Self-improvement, "other-improvement", and moralistic sleight-of-hand

Make a note of how this magic trick is done because sooner or later you're likely to see it again in another context.

Megan McArdle explains for us step by step what was - is - going on both when Barack Obama tells us not to get on our high horse, because Crusades, and when our seemingly righteous Southern Working Boy Rod Dreher "boldly" and "bravely" reminds us that, didja know?, ISIS once ran the South.

The trick? To paraphrase from her article, disguising "other-improvement" to seem to be like a brave, iconoclastic attempt at self-improvement, or as the sub-heading under the post title at Bloomberg describes it

It's easy to default to criticizing folks that you already don't like very much.

Here's how it works.

Let's say we have a tribe - call them Keith monkeys. And I want to make a pious statement about how monkeys should look at our history clearly, with open eyes, and not be so quick and smug to get up on our high horse and berate the Leopard Tribe, because the Monkey Tribe's past is full of sins itself. And so I proceed, painfully and self-effacingly, to give example after example of sins committed by Cody monkeys and Kevin monkeys - because, hey, they're not Keith monkeys, and besides, their intimate relations with their mothers are a bit suspect anyway, don't you know.

What happens is that, instead of either berating the Leopards for their predations or actually indicting the homie Keith monkeys for similar sins, I deal from the bottom of the deck and finger the Cody and Kevin monkeys instead, rival monkeys the Keith monkeys don't much like anyway and are more than happy to see beaten up in passing.

Instead of blaming ISIS, Obama blames, not any similar liberal, Northern Protestant sinners, but rather historical, traditional Catholic ones - monkeys his monkey tribe doesn't care anything about anyway and thus whom his monkey tribe won't mind being scapegoated.

Identically, Rod Dreher doesn't blame non-Southern, liberal, intellectually friendly populations for predations similar to ISIS - in fact he very rarely blames ISIS at all - but rather his surrounding-but-alienated-from Southern family and neighbors, the ones, like sister Ruthie, who just stuck with their bland, store-bought Moralistic Therapeutic Deism rather than fully embracing something more hipster exotic and intense in personal appearance as much as in theology.

Dreher can slap around his local South and the local Southern Protestantism he was born into because he isn't really "bravely talking about" potential self-improvement, he's actually bottom dealing an "other improvement" card instead, because he knows his readership, the liberal, pseudointellectual tribe he really belongs to, won't mind if he bashes a competing monkey tribe like his atavistic Southern neighbors, the ones, just coincidentally, that left him in such a "dark wood".

So: not really all that much about Islamic ISIS, who would cheerfully barbecue young Nora and Lucas Dreher to a crispy golden black if they could ever get their hands on them, but endless post after post after post about the pathetic local religion of dead sister Ruthie and her remaining, ignorant and unserious Southern neighbors.

Because everyone knows arrogant traditional Catholic Crusaders and mousy MTD Southerners alike need all the self-improvement an other can provide them with.

"Surrealism at its most annoying"

S.E. Cupp pegs Obama's dhimmi fear with this piece, starting with the title Islamic extremist terrorism: The scourge that Obama dare not name. I like how she begins, comparing the administrations unrealism to French surrealism. Here's the gist:

To the average person, it's pretty clear we're at war with Islamic extremists. Yet, to hear President Obama tell it, we are not technically at war, and even if we are, he wants you to believe religion has little to do with it.

He and his surrogates have repeatedly refused to say the words "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam" when describing our enemies in groups like Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS and Boko Haram, just to name a few.

His administration was caught flatfooted last week when White House spokesman Eric Schultz painfully strained to justify negotiating with Taliban, insisting it was not a terrorist group but "an armed insurgency."

Surreal indeed.

Whether linguistic subterfuge or merely semantic nitpicking, it's a curious use of caution from an administration that has repeatedly gotten out over its skis on issues of foreign policy.

The list is long: Al Qaeda's been decimated. ISIS is Al Qaeda's "jayvee" team. Yemen is a success. Benghazi was about a video.

