HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN THE EXTREMES INTO WHICH OBAMA LEADS US? BILL SIEGEL

Posted By on December 15th, 2009

Exclusive: The Escher President – Series 4: Year-End Review

Bill Siegel

It might seem that Obama is “smart” but how does one explain the absolute extremes into which Obama is leading us?

Bill Siegel

 

The Escher President Series (see here, here and here) attempts to describe the experience of many of those non-supporters as they observe President Barack Obama. When viewing an Escher Lithograph, the eye is taken first to one view which may, perhaps, have white birds flying in one direction against a black background. After awhile, the perception changes, the black background thrusts forward to show, perhaps, black birds flying in the reverse direction. The thrill to the observer lies in switching back and forth as the eye attempts endlessly to reconcile into one meta-perspective that accommodates both.
 
Again, this Escher President hangs in a museum which Obama supporters never enter. They flock to view very different portraits of Obama, tending to see them as masterpieces for all time. But as the president closes his first calendar year with ever slumping approval ratings, the Escher President experience is becoming more common.
 
The two views that generally seem to rotate back and forth revolve around certain critical presuppositions that the observer himself projects onto the canvas. One view, labeled the “white view” (having nothing whatsoever to do with race), essentially sees Obama as a “good guy.” He has his faults, his naiveties, his elite, limited, and restricted background, his fixed albeit perhaps sophomoric ideas and world views, but, nonetheless, shares the core values that most Americans do. More importantly, he is seen as sharing those values that also lie within our Constitution, subject only to evolving critical thinking as to how best to interpret our national genetic document.
 
In the white view, Obama is seen as wanting the best for Americans. He may disagree with exactly how to realize our assumed common (and in his terms “universal” and “human”) goals but there is no question that he is properly motivated.
 
This view then seeks to account for the radical direction that Obama’s legislation (enacted and proposed) and other actions have taken. The eye accommodates by focusing on some of Obama’s faults- he is lazy, focused on the big picture, too smart for the details, too laden with the burdens of the day, manages by having his subordinates shoulder most of the work so that he need only guide and close and so on. Consequently, instead of drafting his own policies, working them across Congress, living and dying by their success and so on, he has Congress and his coterie of “czars” (along with his behind the scenes puppet masters Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod) put together their own propositions. No doubt, if you give a radically liberal Congress the pen, they will come up with the extreme legislation that has been run through during Obama’s reign. And if they fail, they shelter Obama from responsibility.
 
With respect to foreign policy, the white view has Obama as a well intentioned product of his generation and professorial surroundings. Naïve as he may be, Obama is seen as simply employing foolish attempts to create diplomatic solutions where none are to be found. In part to “repent” for what he sees as the sins of George Bush and in part due to his trained antipathy toward the use of force, he is seen as learning on the job the harsher realities of the world to which he had never been exposed. Executive experience matters. Some optimism is found in his authorization of more troops in Afghanistan and in portions of his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Nonetheless, this is offset by pessimism derived from his failures to date in dealing with Iran’s nuclear development, Russia’s “reset,” genocide in Darfur to name just a few. This perspective hopes for a time horizon in which Obama’s dalliances with engagement will eventually cease and a forceful president will emerge to truly protect American interests.
 
As for the economy, the white view depicts Obama’s support of policies which raise the deficit to near fatal levels, which result in layoffs rather than hirings, which spend endlessly in order to dig our way out of the mess we believe we are in, as part of a good faith attempt to act upon Keynesian advice the academic world so adores. Can’t fault a man for trying. The white view also unquestionably accepts the narrative Obama and many others have sold that at the end of the Bush years the economy was “on the brink of disaster” and that, absent many of the actions Obama and his Congress took, the country would have been foisted into another Great Depression. Against this scenario, Obama draws a high handicap for any remedy he undertakes. While the white view no longer accepts blaming former president George W. Bush for our woes, it does cut Obama slack for simply being in a mess.
 
