TO INFINITE NARCISSISM AND BEYOND !

In the article, "American Narcissus:The Vanity of Barack Obama", Jonathan V. Last details the 'gob-smacking' vanity of our current President and compares him to another, much earlier leader of this country:

But Obama’s faith in his abilities extends beyond mere vote-getting. Buried in a 2008 New Yorker piece by Ryan Lizza about the Obama campaign was this gob-smacking passage:

Obama said that he liked being surrounded by people who expressed strong opinions, but he also said, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” After Obama’s first debate with McCain, on September 26th, [campaign political director Patrick] Gaspard sent him an e-mail. “You are more clutch than Michael Jordan,” he wrote. Obama replied, “Just give me the ball.”

....Looking at this American Narcissus, it’s easy to be hammered into a stupor by the accumulated acts of vanity. Oh look, we think to ourselves, there’s our new president accepting his Nobel Peace Prize. There’s the president likening his election to the West’s victory in the Cold War. There’s the commander in chief bragging about his March Madness picks.

Yet it’s important to remember that our presidents aren’t always this way. When he accepted command of the Revolutionary forces, George Washington said,

I feel great distress, from a consciousness that my abilities and military experience may not be equal to the extensive and important Trust. .  .  . I beg it may be remembered, by every Gentleman in the room, that I, this day, declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the Command I am honored with.

Accepting the presidency, Washington was even more reticent. Being chosen to be president, he said, “could not but overwhelm with despondence one who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.”

Barack Obama, OTOH, is completely UNconscious of his own deficiencies; and at the same time is totally over-invested in, and even awed by, his own wonderfulness. It's creepy and completely psychologically unhealthy.

In 2009, at the time Obama ascended into heaven moved into the White House, I wrote:

Barack Obama not only has been hailed as a Messiah by the clueless left, he actually seems to think of himself as The One; and the fatal conceit that he knows how to 'properly' manipulate the complex system known as the US Economy is nothing but a grandiose narcissistic fantasy that is doomed from the start.

I repeat, he doesn't have a clue to what he is doing, or what unintended economic consequences he and the Democratic Congress are about to unleash. But, since we are all in this together, we are all about to find out.

Well, we have found out big time, haven't we? Be sure to read all of Last's article which documents in detail the overweening narcissism of our Commander in Chief.

After November 2nd, it seems that a growing number of Americans are fairly clear that we elected a medocre and preening President; a President whose narcissism knows no bounds; and whose ego had been fed constantly by the mindless and adoring left in whose eyes he is and was a major celebrity, i.e., a god (same thing these days).

Obama's base, the mindless political left, has become increasingly annoyed with their god--even impatient and disappointed; but truth be told, they still adore him and know he will be merciful and forgive them for their disbelief--as long as he keeps throwing them fresh meat to feed their anger and resentment.

This should be easy now that Republicans control the House. There will be no shortage of people to blame for Obama's failures.

Obama knows and understands his followers very well. While acknowledging that he is far superior to them, he appreciates that they are very similar to him in their deepest motivations--i.e., they are a bunch of grandiose and narcissistically entitled children whose major goal in life is feeling good about themselves. And, like the narcissists they are, without constant stroking, the brittleness of their faux self-esteem is obvious. They can never quite be sure in their deepmost selves that they--or their ideology--are good enough to prevail. So they are scared. REALLY scared.

After Obama's victory in 2008, Byron York attempted to understand this curious phenomenon:"In Time of Victory, Why is the Left So Angry?" :

I asked William Anderson, a friend who is a political conservative, a medical doctor, and a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard. "They are angry, but I think they are also scared, and I think it's because they have a sense that their triumph is a precarious one," Anderson told me. Democrats won in 2008 in some part because of the cycles of American politics; Republicans were exhausted and it was the other party's turn. Now, having won, they are unsure of how long victory will last.

"They see that they have a very small window of opportunity to do all the things they want," Anderson continued. "They see the window of opportunity as small because they know in their deepest hearts that the vast majority of the American people wouldn't go for all of the things they want to do." So they are frantic to do as much as possible before the opposition coalesces. And the tea parties might be the beginning of that coalescence.

Then there is the question of self-image. Watching Garofalo and Olbermann discuss the tea parties, it was impossible to avoid the sense that they saw themselves as two good people talking about many bad people. "One of the things about narcissism is that it looks like people who are just proud of themselves and smug, but in fact narcissism is a very brittle and unstable state," Anderson told me. "People who are deeply invested in narcissism spend an awful lot of energy trying to maintain the illusion they have of themselves as being powerful and good, and they are exquisitely sensitive to anything that might prick that balloon."[emphasis mine]

These are two sides of of this political narcissism that defines Obama and his leftist base. The grandiosity and smugness on the one hand; and, on the other, the brittleness and anxiety that comes with maintaining a false self-image. Just imagine what we are in for not that they have received a resounding rebuke from the American people.

One simple psychological maneuver that Obama and the progressive left can continue to deflect that anxiety and keep their fear at bay; AND at the same time pump up their already over-inflated egos and self-righteousness is to escalate their attacks on the Republicans in congress (especially their leadership) and to continue to bash former President Bush. The left externalized blame for their own inadequacies before Obama was elected; as well as in the first two devastating years he has been in power; so it is hardly likely that they'll stop now as they begin to see their power and control being wrenched from them.

We can count on the fact that they will remain completely inadequate and fall quite short of even the simple tasks of leadership. You will see that Obama and his minions will now blame Republicans for their own inadequacies on the homefront. And, when it comes to their failures in foreign policy, they will still have Israel as a scapegoat that can be flogged when the occasion demands it.

The anger and rage (that are so much a part of malignant narcissism) that the political left has nurtured and cultivated over the years will not go away. They need it desperately to keep their fragile, rotting narcissistic and grandiose self image--even if they have to destroy this country to do so.

Watch for it...narcissism without bounds; to infinity and beyond.

NARCISSISM WITHOUT BOUNDS

Charles Krauthammer recently commented on Obama's response to Ortega's diatribe against the US:

The most telling moment, however, was when Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, delivered a 53-minute excoriating attack on the United States. And Obama's response was "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was three months old."

Does the narcissism of this man know no bounds? This is not about him. It is about his country. This is something that occurred under John Kennedy — the Bay of Pigs is what he is referring to. And what he is saying is that it's OK that he attacked John Kennedy, as long as it wasn't me.

Doesn't it occur to him that he ought to defend his country even if stuff happened before him? It doesn't all start with him.

As Krauthammer knows all too well, since he is a psychiatrist, a real narcissist actually does believe everything starts with him, and that he is the center of the universe.

As far a Barack Obama is concerned, it is all about him.

L'etat, c'est moi! Soon, like Louis XIV, and every petty tyrant and political demagogue since, Obama the First will declare himself to be above the law. His massive ego will demand no less.

Meanwhile, Jay Nordlinger has a moment of fantasy:

Do you know what I wish our president had said? Something like, “Well, the Bay of Pigs was terribly executed. But it was a noble cause: the overthrow of a heinous dictatorship. One that denies an entire people their natural, God-given rights. Had that operation succeeded, Cuba would have been infinitely better off, and the world would have been better off. And many good and brave men died in that operation. If we are to be sorry for anything, it’s that the operation did not succeed, not that it occurred.”

...Can you imagine the American president yukking it up with a thug like Ortega about an ignominious moment in the American past? You don’t have to imagine. That’s the kind of president we have. The kind the people voted for, apparently. Great.

'Great' pretty much sums it up. We have a president whose narcissism already appears to know no bounds; and whose ego is fed constantly by the MSM and the left in whose eyes he is a major celebrity, i.e., a god (same thing these days). You will see them get annoyed and even impatient with their god, but truth be told, they adore him and know he will be merciful and forgive them for their disbelief--as long as he keeps throwing them fresh meat to feed their anger and resentment.

We are dealing with a bunch of narcissistic, entitled children, because that's what the political left has devolved into. I think it's important to realize from all this, that the left is scared. REALLY scared. Quoting from a psychiatrist that Byron York tapped for his column on "In Time of Victory, Why is the Left So Angry?" (an extremely good question):

I asked William Anderson, a friend who is a political conservative, a medical doctor, and a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard. "They are angry, but I think they are also scared, and I think it's because they have a sense that their triumph is a precarious one," Anderson told me. Democrats won in 2008 in some part because of the cycles of American politics; Republicans were exhausted and it was the other party's turn. Now, having won, they are unsure of how long victory will last.

"They see that they have a very small window of opportunity to do all the things they want," Anderson continued. "They see the window of opportunity as small because they know in their deepest hearts that the vast majority of the American people wouldn't go for all of the things they want to do." So they are frantic to do as much as possible before the opposition coalesces. And the tea parties might be the beginning of that coalescence.

Then there is the question of self-image. Watching Garofalo and Olbermann discuss the tea parties, it was impossible to avoid the sense that they saw themselves as two good people talking about many bad people. "One of the things about narcissism is that it looks like people who are just proud of themselves and smug, but in fact narcissism is a very brittle and unstable state," Anderson told me. "People who are deeply invested in narcissism spend an awful lot of energy trying to maintain the illusion they have of themselves as being powerful and good, and they are exquisitely sensitive to anything that might prick that balloon."[emphasis mine]

You see, these are the two sides of of this political narcissism that defines Obama and his leftist base. The grandiosity and smugness on the one hand; and, on the other, the brittleness and anxiety that comes with maintaining a false self-image.