Obama is constantly speaking in brash declaratives about terrorism, and is often subsequently proven wrong. But uttering the words "Islamic extremism" is too reckless?

Here's why I don't hesitate to call Obama a dhimmi.

[T]he White House is not Islam's PR shop. It's up to moderate Muslims to denounce radical Islam. The job of the President is to clearly name our enemies, not play word tricks on the public.

The Obama White House isn't supposed to be Islam's PR shop. But it has been playing that role since his inauguration in this refusal to name the enemy properly and by properly, I mean with the proper noun Islam and its derivatives.

"Morally shameful"

I agree with Mr. Wehner that it is shameful how hostile President Obama and his administration are toward our country's greatest ally in the Middle East. The man bows to other world leaders and lets them cross "red lines" without repercussions. But Israel draws his rage and his snubs. Excerpt:

But the problem goes much deeper than a personality clash. President Obama is, quite simply, anti-Israel. In every conceivable situation and circumstance, the president and his aides give the benefit of the doubt not to Israel but to its enemies. This despite the fact that Israel is among America’s longest and best allies, democratic, lawful, takes exquisite steps to prevent civilian deaths in nations committed to destroying it, and has made extraordinary sacrifices for peace. No matter; the pressure that’s applied is always applied most against Israel–even when, as in last year’s conflict with Hamas, Israel was the victim of lethal attacks.

This is morally shameful. In a world filled with despotic leaders and sadistic and ruthless regimes–North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, and on and on–which nation alone does Mr. Obama become “enraged” at? Which is the object of his disdain? Which provokes his white-hot anger?

Answer: Israel. Has it struck you, as it has struck me, that with every other nation, including the most repressive and anti-American on earth, Mr. Obama is careful never to give offense, to always extend the olive branch, and to treat their leaders with unusual deference and respect? Except for the Jewish State of Israel. It always seems to be in the Obama crosshair.

Compare and Contrast. (Plus a caption contest)

I was looking over the classic viral blog Is Barack Obama the Messiah? from the 2008 Election season. It would be funnier if he hadn't been elected President. But it is good to contrast the latest picture posted there...

...with the latest photo proudly featured on the main page of the White House web-site today:

In the first picture, a painting by artist Alex Gray, we see the sphere of our planet Earth being perfected and re-imagined by the power of President Obama's solar-powered brain. In the second picture we see the Prezzie of the United Stezzie puckering as he holds in a choom hit and attempting to "stick it" to an insignificant, white sphere. Maybe I'll throw that photo into a demotivator; feel free to send suggestions for the caption.

Obama sinking further in the polls

A new poll reveals a serious erosion of support. From the article:

“Whether it’s [Vladimir] Putin, Ukraine, the VA hospitals, Bowe Bergdahl, the events have controlled Obama, rather than Obama having controlled the events,” Hart adds. “He may be winning the issues debate, but he’s losing the political debate, because they don’t see him as a leader.”

...

But it shows an American public that has grown dissatisfied with President Obama on foreign policy and national security decisions.

Just 37 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, which is an all-time low in the survey, while 57 percent disapprove, an all-time high.

What’s more, by a 44 percent-to-30 percent margin, Americans disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to secure the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five imprisoned Taliban fighters.

...

President Obama’s overall approval rating in the poll is at 41 percent, down three points from April. That’s tied for his all-time low in the survey.

And his favorable-unfavorable rating is upside down (41 percent-45 percent) after being right-side up two months ago (44 percent-41 percent).

Perhaps most troubling for the president, 54 percent think he is unable to lead the country and get the job done, compared with 42 percent who believe he can.

Is the press finally going to grow a spine and stop propping up this loser? Let's hope so. I think the approval numbers would be more like 12% if people really had all the info.

President Pinocchio

I really don't have to say anything more, do I?

Ted Cruz blows up objections to "Stand Your Ground"...

...with an inconvenient truth.

2016: Obama's America

Here's the official website.



