Nobody Should Be Cheering The Poll Showing President Obama As Regarded As “The Worst President Since World War II”

News Item:

“In a new Quinnipiac University Poll, 33% named Barack Obama the worst president since World War II. Only 8% named Obama as the best president.”

Comments:

1. The conservative blogosphere, and I assume conservative radio and Fox News, are crowing about this. That’s revolting. No citizen or patriot should rejoice at a failed Presidency, which this one surely is.

2.The United States desperately needed–and needs—a uniting, skilled, strong and non-ideological leader with the ability to solve problems while maintaining a positive image of his (or her) iconic office and the United States itself.  That a President who promised so much and created such hope has proven to be none of these is no less than a tragedy, and quite possibly a catastrophe.

3. Polls aren’t always meaningless. This one is important, I think, because it shows that the American people are paying attention, and that the incredible covering, bolstering, spinning and enabling efforts by the mainstream media to prop up President Obama and blame others for his inadequacies have failed. This is good news.

4. The bad news, in addition to what I already mentioned above is…

  • The failure of the first black President to excel harms race relations, and badly. There is no way it could not. I have written about this before, in reference to past trailblazers, particularly Jackie Robinson. I know no one can will themselves to have skills they do not possess; I don’t doubt that President Obama is doing the best job he can, as depressing as that conclusion is. Nonetheless, a trailblazer has an extra duty to not only succeed, but excel. Believing one can meet this challenge and proving horribly mistaken is itself an ethical breach.
  • Obama’s failure after creating so much hope and enthusiasm in his first campaign grievously magnifies the cynicism in our younger generations, and the public’s distrust in our institutions. Neither of these should be cheered. They are both dangerous developments.
  • There is no indication that President Obama recognizes any failings or deficiencies at all. This, unfortunately, is the consequence of electing narcissists to high office. Obama really still believes that he shares no responsibility for his inability to work with Congress and jointly govern, a responsibility which is also called “being President.” He is only capable of governing, sort of, by executive fiat, which is the kind of government that the United States was created to end. To the extent that he has support for this, he is actively undermining support for democracy. Has any other President done this? I can’t think of one.

5. Any President’s failure is our failure. We elect Presidents. They are, like it or not, the personification of our principles, ideals, legitimacy, power and success. This hurts. Republicans and conservatives, like everyone else, had a hand in this mess.

6. It is fair to point out, I think, that the poll also shows that as far as the performance past Presidents are concerned, the public has limited knowledge, understanding or perspective.  The poll found that the public thinks the best President in this period was JFK, who, like Obama, talked a good game, and also nearly blundered into World War III, set the stage for the Vietnam fiasco, and treated women like inflatable dolls.

7. The 8 per cent of the public who said that President Obama was the best U.S. President since World War II should be subjected to a separate study.

______________________

Source: Quinnipiac University

 

 

23 thoughts on “Nobody Should Be Cheering The Poll Showing President Obama As Regarded As “The Worst President Since World War II”

  1. Anyone want to guess what color those 8% are? Seriously, the only guy who even merits a comparison with Obama is probably the imperious Woodrow Wilson, but more on that at the weekend.

  2. 1) Are they rejoicing the failure? Or rejoicing that there are enough Americans still capable of recognizing a failure (which is a good thing)?

    2) Correct, we now have more cynics than ever, who will now rationalize everything away as opposed to realize the core source of Obama’s failure is fail-oriented ideology. Because they won’t make healthy paradigm shifts and elect Leaders who are Partisan Americans first, they will continue to distrust viable opposition LEADERS, and continue to vote ideology to an office where ideology SHOULD NOT MATTER. The Founders knew the Presidency must be occupied by a non-partisan, that is to say party-loyal partisan (as a difference to the kind of Partisan I alluded to above).

    3) Is it good news necessarily? I think, like #2, all we have is a generation of cynics who are now more distrustful of the American system than ever before, because at their core, they still believe the media spin that Obama was elected to fix the manufactured evils of our system.

    4) I see you addressed what I just mentioned. Oops.

    6) Yes, because they still drink the mass media’s Kool-Aid. Yet, calm cool historical research continues to exonerate the trendy punching bags of the Leftist educational and media systems while revealing further damages inflicted by their heroes.

    7) Ha.

  3. I have an issue with your point #5. I never voted for the man in either election and when people at the church I was going to showed up with Obama buttons proudly displayed, I made it clear they were making a big mistake and left the church. I do believe we have had inept presidents in the past including James Buchanan, Warren Harding, and Jimmy Carter. However, I never saw them as showing the colossal arrogance that this man exhibits.

    • Because at least with Buchanan, Harding, and Carter, they (at the time of their Presidency) were Partisans for America. Carter not so much anymore and Obama not a bit AND all that during his Presidency.

    • 1. Unless you are older than I think, you never saw Buchanan and Harding at all
      2. POST WW II, remember…
      3. Inept and worst are not the same—although in this case, they are. Adams was an inept President. Nixon was not inept at all, but he was pretty bad in the final tally.
      4. Arrogance in Presidents is pretty much to be expected. Nobody was more arrogant than Jimmy Carter, ever.

      • No, I wasn’t around when James Buchanan was president or Warren Harding. I have studied the presidents however, and it was pretty clear that they were not suited for the job. As far as Carter, I can’t remember him ever trying to bypass Congress and govern by executive decree. Maybe he was arrogant, but some of the things he said just seemed silly like the “I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times” comment.