One of the ways the left can continue to deflect that anxiety and keep their fear at bay; AND at the same time pump up their already over-inflated egos and self-righteousness is to perpetually persecute and blame Bush Administration. The left externalized blame for their own inadequacies when they weren't in power, so it is hardly likely that they'd stop now once they are in power. They remain completely inadequate and fall quite short of even the simple tasks of leadership. That's why Obama's every other utterance has to do with blaming Bush and Republicans (who certainly share some of the real blame for the fiscal mess; and ALL of the "blame" for having kept us safe for the last 8 years. Interesting, isn't it, that it is for the latter crime that they are to be severely punished?). Also, be sure to watch closely in the coming months for the Obama administration to externalize blame on another favorite scapegoat of today's left--Israel.

Bush has to be kept in the media spotlight because the left's malignant narcissism demands to be fed. By bashing Bush they can preen and strut, stroke themselves to orgasmic heights of self-congratulatory moral superiority. The safety of their country is completely irrelevant--it's all about them.

That's why the anger and rage that the left has nurtured and cultivated over the last 8 years will not go away. They need it desperately to keep their fragile, rotting narcissistic and grandiose self image--even if they have to destroy this country to do so.

Narcissism without bounds; to infinity and beyond.

AN EXAMPLE OF 'HEALTHY' VS 'UNHEALTHY' NARCISSISM

In comparing the differences in political styles that drive Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, Wretchard demonstrates beautifully the difference between healthy and unhealthy narcissism. Here is a taste, but read it all:

Sarah Palin may actually lack what it takes to be a successful president of the United States. She may not have what it takes to be a queen. But she has in abundance what Barack Obama, who styles himself a “community organizer,” notably lacks. Palin has the ability to generate leaders other than herself. That quality was in evidence in the recent campaign when she successfully encouraged others, some of whom had never been in public life before, to throw their hats in the ring and run for office. And many of them won. Writing in the National Review, Palin found satisfaction in the achievements of others. That is the key attribute of a real “community organizer,” while the supposed Alinskyite, who is actually nothing like a classic organizer, was struggling with little apparent success to get beyond his “gift”; to get beyond himself. Palin wrote:

In the coming weeks there will also be a debate about the viability of particular candidates. Anyone with the courage to throw his or her hat in the ring and stand up and be counted always has my respect. Some of them were stronger candidates than others, but they all had the courage to be “in the arena.” The second lesson of this election is one a number of the candidates had to learn to their cost: Fight back the lies immediately and consistently. Some candidates assumed that, once they received their party’s nomination, the conservative message would automatically carry the day. Unfortunately, political contests aren’t always about truth and justice. Powerful vested interests will combine to keep bad candidates in place and good candidates out of office. Once they let themselves be defined as “unfit” (decorated war hero Joe Miller) or “heartless” (pro-life, international women’s rights champion Carly Fiorina), good candidates often find it virtually impossible to get their message across. The moral of their stories: You must be prepared to fight for your right to be heard.

“Anyone with the courage to throw his or her hat in the ring and stand up and be counted always has my respect.” But that would mean rivals. It would mean peers. It might even mean, God forbid, that someone else might be greater than yourself. So you will never hear Barack Obama say anything like this, at least not in earnest. On the contrary, he demonstrated, in the last campaign, a serene willingness to sacrifice every other leader on the altar of the vision — not the modest ambitions, the secret dreams of the common herd, but the unutterable vision vouchsafed to him “through the red soil of Africa.” Sarah Palin may never be president; nor fit to be. But that is irrelevant. The real difference between the two competing visions is what question they answer to. For most Democrats the 2012 elections will be about re-electing Barack Obama. For most members of the Tea Party it will be about taking back America.

What we call narcissism is a normal part of every human being. Without narcissism, we are unable to feel good about either ourselves or other people. In the healthy adult, the excessively grandiose side of the self is tamed and harnessed to an appropriate set of ideals and values and is capable of perceiving others as separate sources of action, thought, and feeling.

A healthy self with appropriate levels of narcissism--or self love--has two fundamental and equally important parts:

(1) SELF-ESTEEM – or a sense that one has a right to life and success; ambition; a healthy exhibitionism and comfort with one’s body. This part of the self supplies the instinctual fuel for ambition and purpose; and for enjoyment of life’s activities.

Most people confuse "self-esteem" with what I have refered to as a "sense of self". It is the latter--not the former, that is so often screwed up in the angry, violent, grandiose, and generally narcissistic people in the world. If you have a healthy self", you are likely to have a healthy self-esteem--which is not the same at all as a high self-esteem.

The psychological defect that leads to so many problems is a defective or distorted sense of one's SELF. The excessive self-regard you see in a typical bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their self. It was once widely believed that low self-esteem was a cause of violence--and you see that idea reflected today in the platitudes and rationalizations of terrorism-- but in reality, violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves.

Do you really suppose that people like Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden or Kim Jong Il suffer from poor self-esteem? On the contrary. Exaggerated self-esteem is one of the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist or psychopath.

The pop-psychology that promulgates the widespread belief that it is mandatory that you always nurture a kid's self-esteem, neglects to mention that if the sense of self is already damaged, all you manage to do is to create a narcissist. Hence, we have today an entire self-estem industry that appears to be intent on creating as many narcissistic monsters as possibly by artificially inflating a child's self-worth without expecting them to actually achieve or do anything.

Of course children should be loved and cherished, but even they are smart enough to understand that when they are given an "award" for doing nothing; or when they play a team sport where everyone is proclaimed a "winner" no matter what the outcome, that something is very wrong. Rewarding them for a job well-done or being honest with them when it is not is essential feedback that helps them understand both their own capabilities and reality. Learning how to deal with failure is critical for gaining mastery over one's self and the outside world. Presenting someone a Nobel Prizes for never having done anything in the real world is somewhat delusional and likely to exaggerate their grandiosity rather than give them appropriate real world feedback. cannot, no matter how well-intentioned, make them appreciate who they really are.

We see people whose excessive self-admiration and sense of entitlement at all levels of society. It is particularly noticeable in the elites of Washington, Hollywood and Academia; many of whom alternate between acting out their narcissistically empowered superiority -- demanding to be noticed, admired and loved (by you); and playing the narcissistically empowered victim -- demanding their inalienable rights and priveleges (at your expense).

But the real victims of all the self-esteem hype are our children, because these foolish notions, without a scintilla of scientific evidence and only becaue it makes some people feel good about themselves, have become the pop psychology dogma of public policy in education.

A second important aspect of a healthy narcissism is the acquisition of:

(2) IDEALS– or, a belief in something outside the “self” that guides and gives meaning to one’s life. Having ideals make developing one’s goals in life possible. It is this part of the self that also makes healthy interpersonal relationships possible.

Excessive grandiosity is one reaction to the gross imperfection of one's parents or the key adults in one's life. A second, and equally important reaction to the imperfection of the parents are the phenomena of narcissistic awe and narcissistic idealism

Excessive narcissistic idealism--like excessive grandiosity-- is a compensatory mechanism that develops when an idealized person (such as a Parent) fails to live up to expectations (which inevitably occurs). Not able to adequately deal with this truth, the self immediately transfers its idealization to a new object of adoration. Rage at the imperfections of the idealized person is kept at bay by focusing on the new person who now receives the excessive awe or admiration withdrawn from the previous object. A healthy narcissism can only be developed if the child is able to appreciate that people do not have to be perfect, but can be "good enough" and are worthy of love despite imperfection (just as they, themselves are worthy of love despite their own imperfections).

Every therapist has had the "pleasure" of being the recipient of both Narcissistic Rage and Narcissistic Awe and this situation is referred to as “splitting”. The patient either sees you as All Good or All Bad, but never as simply a good-enough person who makes mistakes. Indeed, every parent experiences this with the adolescent child who usually come to the realization that their parents are not perfect (surprise!). The adolescent then searches to find someone who can fill that empty need. These days, their idealization (idolization) falls onto icons of the popular culture--music or sports stars. Eventually they get over these kinds of infatuations as they further mature and are able to tolerate the imperfections within themselves and others.

Narcissistic "awe" or idealsm in its extreme form can be expressed as bizarre mystical feelings; hyper-religious awe or hyper-religiosity in general; as obsessive love; as total immersion in a cult or belief system—all of these behaviors can compensate for the fear that one is forever separated from that “perfect” Other.

Remember, we are not talking about appropriate admiration for someone, but an over-idealization that essentially treats the person as a “god” rather than a typical human being with imperfections and flaws.

Unhealthy narcissists in the grip of either narcissistic rage or awe are unable to accept the reality that people can have both good and bad qualities co-existing inside them. Neither do they see other people as acting separately from their own wishes, feelings or desires.

Much of the evil that humans do to each other comes as a result of narcissistic rage and/or narcissistic idealism (and they are found often oscillating back and forth in the unhealthy narcissist). In the former case, we hear about or know individuals who manipulate, control, subjugate, hurt or kill others and they are able to do this because they do not consider other people as human or separate from their own self; or because they are so enraged and grandiose they are not capable of empathy.

