New twist from Obama

The man of many identities, of many contradictory roots and influences which he had supposedly combined into one glorious synthesis, is suddenly having trouble keeping his stories straight. After spending months denying that he had heard Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American anti-white rantings from the pulpit of Trinity Church, and then, in his big speech earlier this week, turning around and (in his own version of Ron Ziegler’s infamous “inoperative” concession) acknowledging that he had indeed heard Wright’s “controversial” statements, and then proceeding both to condemn them as wrong AND to justify them as an understandable response to white racism, he now says, according to CBS News, that he had heard nothing about Wright’s “American government created AIDS” statements and his “God damn America” sermon until a week and a half ago.

But if that was the case, why didn’t Obama tell us this important fact in his speech, instead of saying that he had heard Wright’s “controversial” statements, which he did not specify, thus creating the impression that he had heard all the controversial statements at issue?

This gifted trickster had succeeded brilliantly thus far, but only because he had never been challenged on the real history of his racial views. Now that he’s being challenged, he’s losing his grip.

- end of initial entry -

James M2 writes:

It becomes more despicable (or maybe pathetic) when you wrap your mind around the contrast between Obama’s and his grandmother’s respective, uh, fear-inducing black encounters. His grandmother was confronted with a beggar who was aggressive enough to make her fear for her safety. In other words something happened to her that was actually scary. Obama though, merely had his evening interrupted by a loud stereo system. And when he hollered at them to go away, what happened? Nothing.

Nothing happened! At all. A non-event.

But at this point Obama’s imagination kicks in. The “wind [wiped] away his drowsiness” and he “felt exposed” (because he was wearing shorts). Furthermore, as Sailer points out, he starts projecting his own bias about black urban youths onto this car full of kids who perhaps never even heard his voice. In Obama’s mind, at an advanced age of “mid 20’s,” they see him as a “figure of random authority” and were calculating how to “take him out.” Well, maybe they were, but the point is that the crux of the event happened inside Obama’s head.

I am starting to believe that an unhealthy percentage of Obama’s life has happened only inside his head, and now, the gap between what I think I understand, and what I am able to articulate, may become apparent.

Consider the stereotypical rich Californian teen princess. The drama queen archetype. She has everything provided for her, lives comfortably, and there is no real struggle or hardship in her life. The challenges, action, and dramas of her existence are artificially created by assigning immense weight to basically inconsequential jealousies, slights, crushes, etc., blown totally out of proportion. This is how she strives to make her life feel meaningful.

Some people have assumed that Barack comes across like this in his autobiography because he was just punching it up to offset his lack of life experiences, but what if his drama-queen writing style is actually a nearly authentic representation of his mental fantasy-life? What if the young Barack, searching for direction and meaning in his life, latched on to a philosophy of black victimhood and grievance not because he truly believed in it, but because it gave him an identity? An exciting identity. And what if, in creating and perpetuating that identity, he became extremely proficient at acting, to the extent that his whole life became an act, until he forgot who he really was and could no longer keep his stories straight?

I have a suspicion that Barack’s in-the-moment reaction to his grandma’s panhandler story was not nearly so painful or perspective-altering. I think it was only later, after he had decided upon and began acting out his artificial life direction, that he retroactively assigned to that moment a life-changing significance. And so it was written in his book.

LA replies:

This is top notch analysis. First you picked up on the fact (which I hadn’t noticed) that nothing happened with those kids, and then you turn that fact, and Obama’s exaggerated treatment of it, into a plausible theory of his modus operandi throughout his life. Really good stuff.

Tim W. writes:

Obama had every reason to believe he would never be challenged on his racial views. In a world where Al Sharpton can be considered a legitimate black spokesman, and can sit in judgment of whites who violate PC taboos, why would Obama ever think his own questionable associations would ever cause trouble for him? He served in the Illinois state legislature, ran for the U.S. Senate, and served for over two years in that Senate without anyone in the mainstream press ever reporting on his association with Jeremiah Wright. If he wasn’t running and winning against another liberal, Hillary Clinton, the press never would have shown any interest in it. Well, maybe Fox News would have once the primaries were over.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 21, 2008 07:58 PM | Send