This movie looks good. I heard an interview with the producer, Gerald Molen, yesterday. The great thing about it is that they got interviews with tons of people close to Obama, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright for example, and they use his recorded book for his own words. Wright said that the last thing Obama ever said to him was something like "I envy you because you have to tell the truth." Amazing substantive stuff, and no wacky theories about where he was born or whether he is the Twelfth Imam. I can't see it this weekend, but I'm going to try to catch it next week.

Jigsaw President

I really appreciated Matthew Continetti's piece in which he provides evidence that Obama has, with the cooperation of the media, entirely constructed the character which his adorers see when they look at him. Excerpt:

Obama was similarly meticulous in constructing his positions, attitudes, and demeanor when he became a professional politician. Here, too, his identity was hard to pin down. His alliance with Jeremiah Wright was necessary to gain credibility with Chicago’s African-American community. He frequently voted present in the Illinois state senate in order not to offend particular constituencies. He agonized over his decision to oppose the Iraq war because he was afraid he would be on the wrong side of the issue. His debut at the 2004 Democratic National Convention was a gauzy, abstract paean to national unity. He became, as he put it in The Audacity of Hope, “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” He ran for president as a bipartisan ‘pragmatist’ who would bring us together.

The conclusion is good too.

The composite identity that took Obama 47 years to create has come undone in less than four years. It was just as faked as Julia. Behold the man as he is: A “New Politics” liberal whose idealism is dropped at the first sight of an FEC deadline. There’s nothing funny about it.

Continetti proves in this article that the most devastating exposés of this phony chief executive do not have to contain words like "socialist", "communist" or "Alinsky". In fact, they are much more powerful when they don't.

Est Quod Est Phrase of the Week

The phrase of the week, IMHO, is "free-range dog meat." I found it in this HuffPo piece from December 2009.

Within Thailand, this no-stoplight town known as Ta Rae evokes free-range dog meat the way Memphis conjures thoughts of hickory-smoked ribs. The village does not showcase its signature industry, which relies on bribery and crime. Nor does it openly embrace dog eating, regarded by mainstream Thai society as hickish and uncivilized. The local dog meat vendors operate on a dusty side street, outside the town's sanctioned outdoor market. But the village's discretion is for naught: Ta Rae is regionally known as a nerve center in Southeast Asia's stray dog meat trade. Here, Northeast Thailand's seemingly infinite supply of wild dogs are corralled, graded, crammed into wire cages and prepped for export. The destination: Vietnam, where demand for grilled dog sells for triple the price of pork.

So the remaining questions. Is eating a free-range dog a sacramental thing to do (reference)? I mean this meat has got to be organic, right? Even if it is a bit diseased.

If you watch the video on the HuffPo page, you'll probably laugh at the line "[A]nimal welfare advocates... think the dog trade taints Thailand's reputation." What reputation is that? Give me a break.

Ted Nugent: Dog Eat Dog

I personally don't care what anyone eats, short of fellow human being. But the whole dog-eating thing is funny to me for one reason. The dude wrote something in his first memoir which he certainly thought was really cool at the time. Or I doubt he would have included it. Now it turns out to be a major laughing point. It reminded me of a sixth grade girl I rode the bus with who used to brag about her riding lawn mower, not realizing that everybody was rolling their eyes and laughing behind her back. Along with countless other anecdotes, all involving people ranging in age from kindergarten to college sophomore.

Wealth won't stop dementia

Proof. Excerpt:

“Adding solar energy to our generation portfolio is a strategic move to invest in yet another renewable energy source,” said Greg Abel, chairman, president and CEO of MidAmerican.

Uh-huh. Can you say loss leader, boys and girls?

Paul Ryan: Saving the American Idea

Subtitle is "Rejecting Fear, Envy and the Politics of Division".



He is right on, my man Paul.

Attack Watch gets "Downfalled"

Hitler discovers ATTACKWATCH is a joke.



Too funny. What's your favorite line? Mine is "The American people are stupid, like dogs; toothless hillbillies with lizard brains."