While this view is grounded upon Obama’s good intentions, it does recognize psychological shortfalls of the subject. He is seen as a major narcissist who loves the spotlight and can not seem to give up the campaign trail with the adoration it affords. More so, as he (or, sometimes posited, ghost writer Bill Ayers) wrote in his biography, he has learned to coast through, not show anger. More powerfully, he has developed a self-view that suggests all he needs to do is show up and the world will conform to his wishes by virtue of the gift of his words and the magic of his personality. Nonetheless, he is still a “good man.”
 
As with all Escher lithographs, the white view dominates at first but as the eye stretches to see if it covers the entire canvas, something startling occurs. The white view no longer makes sense, is no longer able to retain a sensible image, and the black view begins to emerge. The eye detects that it was always there but chose to overlook it, to even blot it out.
 
Similarly, the white view begins to deteriorate after awhile. It might seem that Obama is “smart” but how does one explain the absolute extremes into which Obama is leading us? Spending might make sense in certain circumstances but not to the almost criminal magnitude it has headed. Healthcare is a noble undertaking but none of the proposed plans accomplish the original stated goals and, in fact, retard our quality of care at greater costs without truly increasing coverage to much of that true portion of the population we would all might agree deserves some compassion. As Republicans offer more simple fixes to the specific problems with the health insurance industry, Obama dismisses them as partisan and, instead, aims to remake the entire healthcare system.
 
The banks continue to contract credit despite unprecedented government infusion of capital. They also resist mortgage modification under the failed Home Affordable Modification Program which may be followed by a second version. The Stimulus bill might have appeared reasonable to some but why, after it has failed to produce jobs, is Obama pushing for more? The Obama takeover of much of the auto industry has been fraught with mismanagement and Cash for Clunkers was a pure failure; yet, Obama is pushing further to insert himself into private industry. No matter what Obama says, his actions scream “tax and spend.” “Smart” or beginning to look nonsensical; or, worse, intentionally destructive?
 
As the black view pushes forth, it rapidly extinguishes the white view. Instead, a different Obama emerges; one who, while perhaps “smart,” is something less than “good.” His administration appears not truly interested in building our economy (except for its desire to generate certain statistics to be able to tout their actions in State of The Union and other addresses) but, rather, intending a radical creation of a new system. Nor can Obama hide behind Congress, to which he has shuffled the work of legislation. He was, as Senator, the most liberal “present.” The black view exposes Obama as one who truly desires to destroy the fundamentals of our economy (through extreme spending, crippling taxes, and unyielding regulation) in order to seize power to reconstruct it in another form.
 
The black view highlights his “wealth redistribution” goal against a background in which government control is expanded in order to force as many people as possible to become dependent upon the government. At that point, the threat of withdrawing that support will be enough to ensure continued allegiance to Obama. Once sufficient numbers are permanently locked under control, enough power will have been accumulated to reconstruct all facets of our nation: the silent, peaceable takeover and ultimate eradication of our democracy.
 
This perspective makes sense of the union-centered nature of Obama’s plans. The SEIU is positioned to take advantage of and marshal the accumulated control once achieved. Radicals such as Andy Stern, Jim Creamer, Bill Ayers, Cass Sunstein and most of the czars are all onboard with this goal which extends through every area of the Administration from Justice to the EPA. ACORN, until at least temporarily set back by undercover film of improper behavior, was positioned to supply another layer of troops.
 
The black view begins to question whether the assumed “brink of disaster” narrative is accurate and, more importantly, whether it in any way justifies the extreme policies Obama has adopted. It is certainly true that allowing more bank and investment bank failures, not to mention AIG, would have brought upon the world extreme hardship, dislocation, and instability. Yet, to hoist Rahm Emanuel on his own petard, these crises would have simultaneously generated tremendous stabilizing opportunities for others. In short, as was the lesson of the 1920 “depression,” leaving well enough alone would have forced us to feel the economic pain and deal with it swiftly. Instead, the actions taken so far have served to spread and prolong the pain without addressing any of the underlying sources in serious fashion.
 
