Thursday, February 18, 2016

The Big Snub

Among the many questions hanging over Barack Obama’s failed presidency is this: why could he not heal the nation’s divisions and promote a new era of national unity?

No, seriously. Don’t laugh too hard. Obama’s supporters, people for whom the president can do no wrong and for whom he is not responsible for anything that went wrong during his tenure in office, hold as an article of faith that his presidency was sabotaged by Congressional Republicans and American racists.

Of course, the same people believe that everything bad that happens in the country is the fault of Congressional Republicans and American racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes and the like. So, the question is: was Barack Obama an honorable man who could not overcome racial hatred or was he a divisive figure who turned Americans against each other? Was his polite, courteous, genteel demeanor the truth or a lie?

How can we know which?

It’s not as hard as it seems. Take a relatively innocuous event, one where the president of the United States is called upon to play a ceremonial role, a role in which he transcends ideology and unites the nation by acting like the president of all the people, not just of Democrats. After all, the American president is not merely a political leader. He shares one role with the British monarch: he symbolizes national unity and he is charged with conducting ceremonies that signify that unity.

Now, we know the answer.

Barack Obama has chosen to snub the funeral of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Petulant and petty, Obama is showing the truth about his administration. It would have cost him nothing. It would have done nothing more than to create good will. Thus, Obama chose to use the occasion to show that he is beneath it all, that he is a petty, vindictive man who puts ideology before national unity.

When it comes to divisive ideological gestures Obama is a master. Just because he does not look like a loudmouthed blowhard does not mean that he is a model of propriety. In fact, he is anything but. He just hides it better.

Obama took the occasion of the Scalia funeral to divide America, to force Americans to see it through their ideological blinders. To the end he remains Jeremiah Wright’s protégé.

What was the reason? Apparently, our thin-skinned president took Scalia’s vigorous dissents on Obamacare personally. He was offended. It hurt his feelings. Scalia failed to put a trigger warning on his opinions.

Obama could have risen above his personal pique, but that would have been a lot to expect from a man whose presidency turned Americans against each other and tried to take advantage of the divisions.

A couple of days ago President Obama was explaining why he believed that Donald Trump would never become president. The American people, Obama explained, know that the presidency is a “serious job.” The problem with his reasoning is simple. If the American people knew that the presidency was a serious job they would never have elected and re-elected Barack Obama.

16 comments:

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Very well-written, Stuart. Thoughtful, succinct, and devastatingly accurate. Our President is a small man.

And now we're hearing about what President Obama WILL DO -- next month. He will go visit the Castros in Cuba.

With each passing event, with each opportunity to rise above events and be a leader for our nation, he chooses to do nothing. Paris after the attacks, attending a funeral of a Supreme Court Justice, etc. He doesn't even attend the majority of his President's Daily Briefings.

With this President, put on the mute button or plug your ears. Just watch what he does. Our choices define who we are.

"What was the reason? Apparently, our thin-skinned president took Scalia’s vigorous dissents on Obamacare personally. He was offended..."

Actually, if one actually READS Scalia's dissents on ObamaCare, he reserves his most scathing criticism for his colleagues, one of whom should've recused herself from the cases (Kagan). All he says directly about the nature of ObamaCare is that the Constitution is silent on the issue, which is what Scalia said/wrote about a great many things during his tenure on the Court. If Obama wants to personalize it, he's ignorant. Strange for a man of such strong opinions, and a constitutional law professor to boot. Justice Kennedy was the one who warned that ObamaCare would fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between the government and the citizen. Anyone hazard to guess whether Obama would attend Justice Kennedy's funeral?

If the Senate Republicans confirm Obama's Supreme Court nominee to replace Scalia, I'm done. Does anyone have any doubt what the Senate Democrats would do if the situation were reversed? Democrats are admired for their discipline, but the media howls about the "obstruction" of Republicans. Obstruct away, says I. No, no, no, no, no! Obama must be stopped. Harry Reid says Republican obstruction means we're entering “uncharted waters in the history of the U.S. system of checks and balances, with potentially momentous consequences.” Got it. This, from Senate Majority Leader Reid, who didn't get a BUDGET passed for six years. Who's not doing their checks and balances job, Harry? The Congressional prerogatives abandoned during the Obama presidency have been astounding.

Dennis said...

