David Brooks, "Hope, but Not Much Change": A Liberal Incrementalist or a Lamentable Narcissist?

Recently, many who voted for Obama in 2008 have responded with asperity to his failure to deliver the goods. Notably, Matt Damon was quoted in December by Elle Magazine (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/matt-damon-slams-obama-democrats-one-term-balls_n_1162511.html) as saying: "a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better." Obama's State of the Union Address did little to correct this growing sense of outrage. The president's uninspired speech left many pundits scurrying for excuses that might explain the paucity of ideas presented for dealing with the existential challenges facing America.

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "Hope, but Not Much Change" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/opinion/brooks-hope-but-not-much-change.html?ref=opinion), David Brooks also complains of the absence of substance in Obama's State of the Union Address. Observing that the president's policies are "incremental, not transformational," Brooks writes:

"It’s odd that an administration that once wanted to do everything all at once now should be so gradualist.

. . . .

In normal times, that sober, incremental approach would be admirable. In normal times, the best sort of change is gradual, flexible and constant. But these are not normal times. This is not Clinton’s second term, or Eisenhower’s. The fiscal train wreck is coming. The current U.S. growth model is insufficient. The American family and the American political system are cracking up."

Brooks states that Obama must be "prepared" if Europe's economy should unravel or if the US should come to loggerheads with Iran within the coming months. The Procrastinator-in-Chief should be "prepared"? Obama's policy in dealing with these crises will be guided by two determinants: his desire to delay that which can be put off until tomorrow, coupled with an overriding need to remain in office no matter what it takes. Afterall, still unbeknownst to the American electorate, the US is privileged to have Obama serving as president, as so aptly observed by Michelle Obama when interviewed by Oprah last May (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/dowd-showtime-at-the-apollo.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss):

"I always told the voters, the question isn’t whether Barack Obama is ready to be president. The question is whether we’re ready. And that continues to be the question we have to ask ourselves."

Anger or disappointment with Obama? There's no reason for it. We are living in an age of narcissism, in which narcissists are idolized. Fortunately for Obama and many other politicians on both sides of the aisle, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, due out in 2013, has eliminated five of the 10 personality disorders that are listed in the current edition, and narcissistic personality disorder is among the five (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/views/30mind.html).

Brooks concludes by stating, "This election is about averting national decline." Sorry, David, but you are mistaken: This election, proffering the American electorate two substandard candidates (I prefer not to contemplate the infuriating possibility that Gingrich will win the Republican nomination), in fact mirrors national decline.