We see stories of this happening all the time on the news, frequently exclaiming, "How could someone do that?" The ex-boyfriend who cannot accept that the woman has dared to withdraw her love and so must kill her (and often himself); the serial killer who does not experience others as really human. The pedophile who abuses then murders his child victim. Every petty criminal who believes implicitly that his feelings and desires are paramount and justify his behavior.

A second type of evil is more subtle, and it comes from the unhealthy idealistic narcissist. This narcissist also does not see other people as individuals; and instead sees them only as fodder for the expression of an IDEAL or as pawns for an Omnipotent Object (e.g., a dictator). People with idealizing narcissism completely reject the needs of the individual and enslave him or her to their IDEAL. Eventually, the enslavement--whether religious or secular--snuffs out human ambition, confidence, energy and self-esteem. These "do-gooders" cause considerable human misery and their ideologies can lead to genocidal practices and unbelievable atrocities on a grand scale, all in the name of the IDEAL or GOD.

Needless to say, both the development of normal self-esteem as well as the ability to have appropriate ideals and admiration for others are essential to psychological health. When one aspect develops at the expense of the other it has grave consequences--both for the individual and society.

One could say that the entire psychological process of maturation is one in which the child is able to form a cohesive sense of himself AND at the same time appreciate the separateness of Mother and Father --and by extension, all other people. When this process is achieved, true empathy and benevolence toward others is possible, as is a healthy and realistic appreciation for one's own worth and capabiities.

In Wretchard's comparison of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin we see the essentials of how all this plays out in different political personalities. As I noted earlier, there are certain professions that require a lot of narcissism to be successful--and politics is foremost among them.

So, how do you tell the difference between your ordinary run-of-th-mill politician and one whose self-aggrandizement and obliviousness to others brands him or her as a malignant, or unhealthy narcissist? Here's a clue:

"I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation. That it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone,” Mr. Obama told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in an exclusive interview set to air Sunday.
“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

Or, as Ace aptly translates:

Poor Obama, so much greatness wasted on a country whose people are too stupid to understand the arguments he's been making. Sure you showed some promise by electing him in the first place but since then, you've really let him down.

Fortunately for you, Obama's awesomeness will now enable him to spend more time explaining why he's right and you're wrong. He's a giver, even to those not worthy of his gifts.

Apparently he was so busy legislating over the last two years he only had time to appear on about 75% of TV and radio show on the schedule over the last two years. He even popped up on broadcasts like the Super Bowl. But now he's not going to be so much of a communications slacker, he's really going to get out there and make sure you understand how wrong you were to reject his huge and ineffective spending programs. Those 54 speeches he gave on health care? Not nearly enough for you rubes to understand, so get ready for more!

You think America voted for policy changes on Tuesday? You poor deluded fool. Don't worry, Obama is going to spend the next two years making sure you understand why that's wrong. He'll lift you out of the mud of ignorance you are wallowing in....after all, that's what God-Kings do.

You see, God-Kings generally don't do very well where there is freedom and democracy; and when they reach power under such circumstances, their agenda is always--always-- directed at decreasing both.

OBAMAWORLD APOSTASY & MALIGNANT NARCISSISM

Jim Gehraghty writes:

We haven’t lived in President Obama’s America for long, but already we are witnessing a strange new phenomenon: Previously apolitical figures and organizations find themselves demonized, and then forgotten, with the speed, fury, and transience of a summer thunderstorm.

For most of his tenure at CNBC, Jim Cramer was a fairly apolitical creature. First and foremost a stock-market guru, Cramer stated that he eventually split from his partnered show with NRO’s Larry Kudlow “because politics is not my inclination . . . I just really don’t care for [the topic].” But Obama’s early moves spooked the market, and Cramer — who strongly and vocally supported Obama in last year’s campaign — called out Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, lamenting the “invisible Treasury secretary” and “the most, greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president.”

Suddenly, Jim Cramer became a much bigger figure. Suddenly, he became a regular butt of jokes on The Daily Show, and host Jon Stewart ripped into Cramer during their “interview.” Suddenly, the New York Times felt compelled to spotlight Cramer’s bad stock predictions and declare, “his personal brand has taken a beating in the last month.” Media Matters felt the need to establish a new site, “Financial Media Matters.”

In recent months, the market has improved some, and Cramer has been less vocal in his criticism of Obama — and, strangely enough, he’s no longer considered so worthy of mockery by the usual suspects. The host retains his same manic, relentless, over-the-top style; but for some reason, when he stopped criticizing the president, major media voices lost interest in ridiculing him.

The latest entity to be subjected to this Two-Minute Hate is the American Medical Association (AMA).

Geraghty goes on to document how, the minute the AMA dared to criticize the President's health plans, the demonization machine of the left cranked up its operations:

But it was too late; the group’s apostasy was already a matter of public record. Suddenly, Media Matters felt the need to refute the notion that the AMA’s position might be that of America’s doctors, insisting that the group “speaks for less than one-third of doctors.” Coverage of the AMA’s announcement often implied that doctors don’t join because they disagree with the association’s stances, when in fact the trend in the profession has been for doctors to join organizations based on their medical specialty.

At the Daily Kos site, contributors argue that “the AMA is just as much a relic of a by-gone era as the little black bag.” One declared that the time has come “to ask our own doctors to stand firm against the AMA or revoke their membership with AMA due to their opposition to a strong, robust Medicare-like public option.” Another post carried the none-too-subtle headline “All Together Now: ‘Screw You, AMA!’”

By way of comparison, there was only one Kos diary that mentioned the AMA in March, and none in April; but since the recent health-care announcement, there have been 18. A switch has been flipped; the organization is now worth paying attention to and criticizing.

This is the way things are done in Obamaworld. It has always been thus, and Obama's short and unremarkable political career even prior to his amazing presidential run was characterized by the same sort of hostility and focused attention from the media toward the Magical One's opponents. Hope and Change the Chicago Way!

The lesson was clear long before Obama had the enormous power of the Executive Branch to do his dirty work. Like Islam's Mohammed, no criticism of the Democrat's messiah is permitted. To criticize the One is political apostasy and punishable by political and personal destruction.

Writing in the American Spectator in February about Obama's 'enemies list', Mark Hyman noted:

The heavy-handed actions against Obama critics and opponents that occurred before he had government institutions firmly under his control should have had public interest watchdog groups up in arms. Because so many of such groups are ideologically aligned with Obama may explain why there was not even a peep. Conservative and balanced news outlets have the disturbing habit of holding accountable liberal public interest organizations that engage in dishonest or deceptive practices that the major news organizations just so happen to overlook.

How soon and how far the Obama Administration will extend its attacks against its critics and the political opposition may become evident in the days ahead. Spared any serious scrutiny by most news outlets during his very brief career in public office, Barack Obama has displayed an exceptionally thin skin when he has come under a microscope or when he has suffered political and public relations setbacks. (read it all)

Back in October of 2008, Andy McCarthy sounded the alarm on candidate Obama's assault on the First Amendment:

I’ll be blunt: Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent.

We London conferees were fretting over speech codes, “hate speech” restrictions, “Islamophobia” provisions, and “libel tourism” — the use of less journalist-friendly defamation laws in foreign jurisdictions to eviscerate our First Amendment freedom to report, for example, on the nexus between ostensible Islamic charity and the funding of terrorist operations.

All the while, in St. Louis, local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, were threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was “false.”

The chill wind was bracing. The Taliban could not better rig matters. The Prophet of Change is only to be admired, not questioned.

To the extent that a person's behavior is mostly motivated by perceived insults to their self--i.e., their narcissistic core; then the "insult" will usually prompt a typical display of narcissistic rage directed toward the unfortunate individual who threatens them.

Such rage responses are invariably destructive, mean, and petty. Additionally, these rages are generally not beneficial to society-at-large (in fact, such actions often have strong sociopathic or antisocial elements to them) , although the person in the throes of narcissistic rage will often convince themselves that they are behaving perfectly appropriately and even for "the good" of others. They "stand above the fray", making it clear to all that their behavior is because they are superior beings. Typically, they get their goons to do the dirty work of silencing their critics.

This fantasy of sublime superiority is the origin of "sociopathic selfishness and "sociopathic selflessness" I have discussed elsewhere; and it is the pathology of all tyrants and dictators.

Far too often, narcissistically flawed individuals are hopelessly attracted by the grandiose opportunities of the political arena (as well as the Hollywood arena) like moths to a flame. Their sense of self is starkly invested in the desire for power over others (always, of course, "for their own good") , constant admiration and adulation and grandiose ambitions. This makes them remarkably adept at the politics of personal destruction--particularly when you are a devoted fan of the teachings of a radical organizer whose philosophy demanded that you: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

For the narcissist it is always a zero-sum game he or she plays with other individuals. From the perspective of the narcissist, if someone else "wins", the narcissist "loses". It cannot be otherwise, since on some level they know that their own talent and skills are way overblown. Hence, they cannot hope to "win" based on those talents alone. Thus, the behavior of the classic narcissist is mostly directed toward making others lose so they can win by default. To that end, there is no behavior or tactic that is considered out -of-bounds or over-the-top.

The state of political discourse in this country was bad enough, with the ubiquitous personal attacks that have become the trademark of all political campaigns; but Barack Obama has taken this to a higher plane of being-- and destroying.