There is something extremely satisfying about watching democrats and leftists, no real difference, get "hoisted on their own petard." Being blowup by their very own IEDs. One has to recognize that Obama started out with an actual bomb thrower in his cadre.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/18/obama-the-obstructionist/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRovsqXMZKXonjHpfsX56eolW6%2B%2BlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4AScNhN6%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm
This comes from a group that I read and which receive commentary. Both of the short video demonstrate the hypocrisy of Shummer and Obama.
Even some of the democrats with a byline are asking uncomfortable,and telling, questions of Obama, his administration and democrats. I almost could not contain myself when a reporter asked which golf course Obama was playing on the day of Scalia's funeral. I can imagine that Obama does feel more comfortable with the Castros than those who have the temerity to disagree with him.
Hillary is constantly talking about the fact that Iowa, New Hampshire and now Nevada is too white and that when she gets to South Carolina she will have the black vote. It is hard to keep stack of the many forms of bigotry coming out of Hillary and her supporters here. Surprisingly "Bernie" went to a black college invited by a black woman who was a Hillary supporter and is now a "Bernie" fan. He got 5000 plus attendees. It would be funny to see the use of the woman card and now the black card fail as well. The woman was said to state she could think for herself (SIC.)
With all of this and the continuing actions of democrats and leftist it is not difficult to see who are the real obstructionists and dividers. A look in the mirror is indeed required.

Ares Olympus said...

Sure, an unfortunate apparent choice to skip a funeral, but what I see in this blog is a very large pile of unnecessary assumptions followed by opinions based on those assumptions.

Let's see:

Fact: Barack Obama has chosen to not attend the funeral of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Assumption: [His motive is] to snub the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Opinion: He is being petulant and petty.

Assumption: It would have cost him nothing.

Opinion: Obama chose to use the occasion to show that he is beneath it all, that he is a petty, vindictive man who puts ideology before national unity.

Opinion: When it comes to divisive ideological gestures Obama is a master.

Opinion: Just because he does not look like a loudmouthed blowhard does not mean that he is a model of propriety. In fact, he is anything but. He just hides it better.

Assumption: [Obama's motive is] to take the occasion of the Scalia funeral to divide America, to force Americans to see it through their ideological blinders.

Assumption: Apparently, our thin-skinned president took Scalia’s vigorous dissents on Obamacare personally. He was offended.

Sarcasm: It hurt his feelings. Scalia failed to put a trigger warning on his opinions.

Opinion upon opinion upon opinion: Obama could have risen above his personal pique, but that would have been a lot to expect from a man whose presidency turned Americans against each other and tried to take advantage of the divisions.

Verdict: Stuart doesn't like President Obama.

The fun thought for me is to consideer perhaps Obama has a very good excuse why he's not attending, but he knows how much conservatives enjoy their imagined snubs, so he didn't want to deprive them of this pleasure.

And thank goodness for term limits, since it looks to me that Petulent and Petty President Obama might win a landslide against any republican candidate out there at the moment. (At least if our imagined economic recovery was as real as his state of the union claimed.)

And if we really want to add to this imagined snub, there is more potential fun!

Perhaps Hillary's riding on Obama's coat strings will get her elected as the first woman president, (and never fear IAC, the Republicans will refuse hearings on Obama's Justice nomination next month) the Republicans will lose not just the Presidency but perhaps even the Senate and then President Hillary will nominate Obama to the Supreme Court to replace Scalia.

That would surely be the ultimate humiliation to conservatives everywhere. Surely Hillary and Obama couldn't be that cruel, could they?

Such an outrage could be worth 25 years of conservative anguish. And Obama keeps in pretty good shape, so surely he could live past 80.

Still, this is just child's play. Conservatives are just too easy to play. Where's the challenge any more? Oh, Mr. President, why not show up to the funeral? You don't have to admit anything, just say your schedule got straighted out.

Or just come disguised so no one recognizes you. Then at your Supreme Court hearings in March 2017, if someone mentions it, you can confess you really did attend the funeral, and that you just didn't want to distract attention from such an important justice.

And perhaps you can plant some early clues for Alex Jones during next year before admitting its true. Alex would be SO HAPPY!

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @February 18, 2016 at 6:28 AM:

What's your point?

Ares Olympus said...

