeleteMy take on it: Obama is a postmodernist, and he sees all points of views as equally valid or invalid. In effect, he does not attach himself to anything in particular. This "inclusiveness", or extreme political correctness, is common among liberals.
For me, the most telling was his response to Anderson Cooper's open question in Africa: "What was the most important for you on the tour" (the tour included several countries, meeting with leaders and Pop). Obama answered that the most important was to see how his daughter spoke with Pop: she was not shy. And I believe, he said the truth! He showed up, he charmed audiences, and he does not care much about the rest.
This is the kind of leader we have now!
Thanks, Marina. I agree: there is no small amount of narcissism at play. The detachment might make for a prolonged process of intellectual assessment, but are passion and leadership absent? Is it all just a game?
ReplyDeleteGood questions... I can add another one. What is better: if he will show his leadership or he will not? I do not trust him. May be, Obama's indecisiveness will save us from worse. Or, may be, it will encourage our enemies.
ReplyDelete