Politics still occasionally brings out those who have strong personal integrity and values; but it is the people of no integrity and no values who are obsessively attracted to the field and are triumphant--and that is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

By that, I mean that those who would actually make the best leaders generally opt out of the process, because they tend to be too healthy to generate the continual rage necessary to destroy all opponents; or they lack the required-- and mostly distorted --sense of personal "perfection" and grandiosity that drives the power-hungry.

I am frequently reminded that it is hopelessly naive these days to expect the electorate to vote for a person based on what that person actually stands for; or even based on the character (we don't need no stinkin' character in our politicians); instead, these days most people respond to the negative campaign ads that slice and dice the other guy; and are mainly influenced by botoxed faces and Hollywood-packaged good-looks rather than the content of any candidate's character. The less they know of that character, the better!

And, despite all efforts to hide the truth about Obama's weak and unprincipled character, there was still plenty of information available to be able to see that the emperor messiah had no clothes.

Real personal integrity and character comes from having a consistent set of values and exhibiting behavior driven by those values. Today's classic narcissistically-driven politicians like both Hillary and Bill can only flutter in the political winds, and zelig-like easily take on whatever characteristics their public care to project onto them.

This is not the kind of person who can face real threats in the real world very effectively because this is not the kind of person who can effectively deal with threats they do not perceive as personal--why should they care much about any other kind, unless the polls indicate they should?.

Hillary Clinton, for example, did not get where she is today by being a person of integrity, honesty and courage--she got there by riding on the coattails of her charismatic husband; and by shrewdly altering her opinions to accommodate the prevailing political winds. And, oh yes, by ruthlessly destroying whoever got in her way. And even her base is able to recognize this about her, although she is extremely careful never to dirty her own hands. Like the Hamas and Hezbollah gunmen who shield themselves with innocent women and children, Hillary and her spouse have always had a ready supply of useful fall-guys (recall Vince Foster's suicide or Sandy Berger's recent archival exploits, for example) to take responsibility for their misdeeds.

In fact, the Clinton's narcissism became way to overexposed and obvious. In reality, they paved the way for a candidate like Obama, who initially was so attractive because the same leftists who once adored Hillary began to find her to be too obvious and coarse. Instead, they dropped her and swung over to the unknown, tabula rasa candidate on whom they are able to project their own fantasies without any intrusion by harsh reality.

The antics of the Clintons during their run in power seem almost benign and innocent by comparison.

We have a real demagogue in office now.

The best leaders are not obsessed with themselves; with polls; or with accumulating power by pandering to all sides. Those leaders may, in truth, have many other personal flaws--but not particularly of the dangerously malignant narcissistic variety. Whatever those flaws (and we all possess them), they are characterologically able to be more concerned about dealing with external reality; rather than in preserving a distorted and fragile internal one. Avenging petty slights and insults is not a high priority to a psychologically healthy person. Those healthy individuals are far more likely to direct their psychological energy toward dealing with real-world geopolitical threats that endanger both their country and the people they have the responsibility to protect; rather than using that country or the power of their office to counter threats to their endangered self and act on their grandiose fantasies about themselves.

The latter is the same psychological pathology that is rampant among dictators and dictator wannabes of all stripes. Their concern about others in their group/nation is purely of the “l’état c’est moi” variety. Look at Saddam's behavioral legacy. Observe the recent behaviors of Ahmadinejad or Chavez or Kim Jong Il -- or any of the other despots and thugs that somehow claw their way up to the top of the food chain in their respective countries.

That the needs of the nation, or the people they serve, might be different from their own; or that doing the right thing is often different from doing the popular thing, are foreign and dangerous concepts. The only reality they know--or care about--is the one inside themselves.

Welcome to Obamaworld.

DARK CAVES OF THE MIND

The economy obviously matters a lot; and for some people, it's all that matters with regard to the upcoming election. But, in my humble opinion, the BIG PICTURE, even more important than the economy, is the world crisis whose focal point is in the Middle East. This is the crisis that must be solved--philosophically, ideologically, and politically--because, in the long run, it is critical for the survival of western values; for the survival of America and for our children.

Yes, there are two basic economic philosophies to choose from in the Presidential race: the free market and economic liberty vs the stagnant policies of socialism, symbolized (however inadequately) by Mitt Romney and Barack Obama respectively.

But the key battle in this fight is the one that is being fought between Western values (with the concept of America as the beacon for human liberty) and Islam, the latest historical iteration of the anti-freedom, soul-killing, anti-human evil that has plagued the world since the beginning of time.

I got into blogging in the first place because of 9/11. That horrific act of Islamic fanaticism is what drove me into political activism, and changed my life forever. I will not forget it, nor can I; particularly when 11 years down the road we are still in grave danger of losing the philosophical and military battle to the jihadists.

Osama bin Laden may be dead, but Al Qaeda is alive and kicking--and so is Iran; and so is the Muslim Brotherhood; and so is Hezbollah, and so is a thousand other off-shoots of Islam's murderous and soul-crushing ideolgy around the globe.

On 9/11/12 the United States was attacked once again by religious fanatics who submit to Allah, the bloodthirsty and vile god of a medieval and backward religion determined to take over the planet. The highest vision of humanity embraced by the adherents of this religion is to take all humans back to the cave and let loose the savagery that humanity is quite capable of exhibiting, were it not for the God of Abraham and the rise of civilization. If we refuse to enter the dark caves of the mind that Islam has prepared for us, they intend to kill us all.

For me, the absolute worse aspect of the Obama Administration has been its conduct of foreign policy and its submission to evil. Obama and his minions have definitely "re-set" the button all right, and practically ensured American decline and irrelevance to the major events that will determine the future of the world.

It seems to me that our position could not be much worse off than it is now--except that I keep finding out new and improved ways this pathetic Administration seeks to make America weak.

It is said that you should never attribute to malevolence what can be attributed to incompetence, but it is hard to see mere incompetence in the way Obama and his faithful leftist base have conducted international policy over the last 4 years. Indeed, there is a obvious malevolence in Obama's consistent disdain for American values and exceptionalism; in his outright hatred of Israel; in his submission to Islamic thugs; and in his indifference to American interests and exertion of military strength.

Obama, and to some extent Bush before him, have strangled our military might in the name of the gods of multiculturalism and political correctness. It seems impossible under multicultural rules of engagement to ever win a war again; and thus, the battle is ensured to continue indefinitely; slowly with the minimal level of attrition necessary to keep it out of the public awareness. Islam has a name for this strategy. It is called hudna, and it is why Iran will get nuclear weapons; why the West will be overrun with Sharia, and why freedom and the U.S. are in decline.

Both the incompetence and the malevolence come as a direct effects of Obama's overweening narcissism, which has been fed and nurtured at every turn by his adoring sycophants in the media and intellectual community of the left. If Obama were half as smart as everyone there thinks he is, we'd all be a lot better off. But sadly, he is not even half as smart as he believes he is.

And if you want to see what I mean by his overweening narcissism, then consider that not only does the Executive Branch now encourage people to break laws that the branch is supposed to enforce; but the Administration is now trying to cover up the extent Iranian influence among jihadi groups in North Africa so as not to undermine what Obama considers his major foreign policy coup: the killing of bin Laden.

The administration, in particular, wants to keep hidden solid intelligence showing that the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans is now flourishing under the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Egypt was among the locations of Obama’s 2009 so-called “apology” tour, when the president criticized past U.S. policies based on what he said was “fear and anger” that prompted actions “contrary to our ideals.” He also promised “a new beginning” for the U.S. and the world’s Muslims and a radical shift in U.S. policy.

In other words Obama in his vanity handed over America’s one of America’s most important allies in the Middle East to its most deadly enemies. Osama is dead! Al-Qaeda is very much alive.

Gertz’s reports do not yet rise to the level of highly probable fact. But they do rise to the level of “let’s look under this rock”. If even half of what Gertz suggests is true — and in his defense I anticipated most of it — then the Obama administration has been either been out to lunch or in cahoots.

Wretchard then asks and gives a plausible answer to a very pertinent question:

Why send half a billion dollars to the enemy? Well the other idea I had right after the embassy attacks was in a post called Precursor....
In other words is this is part of a combination of punches? If so the haymaker is still to come, just like Sept 11, 2001. What is the haymaker? And if the administration doesn’t want to see it coming because it will damage the precious re-election bid of the President then how can we dodge it?

I think the payoff to the MB is in the hope that we can purchase peace. Or delay things until after the November elections. Personally, I’m not sure that’s going to work and even worse if it does. In fact it may turn out to be just like Fast and Furious. We may wind up shot up by our own guns.

We ARE being shot by our own guns, for what is this bizarre tolerance and submission the political left and its postmodern ideology impose on America, even when dealing with evil?
--We are to abandon free speech because it might hurt the feelings of Muslims
--We are to ignore the persecution of other religions because it is Islam that is persecuting them
--We are to ignore the subjugation and humiliation of women under Islam because multicultural dogma dictates that it is OK as long as Islam does it
--We are to ignore the religious motivations of terrorists because we want to be seen as tolerant and inclusive of Islam

And on and on and on.

We have seen this bizarro attitude play out in the microcosm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ask yourself how it has worked out for the Israelis, the only free country int he Middle East that shares Western values.