Vigalancia de Ataque!

H/T AmSpec

Bansai economy?

Timothy Lee shows how Obama's economy has been the worst for growth. Excerpt:

The economy proceeded to grow 1.7% in the third quarter of 2009, and reached 3.8% in the fourth quarter before peaking at 3.9% in the first quarter of 2010. But then, a new decline began. Economic growth slowed to 3.8% in the second quarter of 2010, then declined to 2.5% for the third quarter, and then 2.3% for the final quarter. The first quarter of 2011 saw growth of just 0.4%, and the most recent quarter came in at just 1.0%.

In other words, economic growth, paltry as it was under Obama, reached its 3.9% peak over one year ago and then began a new decline. But Obama and his apologists ask us to believe that he deserves credit for the upswing that began before he entered the White House, yet the ensuing decline that continues to this day is somehow his predecessor’s fault?

Maybe Obama is trying to make the United States economy into a kind of bansai. A little snip here via regulation, a little snip there via NLRB bullying whenever part of the economy threatens to start growing. Liberals hate sprawling growth and love tight control. They are like the weird control freak mom who doesn't want her baby boy to grow up. The hard-working realists in this country deserve better.

Hokey Pokey President

Pretty accurate.

HT Erick Erickson

These "bumps" vote

Obama's Intellectual Stammer

This is such a slam, and so on the money. Meghan Daum opens up some serious ass-whoop, though perhaps inadvertently. My fave paragraphs:

But consider this: It's not that Obama can't speak clearly. It's that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can't keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN. If you're a member or a fan of that subset, chances are the president's stammer doesn't bother you; in fact, you might even love him for it (he sounds just like your grad school roommate, especially when he drank too much Scotch whisky and attempted to expound on the Hegelian dialectic!).

And here's the money shot:

Obama's problem is not that he's an intellectual (for the sake of argument let's define it as someone who is scholarly, broadly informed and distinguished as a thinker). It's that he sounds like an intellectual. Unlike other presumed political brainiacs — Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, for example — he isn't able to bury his ideas behind a folksy regional accent or good-old-boy affectations when he wants to. Nor is he effective at "keeping it real" when he falls into traditionally African-American cadences that he clearly never used when he was growing up.

By speaking as though he hails from everywhere, he ends up being from nowhere. The result is that people look at him and see not a Hawaiian or a Chicagoan or even a black man, but a university man.

"University man." [he shivers.]

Public Intoxication

I was ruminating on Paul Zummo's post from yesterday detailing the irony of Eugene Robinson's hand-wringing remark about Sarah Palin: "What the GOP should worry about is the intoxication that adoring crowds often induce in politicians." Obviously we wonder where he was during the fevered campaigns of 2008, of which this instant classic blog site might serve as a reminder.

I'm afraid that if we had the opportunity to bring this up to Mr. Robinson, the irony would be lost on him. He would probably respond that Barack Obama was not going to be intoxicated by an adoring crowd because, in the language of the street, he really is "all that", whereas Sarah Palin is merely some lady up in the wilderness. Maybe he would challenge us to produce a picture of Obama donning a lampshade or staggering down the stairs of a DC lounge shortly after one of his rallies. But who needs to do that? One visit to the aforementioned Obamamessiah site provides quotes from the man himself such as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." Also: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Also: "...a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack Obama." These are delusional remarks to make even for a man who aspires to be the chief of the executive branch.

I think Obama supporters would dismiss this all, however, and say that these were "just words" spoken the heat of a campaign, it was all figurative speech, etc, etc. Then that brings us back to the question, "What's wrong with Sarah Palin having enthusiastic followers now?" Hmmm. Why don't they just admit that they disagree with a woman who has a large following of a certain type of American citizen? That's what we do routinely with Obama, a President with higher approval numbers than it seems like his success-failure ratio should warrant. I think it's just that ridiculing the right has become the staple of the left, and it's so much easier than bringing up substance and forming arguments.