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD: What's your point?

My point is the bumper sticker I saw this morning, "Don't believe everything you think."

Dennis said...

IAC,

Thanks I needed that.

JPL17 said...

@Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD:

Actually, and contrary to his own explanation, I think the only point of Ares Olympus' comment was that he enjoys being as immature as his infantile hero, Barack Obama.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @February 18, 2016 at 6:55 AM:

So you don't believe everything you think? You don't have convictions? You don't have a worldview?

My goodness, you spend a lot of time writing a lot of stuff. Who's it for? Are you trying to open my mind to your ideas? Why on earth would you ever do that? Sounds like of pointless, which is why I asked the question in the first place.

After all, don't believe everything you think.

Then again, I think bumper sticker sloganeering suits you quite well, and helps explain the depth of your thought processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_sticker

Two can play at this game.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

JPL17 @February 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM:

Actually, I suspect that Ares Olympus thinks himself a sophisticated contrarian, deep thinker, and a wiser man than us mere mortals. Or perhaps he's just certain about believing there's no certainty. He fancies himself a clever skeptic, but betrays these ideas with his own certainty about issues like the national debt, anthropomorphic climate change, race relations, et cetera.

Actually, I suspect Ares Olympus is quite mature. That said, like Obama, he really hasn't learned anything, and doesn't come out in the open and stand for anything he believes.

I don't ask that Ares Olympus be consistent, or intelligent, or question his tautology. What I'd appreciate is some honesty. That's all. There's nothing honest about dancing around like a leprechaun, citing Wikipedia and Wendell Berry references, taking pot shots at a man who writes an outstanding blog when he -- Ares Olympus, the god of war -- abandoned his own long ago.

There's another descriptor I'd use, but perhaps we'll just move on.

sestamibi said...

Only 337 days to go. I'm hoping for something better after, but I fear it will actually be much, much worse.

I wonder how many and what kinds of criminals he will pardon on the AM of 1/20/17.

Dennis said...

IAC,

Have you ever notice that when you go to any college or university in this country the people who may have graduated from these institutions are still hanging around as if they never graduated at all. Many of them still wear the uniforms of the 60s, 70s, radicals and anti-establishment that they donned or wished they have worn. Sadly many of them who graduate and move away still have not graduated in their own minds. Most of these people have never really graduated.
They have never realized that what they were supposed to learn from many of the ideas, those concepts that many students now seem afraid that might change their minds, and experiences was to expand the tools available to them to build a future for themselves and hopefully for others as well. Many of them seek only to use those tools to destroy with little concept of the ramifications of their actions. Many of those who stay in academe are incapable of succeeding in the world where ideas, innovation, et al matter so they develop an enmity towards those who do. Because they are filled with envy, jealousy and hate they attempt to indoctrinate vice educate students.
I would suggest, and I am including a wide variety of people here, that few of these people have ever stopped and honestly asked themselves why they believe what they believe? What is the foundation of of their beliefs and ideas? Do those ideas that sound so good actually do good.
There is also the recognition that more one knows the less one actually knows. Strange concept? It create a humility in one's self to recognize that one truly is fallible and that there are things that one will never have the answer for. One also recognizes that it the gaining of wisdom not education that truly matters. Eventually that wisdom will lead to one's OWN ideas vice regurgitating something learn in college.
First Session is upon me.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, I'll take your words "Ares Olympus is quite mature" as a compliment, or as a call for honesty as you say.

You also asked if I had any convictions, and of course writing all that here would be highly "off topic."

But I'll offer "My conviction is that you shouldn't waste opportunities, including attending funerals of great men." But also have a conviction that life is about the tension of opposites, so you have to work those things out in a trial by fire. And I believe in multiple acceptable solutions to predicaments. I don't believe in shaming people for making difference choices than I might make.

I don't believe in lawyering to get what I want. I believe in open conflict to figure out the best middle ground in a fair fight, including false confidence or feigning weakness as necessary, just to see what others think if they're afraid of me for some strange reason. (p.s. My old blog was called Ares Olympus because I happen to like the planet Mars, not that I'd like to live there, or wish to be a Martian even if men are from there.)

Anyway, I'm guessing Scalia's legacy might be something like that, except for being 10 times smarter than me. I'll never accomplish 1% of his legacy whatever I do.