Year after year, Israel has attempted to bargain with the irrational and rage-filled jihadists who have NEVER sought peace at all (as evidenced by 60+ years of history); and who are always willing to bargain for new treaties and agreements, even as they break the old ones. They have never been reticent about their primary goal: the elimination of the Jewish people and the incorporation of the small Jewish state into the caliphate.

Yes, we will send Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood half a billion dollars for peace. But we will not get any return on our money, and I think Obama knows this. If we have ever had a President who understands the Islamic mind, it is this one who actually WAS a Muslim growing up (NOTE: I don't discout the possibility that Obama still harbors Islam's fundamental worldview for all his talk of "finding Jesus" in the sermons of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who "finds" Jesus through a race-baiter and malignantly charismatic preacher like Reverend Wright is just as likely to be worshipping any false prophet that might come along).

All this leads up to why America should elect Romney. Wretchard put it best in a long comment he makes on one of his posts:

What of the rest of the world? By simply governing competently a ‘President Romney’ could set the stage for new American century and in the process, save the world from catastrophe and midwife a resurgence.

The world is now in the throes of a crisis. Without a center there is a real danger that it will collapse into conflict and chaos instead of overcoming it. For you need a center in which to preserve what is precious and from that vantage to rebuild.

And where could that center be? Not the Middle East, which will be convulsed with upheaval, demographic crisis and a collapsing economy. Israel will be lucky to survive in a purely defensive mode in that soup

It will not be Europe. It’s southern half threatens to collapse and the trouble will spread north. Europe will survive and in the long term it will be renewed but only if it is not completely burned out by the storm from the southeast. Much that is valuable is in the old continent that must not be lost. Europe is at the bottom of its historical cycle. One day it will re-emerge in greatness. For now it is helpless.

Russia cannot hold things together. It’s power potential is too diminished. Nor can China, itself about to be overtaken by events. Japan, India and Australia by themselves are too weak. By themselves they can have no decisive influence on events.

That leaves North America as the hinge of fate. Properly run it could provide the anchor around which the world will eventually recover. But only if it is properly run. The real danger posed by the Obama administration is that it threatened to destroy the “last best place on earth” and leave the world with no unburned core from which to regenerate.

He was going to screw the pooch, fritter away the last reserve; cast it aside simply because he did not know the value of anything. It could have been so different for him.

This was Obama’s historical opportunity to seize. He could have been the greatest American President of the last 150 years if he had only been big enough to see his chance. All he had to do was govern halfway decently and the natural advantages of North America would accrue.

But he grabbed at baubles, speeches and glitter and his moment passed him by. He canceled pipelines. Blockaded energy development. Sank the economy in debt. Put an American Army in a dusty, landlocked place. He wrapped everything in red tape. He was too small a man for the ball history pitched at him.

I do not think Romney has that sense of potential destiny, but he will fulfill it simply by being halfway competent. He’ll do it simply by showing up and fielding things as they come. He’ll hit the ball, even if only a single because he knows what the game is.

Romney’s challenge is threefold. To throw off the chains which shackle the US economy; to keep the nation together after it emerges divided from a traumatic 2012 presidential contest; and lastly to use American power to keep the world from completely shaking itself apart. There is not enough power to quell every disturbance. But properly used there is enough American power to preserve the core functions of the world.

Romney will see this because he can’t help but see it. He’ll do the uninspired but the logical thing in response to it. And that’s all you need to do. That’s all Obama needed to do. How he missed doing it will puzzle historians in future decades. But the obvious is not always obvious in contemporaneous time.

Not only is the future of America at stake in this election, but the future of the world. The choice for me is clear: A bright, shining city of freedom and prosperity on the hill which will stand as a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world; or, the dark caves of Islam, within which, the human mind will forever be chained.

UPDATE: It's about leadership.

THE "GROUP HUG" THEORY OF DIPLOMACY

The increasingly infantile foreign policy of the US should be a growing matter of concern to most Americans. Anne Bayefsky writes:

Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of “post-racial” scapegoating will pale by comparison.

After all, who among us is not for world peace?

Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. The president didn’t just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2 at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: “The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.”

...The linguistic formula, which Obama’s confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states. It is a familiar recipe for stonewalling efforts to prevent Iran or other Muslim and Arab states from acquiring nuclear weapons until Israel is disarmed or Israel’s (unofficial) nuclear capacity is exposed and neutralized. It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America’s defenses.

Second, Obama’s agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council’s plate — those that name Iran and North Korea. This stretches his “beer summit” technique to the global scale. Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract. The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: “Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

You have to read the entire piece to understand the incredible naivete and childish grandiosity of Obama's insane power ploy. Does he actually believe that the force of his personality can charm North Korea or Iran into making nice? Is this man a certifiable lunatic?

As lunatics go, Obama is even crazier than most--and more dangerous. He is, in effect, gambling away our national security in the hopes of being able to trade the mere Presidency of the US into a chance to become King of the Universe--or at least the next UN Secretary General. Obama clearly only sees his current (undeserved) position as just a stepping stone to planetary godhood. His narcissism is breathtaking--and we are all going to suffer for it.

Bayefsky concludes:

Far from bolstering his flagging image, the president’s group-hug theory of diplomacy deserves the disdain of anyone who can separate rhetoric from reality

.

Relevant to this discussion is a comment that Mark Steyn made in passing about Obama's nuclear naivete:

It's not just embarassing to hear the so-called "leader of the free world" talking like a 14-year old who's been up in his room listening to "Imagine" for too long. I fear this presidency has the makings of global tragedy.

We are headed for a global tragedy because the "group-hug" theory of diplomacy is therapeutic psychobabble elevated to serious political discourse by the children of postmodern nihilism and their narcissistic self-indulgence.

Addendum: I wonder which postmodern messiah will win the "Demagogue of the Decade" award? It's a toss-up for sure.



VS

NARCISSISM IN THE NATIVE RAW...

...and speaking of that phenomenon as I was in the previous post; here is the ever grandiose James Wolcott opining on matters psychological (and the lefties get on MY case about making psychological pronouncements--at least I've got some training in the field) about the reason some conservatives don't like (ok, really really hate) John McCain:

And despite his CPAC speech, it's unlikely that McCain is going to be able to win over the dead-enders in his own party. Pop into the comments sections of some of the more conservative blogs (be sure to get your vaccination shots first though before delving into such fetid waters), and you'll find a sporadic but persistent barrage of references to "John McLame" "John McAmnesty" "John McPain" and similar Algonquin Roundtable witticisms. They're quite happy to cut off their noses to spite their faces because spite is what they live for and on. As for the rightwing talk radio tea-kettle whistles, most of them aren't going to be modulating their tone or changing their tune anytime soon. They have too much invested in their own self-righteous posturing to get with the program now. I haven't listened to much rightwing talk radio in recent years and what struck me from monitoring Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and such on Sirius' Patriot channel is that their animosity toward McCain is topped only by their own grandiosity. The sort of hacky quacks whose psychotherapeutic blogs appear at Pajamas Media are always drivelling on about liberal Democrats being afflicted with toxic narcissism (this sort of slop), but you don't know what narcissism in the native raw until you've heard Sean Hannity and Mark Levin crow about their unwavering conservative principles and the record of ringing pronouncements they've made and will continue to make as long as the love of Ronald Wilson Reagan beats in their hearts and now we have a call from Connecticut, Mike calling from the car phone, Mike you're on the air--well, we seem to have lost Mike...

Even though Levin, classy gent that he is, refers "Hillary Rotten Clinton, Her Thighness," I wonder if he and his litter mates are going to be able to mount the hate-on against her than everyone anticipates. Yes, they hate Hillary, yawn, but they've hated her for so long that they already sound hoarse and their insults tired. As for sliming Obama, yes, I've heard the "Barry Hussein" and "Osama Obama" cracks too, but it'll be harder for them to go outright racist on him because that's truly the no-go zone in talk radio now. Just ask Don Imus, who had his cowboy hat handed to him over the "nappy ho's" slur and now sounds like warm mush whenever the conversation tilts toward skin color. He refers to Hillary as "Satan," but it sounds less like a bladed insult and more like shtick he's too lazy to update.[emphasis mine]

The "slop" that Wolcott references and which stimulated his annoyance is a post by Siggy (another professional in the field) who dares to discuss the fundamental toxic victim mentality and pathological narcissism that defines the today's left as a movement; and Wolcott makes a rather typical sort of mistake when he talks about the idea of "narcissism in the native raw".

Like many laypersons, Wolcott assume that narcissism is always a bad thing.

It isn't.

In fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly, narcissism--when there is a optimal synthesis of both the grandiose elements and the idealistic elements-- is an absolutely essential ingredient for a healthy, functional personality. For healthy narcissism, the essential task of the individual is to combine the grandiose side of the personality-- which is responsible for developing individual ambition and the energy to pursue happiness, as well as a feeling that one has a fundamental right to that life and happiness; with the idealistic side--which provides the ability to to develop values and ideals (see here for a full discussion). An excess of either side leads to dysfunctional, self-serving and often toxic behavior.

By definition, all ambitions, values and ideals are necessarily narcissistically invested. How could it be otherwise? These are the factors that define us as individuals.