While the white view saw Obama’s rise to power as a creative and shrewd maneuvering and community organizing of the country to his benefit, the black view shows a true Chicagoan “hit man” mentality; certainly the venue of Obama’s wizards Emanuel, Jarrett, and Axelrod, not to mention Obama’s überwizard- the Daley machine. Emanuel’s reputation is well known but the black view highlights Obama’s capacity to strong-arm, threaten, demean, lie, and abuse his power. Pure thuggery. Republican former car dealers agree. No longer a “good guy.”
 
The Clintons were often accused of a similar thuggery but to many the Clintons were, at least, American gangsters; they thrived on the system. Obama’s approach as drawn in the black view is not American; it seeks to destroy the system and that is what fundamentally makes the observer of the black view deeply anxious. He reports a dreaded sense that something has gone drastically awry.
 
The white view sees Obama as simply weak in matters of foreign policy. He is inexperienced and suffers from unrealistic, idealistic goals; goals which, because they helped get him elected, he is highly motivated to fight to achieve. While he may appear weak, in his mind he has the strength and courage to stand up for what is universally right.
 
The black view has no space for this. Rather, it is drawn with the clear notion that Obama is more in synch with our enemies than with our allies or ourselves. Just as the white view suggests that perhaps he suffers from not really knowing himself due to his unique upbringing, we see here that Obama is challenging us as to whether we really know who we are and whether we actually have the strength to stand up and fight for American exceptionalism and truths.
 
As with birds in an Escher lithograph, two definitive motifs pop up in the black view. First is the idolization of a one world transnational system to dominate the globe. The notion is that America and other rich nations have abused their power and must atone by redistributing their wealth to build thousands of supporting bureaucratic institutions under the guise of assisting the less developed nations. In addition, all nations are to live under the single system which will be uniquely able to bring “justice” to the maximum number of persons worldwide. Accordingly, Obama pushes on climate change legislation, both national and international, to give a rational for moving vast sums. Green underlies most of the black view as it writes the ticket for Obama to tax, confiscate, control, and ultimately destroy every significant aspect of the economy and, thus, the American system. It is so profound the observer begins to doubt his own “lying eyes.”
 
Secondly, the white bird of American freedom so basic in the white view is transformed into a black vulture of tyranny. Obama, with the full power of an obedient Congress that has concluded it can only save itself by jumping on board, seeks to subordinate individual freedoms to the greater good of Obama’s vision.
 
The observer has a disturbing feeling that Obama is, in one way or another, a front man for some power base stronger than himself- a form of “Manchurian Candidate.” This is the notion that liberals often project onto right wing conspiracy theories – perhaps because it is true of them in some sense? The frustration is in making sense of who is behind Obama. Some observers see some form of Marxism/Socialism behind all that he does and then look for someone to fit the bill. Others see George Soros as the mastermind, ushering in all the policies that he stands for. Still others look at Obama’s Muslim history, notice his bow to or kissing the ring of the Saudi king (noting that Indonesian Muslims aggrandize Saudis as the true Muslims and typically bow in their presence) as a sign that perhaps the one world rule is to be Islamic. When added to his failure to stop Middle-East nuclear development, reluctance to put troops into Afghanistan, and prime interest in removing U.S. presence from Muslim lands, he becomes, in essence, the “Meccan Candidate.”
 
Typically, as with the white view, the observer begins to question what he thinks he is seeing, the more extreme it appears to be. While tremendously anxious about the true state of our Union under Obama, he begins to doubt the rationality of his perceptions. He starts to remember the white view, in part to convince himself that circumstances are not as out of control as they might seem and in part to quell his own anxiety. While the white view appears to re-emerge on its own, it is the observer who brings back the white view for his own comfort. Things could not be that extreme. Or could they?
 
As with Escher lithographs, the eye is endlessly provoked in order to reconcile the white and black views into one stable image. With the Escher President, the observer continually attempts to do the same; to find that one perspective upon which he can settle. Like a slowing roulette ball which zeroes in on its final fixed slot, the center of gravity for Obama has been moving more and more toward the black view. Hopefully, we will still be able to address the state of our Union when that ball finally stops on black.
 
Bill Siegel is a contributing editor to FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Categorized under: BOOKS.
Tagged with: no tags.

Comments are closed.