President Barack Hussein Obama is a complex individual. He felt he was fully capable of becoming President of the United States and was skillful enough to convince a small majority to agree with him.
Many of those who voted for Mr. Obama were influenced by his two memoirs, which contained references to “composite” characters in his life. Composite characters who are based on a fusion the characteristics of several individuals who Obama may (or may not) have known.
Unfortunately for those who voted for him, after he actually became President, he seems to continually avoid his obligation to lead, his obligation to care for well being of the citizens of this country, and his obligation to protect those same citizens and the sovereignty and independence of the nation.
Why would someone, who was so skillful in manipulating people, seem to be so inept at executing the position he manipulated those people into giving him?
We might want to consider the possibility that President Obama himself might actually be a composite of different characters. Recall that he once described himself as a “blank slate” upon which others projected their desires. Wouldn’t that indicate that he had a dramatically underdeveloped character when viewed objectively?
But what characters might he appropriate to create a synthesis of behaviors that he could use in his vision of the Presidency?
Observation would suggest that there are two individuals from the world of fiction that, if combined, might provide a composite character that describes Obama’s behavior rather accurately.
Who, you ask? Why the young Bart Simpson and Professor Harold Hill came to mind.
Who is Harold Hill? Harold Hill is the name of the consummate con artist in Meredith Wilson’s classic work The Music Man, whose skillful use of words and misdirection of the attention of local citizens enables him to control an entire community purely for his own benefit.
Barack Obama has often been described as being an acolyte of Saul Alinsky, but it seems that, in addition to reading Rules for Radicals, he has spent a lot of time in front of the television watching a DVD of The Music Man to fine tune his mastery of Harold Hill’s techniques for misdirection. He also must have spent hours watching The Simpson’s.
Three statements in President Obama’s last “jobs” speech to a joint session of Congress seem to have been overlooked by commentators, pundits and those who blog in the middle of the night. If those folks had been paying attention they would have heard the echoes of Harold Hill emanating from the podium.
The President’s first statement conflates the standard call from Liberal-Progressive-Democrats (L-P-Ds) for vast increases in infrastructure spending. This was an appeal aimed at satisfying the ever present union demands to limit international trade and increase jobs covered under the Davis-Bacon Act.
“Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?”
Shocking isn’t it? China, with a population of over one billion people (three times the population of the United States), is building airports and railroads. One has to ask, though, are these newer airports in China going to be better than those that already exist here in America? Or are they just newer? How many airports currently exist in China per capita versus the number per capita in America?
How many miles of railroad track exist in China per capita versus the mileage per capita in America? How do China’s railroads strategically threaten U.S. security? And just how fast are these newer railroads and what exactly are they going to be faster than? Airplanes? Ox carts?
From the President’s tone, one is only able to infer that newer airports in China and faster railroads represent an economic threat to the United States, but not exactly how.
Or perhaps the President is merely worried for his union base that a Republican governor, secretly being controlled by some Svengali from the Tea Party, plans to cleverly import a ready-made airport that was built with cheap Asian labor thus threatening union jobs.
Obama then moved on to the question of our health and safety that is being protected by government regulations.
“But what we can’t do — what I will not do — is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury,…”
So the President says that he wants to make sure that regulations provide “…rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, …” and that those rules are not rolled back. Really?
His administration is the one that demanded that all of us convert from antique incandescent light bulbs (the kind that are causing the polar bears to all drown, or die of heat prostration or something) to the incredibly more expensive CFL fluorescent bulbs (which are made by one of his most ardent supporters – purely by coincidence, to be sure) which each contain toxic levels of mercury. These new bulbs are to be used in homes with small children, and Obama’s own EPA has issued directions of how to clean up this toxic brew in the event that one of these new bulbs is broken that would tend to terrify the average person, forcing each of us to ask, “Just how dangerous are these things?”
The President’s third statement in the Harold Hill trifecta that appeared in his jobs speech was this:
“Ask yourselves — where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways, not to build our bridges, our dams, our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the G.I. Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance?
How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip? What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?”
Read the end of that last sentence again, “… just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?”
This is the best of the Harold Hill statements in this speech. The “rigid” ideas of what the government can and can not do are not, as he would like us to believe, the product of some deranged Tea Party political philosophy. What the government can do and cannot do are both clearly and rigidly defined in a little thing called the Constitution of the United States. And President Simpson-Hill, er, Obama, would have us agree to toss the Constitution under the bus. Ignore it because it’s just too inconvenient in terms of allowing him to rule by whim.
Bart Simpson probably needs no introduction, nor does the character of Bart Simpson need to be explained in anything but his character’s own words.
The following are actual quotations from The Simpson’s, and the parallels to the Obama presidency require little if any effort to stand out.
Quotations from Bart Simpson
“I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, there’s no way you can prove anything!”
“I cannot promise I’ll try, but I’ll try to try.”
“All work and no play makes Bart a dull boy”
“It’s a big number, almost double digits.”
“From now on I’ll dominate you in ways you don’t realize.”
“I dump on you, and you take it. That’s how friendship works.”
“I’ll get one those jobs where you don’t need to read. Like french fry maker or general.”
And these are some things that young Master Simpson had to write on a school chalkboard as a punishment. Simply imagine what Bart was doing to create this situation and again you’ll see the parallels to the Obama presidency.
School does not need a regime change.
I will not strut around like I own the place.
No one cares what my definition of ‘is’ is.
I will not pledge allegiance to Bart.
I will not publish the principal’s credit report.
The ‘President did it’ is not an excuse.
I will not flush evidence.
I will not complain about the solution when I hear it.
I will stop ‘phoning it in’.
My piggy bank is not entitled to TARP funds.
As almost anyone can clearly see, our President might have created a “composite” personality and character to use to embody his vision of the Presidency. This should make his behavior and decisions in office more understandable, if not more palatable.