The classic pathological narcissist cannot imagine anyone acting from 'unwavering' principles, because to them ideals and values only exist to service the grandiose self and can be adjusted as necessary for the whim of the moment. In other words, such 'narcissists in the raw' are developmentally stuck, and frequently flip-flop between malignant grandiosity and the idealism and values du jour that are felt to service that grandiosity.

Certainly radio personalities, as well as celebrities in general (like most politicians) have an abundance of narcissism. Whether that narcissism is of the pathological type or whether it springs from a healthy synthesis (see here and here) of the two parallel developmental tracks of narcissism can only be assessed by their behavior and the consequences of that behavior. If Wolcott really wants to understand the "drivel" we psychological professionals put out on this topic, he should consider the devastation and innumerable deaths brought about by all those wonderful leftist utopian ideologies of the 20th century. Now there was pathological narcissism in the native raw on a grand scale, the kind the political left can get behind.

At least when Sean Hannity 'cuts off his nose to spite his face' or acts out of spite, his behavior is personal and it has a limited impact. When it comes to that kind of localized behavior high honors must be shared by members of both political parties.

Nevertheless, if Sean Hannity and others want to go down with their conservative principles completely inviolate and not vote for McCain-- that is their choice. I can appreciate and even honor such a principled choice. By the same token, it is also Nancy Pelosi's choice to call Iraq a failure and insist despite all the evidence that the surge is not working.

What 'prinicple' is Pelosi adhering to with unwavering determination? Ask yourself how it benefits Sean Hannity to be correct about McCain not being a true conservative and unworthy of support; versus how it benefits Nancy Pelosi that her country admit defeat and failure at the hands of a terrorist group. In the former case, if Hannity is correct, the Republicans and even Hannity lose. In the latter scenario, America loses but Pelosi and the Democrats win big---really big.

Placing your bets on your country losing a war so that you can win an election is the gamble the entire left has wagered. Contrast Pelosi's stance with McCain's statement that he'd rather 'lose a campaign than lose a war'. Which of the two has a serious narcissistic defect going for them and sees their own needs as first and foremost?

I happen to think Hannity's decision is a bad choice because in politics the 'perfect' is often the enemy of the 'good' and because of the nature of the beast, we voters (who each struggle with their own narcissistic conflicts) are often faced with the option of only voting for the least obnoxious candidate. Yet, Hannity is capable of being convinced to support McCain (I heard him say so last night). Is Pelosi capable of supporting America in a war if a Republican is in the White House? Don't bet on it.

What's really laughable to me is that the leftist pundits can't even figure out what kind of behavioral pathology is going on here: some are moaniing about how the conservatives will "march in ideological lockstep" with party leaders no matter what; while others --like Wolcott-- insist that those same conservatives are too narcissistically invested in 'posturing' about their 'unwavering conservative principles' to vote for the likes of John McCain.

Their confusion can be understood by looking at an example of the 'unwavering principles' of the left found in this story , which shows how the feckless antiwar, antimilitary types who 'speak truth to power' and posture with grandiose flair--can only stick to their principles when it doesn't have any personal consequences for them.

And speaking of "marching in ideological lockstep"--could there be a finer example of goosestepping than the expectation that all blacks or women must be Democrats support Democrat policies--otherwise they are by definition 'traitors' to their gender or race? Isn't the whole 'identity politics' thing a mandate to conform to your group or race or tribe in order to maintain ideological purity?

In point of fact, both of these positions that are attributed to conservatives are actually psychological projections on the left's part, because they represent the only possible positions their rigid dialectical and propagandized brains can imagine. Due to the narcissistic defect that the entire movement suffers from, they are all more or less stuck on either the grandiose or the idealistic narcissistic pole without the ability to synthesize the two extremes of the dialectic. Thus they vascillate between the cold grandiosity inherent in believing they know what's best for all of us; and the utopian idealism that leads them to impose --by force if necessary--those beliefs on everyone else.

Undoubtedly some of those who hate McCain with a passion are motivated by raw narcissism--as are some of those who support him, I would imagine. But that there might be principled opposition on the part of conservatives to John McCain, well 'that sort of slop' is a concept that is beyond the likes of Wolcott and the rest of the wildly unprincipled and intellectually bankrupt political left.

FAINT HEART AND NARCISSISTIC PSYCHE

Charles Krauthammer nails it about our [non]Commander-in-Chief and the new revelations that have come out in Bob Woodward's new book:

What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn't have his heart in it. One who doesn't really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture. One who thinks he has to be seen as trying but is preparing the ground -- meaning, the political cover -- for failure....

Until now, the above was just inference from the president's public rhetoric. No longer. Now we have the private quotes. Bob Woodward's new book, drawing on classified memos and interviews with scores of national security officials, has Obama telling his advisers: "I want an exit strategy." He tells the country publicly that Afghanistan is a "vital national interest," but he tells his generals that he will not do the kind of patient institution-building that is the very essence of the counterinsurgency strategy that Gens. Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus crafted and that he -- Obama -- adopted.

Moreover, he must find an exit because "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party." This admission is the most crushing of all.

First, isn't this the party that in two consecutive presidential campaigns -- John Kerry's and then Obama's -- argued vociferously that Afghanistan is the good war, the right war, the war of necessity, the central front in the war on terror? Now, after acceding to power and being given charge of that very war, Obama confides that he must retreat, lest that very same party abandon him. What happened in the interim? Did it suddenly develop a faint heart? Or was the party disingenuous about the Afghan war all along, using it as a convenient club with which to attack George W. Bush over Iraq, while protecting Democrats from the charge of being reflexively antiwar?

Whatever the reason, is it not Obama's job as president and party leader to bring the party with him? This is the man who made Berlin coo, America swoon and the Nobel committee lose its mind. Yet he cannot get his own party to follow him on what he insists is a matter of vital national interest?

The hopeychangey economic policies of this president are bad enough and are continuing to cripple the American economy; but what is truly frightening about this faint-hearted president is his foreign policy which consistently denigrates America and American values; elevates those countries and groups who are eager to destroy or humiliate this country; and which places Americans at risk at home and abroad.

Frankly, Obama has never figured out his job as President and possibly never will. He never intended to represent American interests; just his own ideological fantasies and his own narcissism which seems endless. It's not that his heart is faint when it comes to standing up for the US, it's that it need all out CPR--not just a "little break."

Victor Davis Hanson once stated in an essay titled "Why Study War" (in City Journal):

Indeed, by ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking—as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, frustrated by the Bush administration’s intransigence in the War on Terror, flew to Syria, hoping to persuade President Assad to stop funding terror in the Middle East. She assumed that Assad’s belligerence resulted from our aloofness and arrogance rather than from his dictatorship’s interest in destroying democracy in Lebanon and Iraq, before such contagious freedom might in fact destroy him. For a therapeutically inclined generation raised on Oprah and Dr. Phil—and not on the letters of William Tecumseh Sherman and William Shirer’s Berlin Diary—problems between states, like those in our personal lives, should be argued about by equally civilized and peaceful rivals, and so solved without resorting to violence.

Yet it’s hard to find many wars that result from miscommunication. Far more often they break out because of malevolent intent and the absence of deterrence. Margaret Atwood also wrote in her poem: “Wars happen because the ones who start them / think they can win.” Hitler did; so did Mussolini and Tojo—and their assumptions were logical, given the relative disarmament of the Western democracies at the time. Bin Laden attacked on September 11 not because there was a dearth of American diplomats willing to dialogue with him in the Hindu Kush. Instead, he recognized that a series of Islamic terrorist assaults against U.S. interests over two decades had met with no meaningful reprisals, and concluded that decadent Westerners would never fight, whatever the provocation—or that, if we did, we would withdraw as we had from Mogadishu.

And yet the political left and it's operational arm, the Democratic Party (including Speaker Pelosi, Secretary of State Clinton, and President Obama--especially President Obama) have fundamentally accepted and overly rely on this idea that miscommunication is the root cause of all disagreements.

It is this idea that is behind much of the diplomatic insanity (i.e., lunatic appeasement) that runs through the Obama's foreign policy initiatives. It is an almost shocking degree of naivete about people. In fact, it is also shockingly self-centered (i.e., narcissistic) because it assumes that your behavior is the primary determinant of other people's and that other people do not have thoughts, feelings, or motivations separate from or distinct from one's self.

Krauthammer concludes:

"He is out of Afghanistan psychologically," says Woodward of Obama. Well, he may be out, but the soldiers he ordered to Afghanistan are in.

Some will not come home.

Obama's faint heart and narcissistic psyche could get us all killed.

UPDATE: Figure out which side in the following exchange is having a misunderstanding in communication:


[Political cartoons by Chuck Asay can be found here]

A MODERN DAY ELMER GANTRY

The Messiah speaks:

Repeatedly invoking the Bible, President Obama yesterday told religious leaders that health-care critics are "bearing false witness" against his plan.

The fire-and-brimstone president declared holy war in a telephone call with thousands of religious leaders around the country as he sought to breathe life into his plan for a system overhaul.

Without naming anyone specifically in the 10-minute conference call, Obama said opponents had been spreading lies.

"I know that there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness," Obama said.

"I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth."

He said the reforms aim to carry out one of God's commandments.

"I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper," Obama said.

He called health reform a "core ethical and moral obligation."