Anonymous said...

Dennis, I have noticed this phenomenon, and agree with your conclusion. It's like a time warp. You can talk all you want about being creative and cutting edge, but if you don't move you cannot grow. And so it goes with those who soak themselves in ideas and never put them into practice. They never ask "Do my ideas work?" or "Do my ideas have limits?" They just keep taking about tired, old ideas. It's a lifestyle, and it's very closed and pretentious. I wouldn't care if they didn't demand that I pay the bill.

Anonymous said...

Ares Olmpus @February 19, 2016 at 10:13 AM:

Yea... I believe you are mature in your thinking, but I am consistently left wanting for you to out that maturity to work in an honorable way. Albeit, please be clear: your purpose is not to make me happy, you must live as you see fit. That said, I gather your goal is to learn and/or persuade. Well, there is some etiquette and protocol to how one can accomplish both.

You often occur to me as a pest, feigning an identity as an intelligent, reasonable man, when in fact you are not. Please note that have never laid claim to being reasonable at all. We do have open conflict and a fair fight here, but we can agree to disagree.

My experience of you is that you are so certainly uncertain that it is pointless to engage because it's like playing whack-a-mole. It is not enjoyable to joust with you.

You say "don't believe everything you think," but you are so arrogant about your own beliefs and you seem blind to this. Therefore, I relate to you as an intellectual enemy, the very force that i believe is destroying this country: Leftism.

So you have an opportunity to be responsible for the consequences of how you portray your own thought, and you have demonstrated some humility here in this comment that is refreshing. But your "false confidence or feigning weakness if necessary" is duplicitous. It is dishonest. It breeds no trust.

I learn very little from you, and I find that sad -- given the volume of words you dispense here. For God's sake, man, put your flag in the sand and engage with integrity! If you want to move forward or back given what you have learned, so be it. That's growth. But your pot shots at Stuart are beneath you... and if they are not, you are a worthy recipient of the contempt I sometimes direct your way. And by the way: you truly are a lousy satirist. Why? No trust.

Politics is sport, but ideas have consequences. I'm glad you like the planet Mars, but we have to live here on Earth. And yes, Scalia's legacy eclipses us all, and he did it by being honest, clear and straight. The saddest thing to me about America today is that Scalia is pejoratively described as "combative." This is a virtue! He was a brave, effective and cunning soldier in the arena of ideas, and I believe the greatest in my lifetime. His loss is personal for me. I read his opinions and dissents with great delight. His opinion in the Heller case was the greatest, most erudite championing of the Second Amendment I have ever encountered. But I digress...

As I have said before, you can claim your honor by engaging in the arena (as Teddy Roosevelt described it) as an honest combatant. That's what I expect of you, and I am confident I am not alone...

IAC

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, I do appreciate your attempts to reform my character. And when I'm not sure what I think, I prefer to dance around and not put my flag in any sand, but jump around. Perhaps something like a friend told me how to play Go - he said lose 50 games as fast as possible, and only then consider what you've learned. And his warning worked, I decided I didn't want to become a master at zero sum games.

In science there's a phrase "not even wrong" and sometimes I agree with that approach to reject bad thinking, but other times I'd rather just keep challenging bad thinking, at least until the facts and assumptions can be identified, and then I don't have to disagree, and I can let others correct their own bad thinking without needing them to be wrong or not even wrong. Anyway, politics seems to contain something of this predicament, and in a worse way.

I'm not sure what an honest combatant is, but I know my philososphy is something like "learning to be less wrong" and I do this apparently by taking in many divergent opininions I can neither completely confirm not deny, and let them fight themselves out in my own incompetent internalizations of those points of view. And then when I find a failing on one side, I got back to the source and see if its their failing or mine.

Probably the most unexpected thing about debate is you really can't expect to see how you affect people, and the more overt resistance you get from someone, the more you can be sure they're thinking, and perhaps later something will click, and you'll never know that. So its good to be humble, but its also good to trust in the inner process of others.

Most of the time I feel more respect for people in power than people who are critical of people in power since I imagine what I'd do if I had power, and I accept I don't know what's best, so I'm glad people in power are willing to make decisions and I just have to hope many of them can be amended incrementally in a good way, rather than in a slippery slope to hell sort of way, which can be just as likely.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Very thoughtful, thank you.