Victor Davis Hanson notes:

This contrived use of religiosity (e.g., “There are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness.”) has a Reverend Wright flavor of mixing politics and religion in cynical fashion to bolster Obama's fides as an authentic moral figure. And isn't the use of religion as a political tool precisely what Obama and others have objected to in the Christian Right?

...I think we are seeing a sort of presidential meltdown. As Obama's polls free-fall, and threaten wider political damage, it causes him a certain novel exasperation that for the first time in his life soaring hope-and-change rhetoric for some strange reason no longer substitutes for a detailed, logical, and honest agenda. The problem right now is not with un-Christian opponents, but dozens of congressional Democrats who simply do not wish to run on state-run medical care (as well as higher taxes, larger deficits, cap-and-trade, etc.), and no longer sense the president's popularity trumps the unpopularity of his agenda and gives them cover with the voters.

This false messiah is a modern day Elmer Gantry , with the same creepy charisma, malignant narcissism, and power-hungry instincts.

Personally, I find it a rather unique experience as a psychiatrist to observe Obama "on his way" to solidifying his divine moral credentials and his heavenly right to rule over us mere mortals.



UPDATE: OK, to be fair, Obama is not (as far as I know) a womanizer like Gantry was. But he shares the same seductive and narcissistic qualities that made Lewis' Gantry the ultimate religious hypocrite.

UPDATE II: Government as religion.

CONNED

It is simply unbelievable--and rather frightening-- that this sort of thing could be happening in America. I wonder if the people of this country are beginning to understand the repulsive totalitarian character of the person they have elected President?

The following is from a previous post on "Obamaworld Apostasy and Malignant Narcissism" :
This is the way things are done in Obamaworld. It has always been thus, and Obama's short and unremarkable political career even prior to his amazing presidential run was characterized by the same sort of hostility and focused attention from the media toward the Magical One's opponents. Hope and Change the Chicago Way!

The lesson was clear long before Obama had the enormous power of the Executive Branch to do his dirty work. Like Islam's Mohammed, no criticism of the Democrat's messiah is permitted. To criticize the One is political apostasy and punishable by political and personal destruction.

Writing in the American Spectator in February about Obama's 'enemies list', Mark Hyman noted:

The heavy-handed actions against Obama critics and opponents that occurred before he had government institutions firmly under his control should have had public interest watchdog groups up in arms. Because so many of such groups are ideologically aligned with Obama may explain why there was not even a peep. Conservative and balanced news outlets have the disturbing habit of holding accountable liberal public interest organizations that engage in dishonest or deceptive practices that the major news organizations just so happen to overlook.

How soon and how far the Obama Administration will extend its attacks against its critics and the political opposition may become evident in the days ahead. Spared any serious scrutiny by most news outlets during his very brief career in public office, Barack Obama has displayed an exceptionally thin skin when he has come under a microscope or when he has suffered political and public relations setbacks. (read it all)

Back in October of 2008, Andy McCarthy sounded the alarm on candidate Obama's assault on the First Amendment:

I’ll be blunt: Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent.....

To the extent that a person's behavior is mostly motivated by perceived insults to their self--i.e., their narcissistic core; then the "insult" will usually prompt a typical display of narcissistic rage directed toward the unfortunate individual who threatens them.

Such rage responses are invariably destructive, mean, and petty. Additionally, these rages are generally not beneficial to society-at-large (in fact, such actions often have strong sociopathic or antisocial elements to them) , although the person in the throes of narcissistic rage will often convince themselves that they are behaving perfectly appropriately and even for "the good" of others. They "stand above the fray", making it clear to all that their behavior is because they are superior beings. Typically, they get their goons to do the dirty work of silencing their critics.

This fantasy of sublime superiority is the origin of "sociopathic selfishness and "sociopathic selflessness" I have discussed elsewhere; and it is the pathology of all tyrants and dictators.

Far too often, narcissistically flawed individuals are hopelessly attracted by the grandiose opportunities of the political arena (as well as the Hollywood arena) like moths to a flame. Their sense of self is starkly invested in the desire for power over others (always, of course, "for their own good") , constant admiration and adulation and grandiose ambitions. This makes them remarkably adept at the politics of personal destruction--particularly when you are a devoted fan of the teachings of a radical organizer whose philosophy demanded that you: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

For the narcissist it is always a zero-sum game he or she plays with other individuals. From the perspective of the narcissist, if someone else "wins", the narcissist "loses". It cannot be otherwise, since on some level they know that their own talent and skills are way overblown. Hence, they cannot hope to "win" based on those talents alone. Thus, the behavior of the classic narcissist is mostly directed toward making others lose so they can win by default. To that end, there is no behavior or tactic that is considered out -of-bounds or over-the-top.

The state of political discourse in this country was bad enough, with the ubiquitous personal attacks that have become the trademark of all political campaigns; but Barack Obama has taken this to a higher plane of being-- and destroying.

Politics still occasionally brings out those who have strong personal integrity and values; but it is the people of no integrity and no values who are obsessively attracted to the field and are triumphant--and that is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

By that, I mean that those who would actually make the best leaders generally opt out of the process, because they tend to be too healthy to generate the continual rage necessary to destroy all opponents; or they lack the required-- and mostly distorted --sense of personal "perfection" and grandiosity that drives the power-hungry.

I am frequently reminded that it is hopelessly naive these days to expect the electorate to vote for a person based on what that person actually stands for; or even based on the character (we don't need no stinkin' character in our politicians); instead, these days most people respond to the negative campaign ads that slice and dice the other guy; and are mainly influenced by botoxed faces and Hollywood-packaged good-looks rather than the content of any candidate's character. The less they know of that character, the better!

And, despite all efforts to hide the truth about Obama's weak and unprincipled character, there was still plenty of information available to be able to see that the emperor messiah had no clothes.

Real personal integrity and character comes from having a consistent set of values and exhibiting behavior driven by those values. Today's classic narcissistically-driven politicians like both Hillary and Bill can only flutter in the political winds, and zelig-like easily take on whatever characteristics their public care to project onto them.

This is not the kind of person who can face real threats in the real world very effectively because this is not the kind of person who can effectively deal with threats they do not perceive as personal--why should they care much about any other kind, unless the polls indicate they should?.

Kudos to the other networks who united with Fox on this issue and caused the Administration to back down (this time, at least); and who perhaps are starting to realize the real nature of the idol they have been worshiping. They are partly responsible for creating and loosing this monster on a mostly unsuspecting and rhetorically awed population; and perhaps they have an inkling that if can happen to Fox, then it can happen to any one of them at Obama's whim....

No matter how you look at the situation, though, we are all of us waking up to the reality that we have been conned by a master and seduced by smiling face and pretty words.

THE POLITICAL LEFT AND THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF NARCISSISM -- Part III

Since Part II was posted, we have witnessed yet another example of the shamelessness of the progressive left. Instapundit has the roundup:

YA THINK? Peter Ingemi: Too Many Coincidences In Weiner’s Tale.
Related: Is America Ready for ‘WeinerGate’?

UPDATE: Weiner’s office refuses to say if lewd photo is of congressman. No police investigation underway. Meanwhile the press is covering for him like it did for John Edwards, and Mickey Kaus is mocking them for it.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More on Weiner from Kaus. Alibi one has collapsed already.

MORE: Bryan Preston: How Long Before Weiner Blames, Fires A Staffer?

So now Weiner has lawyered up (why does the victim lawyer up? Because he’s not the victim!), dodged specific fact-based questions about the photo and whether he has contacted Cordova (because the facts aren’t in his favor for one reason or another), and is calling the tweet a “prank.” From “hacked” to “prank” is a major, but strategically useful, climb down.

The next step is to find a staffer to blame the “prank” on, which will be a staffer who had some access to his social networking accounts. Deputy communications director, something like that. Weiner finds a way to compensate the staffer for taking the fall (promises to find them another job outside DC or his district), lets them take the fall, and attempts to move on. And the media, which can’t even get the basic facts in this whole thing straight after several of us blogger types have helpfully published detailed timelines for them, will do their best to let him move on.

It’s interesting to compare the press treatment of this issue to, say, the Mark Foley affair."

Indeed, the entire affair is a perfect example of the utter shamelessness of yet another member of the elite progressive ruling class. Of course, Weiner might be completely innocent, but his behavior indicates otherwise and it will be interesting to see how this affair unfolds. I predict it will go on and on and on without Weiner taking any responsibility or experiencing any shame or guilt--much like the John Edwards fiasco. You can count on Weiner to continue to portray himself as a poor, helpless victim, and not doing the things he needs to do to actually prove his innocence (e.g., call in the authorities).

Meanwhile, Ann Althouse notes the difference in the way the media treats these cases:

Imagine if Anthony Weiner were a Republican. (I know, it's such a hackneyed visualization, but it's important here.) The liberal/lefty blogs would be shredding him mercilessly. I'm not saying Weiner's not getting his hair mussed. But if he were a Republican, the feeding frenzy would be of a different magnitude entirely.

Being a lefty means never having to say you're sorry...or even admitting you were wrong, for that matter. It's no wonder the ideology has a certain appeal for a large number of people.

Next on our list of the deadly sins of narcissism is:

EXPLOITATION

Exploitation can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.

Of course the left doesn't see it as "exploitation" of others; they see it as forcing you to do what they think is best for you or for "your own good." The key is that they truly believe that THEY know what is in your best interests and your own good more than you do (see Arrogance for more details).

This social relationship ideal--where they are in charge because they are superior people, and you are subservient to their good intentions-- is characteristic of the political left and it exemplifies the psychological modus operandi of all the various do-gooder utopians: that is, they seek to have power over others, but rationalize this desire away by telling themselves they are doing it for your own good.

You feel exploited by the relationship; they feel powerful and self-righteous.

Sometimes it seems as if the ideology of the poltiical left is incapable of seeing others as separate individuals with feelings, needs and wants unique to the individual. Instead, they can only think in terms of the collective and tend to see others as fodder for the IDEAL that they support.

For all the lip service given to compassion and caring for others, the individual in the throes of this particular form of malignant narcissism (which I refer to as "narcissistic idealism") also completely reject the needs of the individual and exploit him or her in the service of their IDEAL/IDEOLOGY. Eventually, the enslavement--whether religious or secular--snuffs out human ambition, confidence, energy and self-esteem. These "do-gooders" cause considerable human misery and their ideologies can lead to genocidal practices and unbelievable atrocities on a grand scale, all in the name of the IDEAL or GOD. Appropriate benevolence and compassion toward others can only occur when there is an acceptance that other people are separate individuals; with thoughts, desires, wishes and beliefs that may not necessarily coincide with the sacred ideology; and that those others have a right to be so.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

The social engineers of the left, motivated as they are by their creative utopian aspirations--expressed by the desire to impose (forcibly, if necessary) universal peace, social justice and brotherhood upon humanity--are completely oblivious to the malignant side of their own natures.

The leftist's desire for power is direct and absolute; and this is a direct consequence of the utopian ideology that drives him. Like a small child, but no longer an innocent one, the typical progressive truly believes that his whims and feelings and "good intentions" are all that matter in the world.

There is no area of your life which will escape his intrusive psychopathology, because he justifies it by saying he is really doing it for your sake.

The clever leftist always manages to hide these darker motivations--the envy, greed, and desire for power--and pretend they don't even exist--even to himself. He tells himself he does not possess such dark motives; that his motives are pure and uncontaminated by the kind of self-serving goals the selfish capitalists pursue. He tells himself that the "greed" of others is to blame for his plight; never his own. He tells himself that it is others who are "selfish", never him. He does what he does "for the children" and some undefined "greater good."

The banal platitudes and silly slogans he chants during his protest marches make him feel oh so good about himself and demonize those who he believes are stealing his rightful piece of the pie. Experiencing too much knowledge and insight about his inner state would make him extremely uncomfortable; perhaps even causing him to question some of his basic assumptions about himself or his beliefs.

This is the essence of the "dilemma of the utopians". They see themselves as so pure and righteous; so correct and virtuous; how is it possible that their beautiful utopian dreams always turn into such horrible human nightmares?

You can then count on the true leftist believer to close his eyes not only to his own internal reality, but also to the external reality that proves the uselessness of his beliefs in the real world. Few on the left have ever acknowledged the nightmare of the Soviet gulag; or Lenin's purges; or China's crackdowns. Few have ever even accepted the incredible human cost their ideologies have taken on humanity; the death the suffering and misery, the abject poverty.

When you consider the historical --and catastrophic -- human consequences that have ensued whenever their perfect utopias are implemented, it is little wonder that they will ignore, deny and distort any information that exposes the underlying envy and rage that drive their sociopathic selflessness. Their precious self-esteem would surely plummet, and their self-esteem must be preserved at all costs.

BAD BOUNDARIES

Having porous boundaries to their own self, narcissists do not easily recognize where they end and other selves begin. They have a hard time accepting that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

Watch how the "compassionate" people of the left turn on a member of one of their many victimhood groups when that individual dares to disagree with them. They see them as traitors to their race or gender or whatever. If you are black or female or gay you are not supposed to have your own ideas about what is right and wrong--and god help you if you do, because you will be the recipient of an intense campaign of vitriol and hate for your audacity to think independently.

The underlying reason that the boundaries are not well formed is because the fundamental defect in the narcissist is a defect of the Self.

deepest motivations--i.e., they are a bunch of grandiose and narcissistically entitled children whose major goal in life is feeling good about themselves. And, like the narcissists they are, without constant stroking, the brittleness of their faux self-esteem is obvious. They can never quite be sure in their deepmost selves that they--or their ideology--are good enough to prevail. So they are scared. REALLY scared.

After Obama's victory in 2008, Byron York attempted to understand this curious phenomenon:"In Time of Victory, Why is the Left So Angry?" :

I asked William Anderson, a friend who is a political conservative, a medical doctor, and a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard. "They are angry, but I think they are also scared, and I think it's because they have a sense that their triumph is a precarious one," Anderson told me. Democrats won in 2008 in some part because of the cycles of American politics; Republicans were exhausted and it was the other party's turn. Now, having won, they are unsure of how long victory will last.

"They see that they have a very small window of opportunity to do all the things they want," Anderson continued. "They see the window of opportunity as small because they know in their deepest hearts that the vast majority of the American people wouldn't go for all of the things they want to do." So they are frantic to do as much as possible before the opposition coalesces. And the tea parties might be the beginning of that coalescence.

Then there is the question of self-image. Watching Garofalo and Olbermann discuss the tea parties, it was impossible to avoid the sense that they saw themselves as two good people talking about many bad people. "One of the things about narcissism is that it looks like people who are just proud of themselves and smug, but in fact narcissism is a very brittle and unstable state," Anderson told me. "People who are deeply invested in narcissism spend an awful lot of energy trying to maintain the illusion they have of themselves as being powerful and good, and they are exquisitely sensitive to anything that might prick that balloon."[emphasis mine]

These are two sides of of this political narcissism that defines Obama and his leftist base. The grandiosity and smugness on the one hand; and, on the other, the brittleness and anxiety that comes with maintaining a false self-image. Just imagine what we are in for not that they have received a resounding rebuke from the American people.

One simple psychological maneuver that Obama and the progressive left can continue to deflect that anxiety and keep their fear at bay; AND at the same time pump up their already over-inflated egos and self-righteousness is to escalate their attacks on the Republicans in congress (especially their leadership) and to continue to bash former President Bush. The left externalized blame for their own inadequacies before Obama was elected; as well as in the first two devastating years he has been in power; so it is hardly likely that they'll stop now as they begin to see their power and control being wrenched from them.

We can count on the fact that they will remain completely inadequate and fall quite short of even the simple tasks of leadership. You will see that Obama and his minions will now blame Republicans for their own inadequacies on the homefront. And, when it comes to their failures in foreign policy, they will still have Israel as a scapegoat that can be flogged when the occasion demands it.

The anger and rage (that are so much a part of malignant narcissism) that the political left has nurtured and cultivated over the years will not go away. They need it desperately to keep their fragile, rotting narcissistic and grandiose self image--even if they have to destroy this country to do so.

Several people in the comments wonder what can be done about this situation...how do you deal with people like this? They wonder what use it is to describe and understand the behavior they exhibit; or even to appreciate the psychological strategies that are used by the narcissists among us as they exercise the seven deadly sins in the political arena.

The answer is very simple.

A knowledge and understanding of the psychology of the progressive left and the strategy and tactics they use to accomplish their agenda is extremely important and must be disseminated to voters. Obama and his allies have portrayed any opposition to him and his policies as racially motivated, but I think it is more likely that his entire election as POTUS has a great deal to do with a desire on most Americans' part to demonstrate (once and for all) a complete indifference to racial factors. The media were complicit in this desire and chose to ignore Obama's past, showing a striking lack of interest in past behavior, associations, and Obama's general lack of qualifications and experience for the job (This was clearly not the case with that uppity woman Sarah Palin, a conservative Republican governor, who obvioulsy was stupid because she didn't know her proper place in the feminist's mandatory victimhood and grievance league).

In our system there is one way to make change and that is to VOTE. The narcissists who are running things got there because a majority of people voted for them. Most of the elections are very close, so it is crucial that all efforts be made now to make people aware of how they are being manipulated and exploited by the Democrats and their leftist base--all for the purpose of a socialist/progressive agenda that promises everything but will deliver nothing as soon as the money runs out; that promises "hope and change", but will deliver the same old Marxist bulls**t we have been hearing for the last century--and the same misery and despair.

Even in Psychiatry it is difficult to deal with the severely malignant narcissists. Treatments are not particularly effective and they generally resist all efforts to help them change. Politicians are not patients, however, and they don't seek help for their malignant and often destructive behavior that can play out on a grandiose political scale and impact the lives and fortunes of most Americans.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO ELECT SUCH PEOPLE TO POLITICAL OFFICE;

AND, WE ESPECIALLY DON'T HAVE TO RE-ELECT THEM ONCE THEIR CHARACTER HAS BEEN EXPOSED AND WE SEE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE.

The entire purpose of posts like this is to give intellectual and psychological ammunition to people who are tired of the same leftist tropes and rhetoric; who are tired of the government spending your money and becoming ever more intrusive into YOUR life. Remember, "....it is this single-minded pursuit of the irrelevant by the self-important that constitutes the greatest catastrophe of our time."

Like Dorothy in Oz, we have always had it within our power to bring this country home.