        • 1. I was teasing you about Buchanan and Harding.
          2. I think Buchanan could have been a good president at another time. There’s a question as to whether anyone would have succeeded from 1856-1860.
          3. Harding is scored down because he had corrupt associates, and he had only three years in office, like Kennedy. I think he is probably rated too low.
          4. I’d rate A. Johnson and Pierce as worse than Buchanan, by a hair. At least Buchanan was sober.

  4. I’m certainly not cheering, but I’m not surprised either. I’d cheer if I thought recognizing his incompetence would result in a smarter choice for our next president.

  5. “There is no indication that President Obama recognizes any failings or deficiencies at all. This, unfortunately, is the consequence of electing narcissists to high office.”

    Jack, do you think that President Obama’s inability to recognize his failings can be contributed mainly to narcissism? After all, some of our best leaders have been considerably narcissistic and also seemed to be more insightful regarding “screw ups” within their administration and their own personal deficiencies. I have no doubt that the media has freely played a large part in President Obama’s views of himself and his own success to the degree that a dictator who has stifled all dissent can start to disengage from reality due to changes within the brain which can be associated with men who have taken or been given too much power. I have to wonder if the media has unwittingly driven President Obama to the beginnings of that false reality which is usually inhabited by men who have taken power by force and ignorantly claim that their people love them because their once intelligent minds, no longer needing to persuade and compromise, have turned to total mush.

    Is there no one close to the President who is willing to tell him the truth? Is that even the problem?

    • Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

      In order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms:

      1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
      2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
      3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
      4. Requires excessive admiration
      5. Has a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
      6. Is exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
      7. Lacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
      8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
      9.Regularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

      By my count, Obama is at least 8 for 9.

    • Have our best leaders been narcissists? Or have they just been extremely self-confident tempered by an openness to criticism/instruction (something I’d expect of leader)? there is a difference between the two, I know narcissists who actually lack self-confidence.

        • I think there is a big difference between being charismatic and narcissistic. Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan, and JFK would represent the former. However, their charisma was built on real achievements. TR and JFK actually did put their lives at risk in one of their lives. A charismatic person can actually accept their failings with some degree of humor. A narcissist cannot.

          • I don’t believe I ever claimed that there was a connection between being charisma and narcissism. Teddy and JFK, but not Reagan, displayed all or most of the symptoms of narcissism. There is no support for your claims that narcissists are incapable of heroism in wartime. Both T.E. Lawrence and General Patton profile as narcissists, for example, as does George Armstrong Custer.

            • I dk about T.E. Lawrence. However, Patton does not meet the criteria on #1 and #4. #3 is questionable. On the 1st criteria he did show exceptional achievements compared to most Generals on the U.S. side during WW2. Certainly better than General Mark Clark or General Hodges. On the forth criteria, slapping shell shocked soldiers is certainly not going to get anybody to admire you on the Allied side. #3 is contradicted by his cynical attitude toward Bradley and Eisenhower. He was smart enough to know that they outranked him and would probably thwart some of his cherished plans. He could bully the lower ranking Generals on his staff to do what he wanted and was a nasty bastard. However, he was cynically realistic about Eisenhower and Bradley.

  6. In my opinion there is difference between a person who has narcissistic features and a person who has narcissistic personality disorder. I don’t think it is uncommon to find many people and leaders with narcissistic features. These people have insight into their personality and usually do their best to change if they feel that the narcissistic qualities are interfering with their life in some way. The person with narcissistic personality disorder has no insight into his or her behavior and there is not much in the way of therapy, counseling etc. that can change this person. This person will always be right in his mind and will always find others to blame for his mistakes.

  7. Two things strike me about this:

    1. The problem is, we put too much on Obama’s shoulders. We (collectively) asked him to change the culture of Washington in return for our vote. Failing to do that was inevitable, and our seeing is as his personal failure is more a reflection of our own incompetence as voters (we are the only ones who can change Washington) and the imputation of superhuman status to an iconic (i.e. “post-racial” president) than Obama’s.

    2. There is a heck of a gap between failure and excellence. The problem is, Obama’s hubris, which is at the root of all his problems, has produced in his presidency exactly what it usually produces in other walks of life: Misjudgment, tone-deaf partisanship, arrogant dissimulation, and a complete failure to lead. This is objectively where he went wrong, rather than merely running afoul of unfairly elevated expectations and partisan infighting.

    We asked Obama to do what we are charged with doing. That was our failure. President Obama failed to execute his office with even minimal competence, and then blamed everyone but himself. Not only that, the American people invested so much in the idea of “change” that his allies felt could not afford even a semblance of disagreement.

    So collectively, they did what people almost always do in that situation — circled the wagons and acted like the failure was success in hopes of convincing as many people as possible. They are still certain (because they think they can’t afford not to be) that Obama’s presidency is fully dressed, despite the evidence of their own eyes.

    It’s always bad for us when our leaders fail, and schadenfreude is an inevitable, if unfortunate reaction. The irony of celebrating failure and the concomitant lessening of our country is tragic comedy worthy of Shakespeare.

    • Sorry, Glenn, it’s quite the opposite with regard to #1. Obama TOOK too much on his shoulders, making all these promises about turning America 180 degrees as if GWB was deliberately destroying the country, claiming he was a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, more of an expert than his experts, making the ridiculous statement that when he was elected was the moment this planet began to heal, and other messianic nonsense. The problem with touting yourself as a Messiah is that eventually you have to produce some miracles, and he has produced none. Oh, he can try to claim credit for a lot of things, the death of bin Laden (in which he actually played a very small part), reform in Libya (in which he led from behind) the ACA (which is turning into a nightmare), but none of them were his work only, and most of them haven’t turned out to be as great as he touted them or even to be what the American people wanted. Still he presses ahead, refuses to learn anything from what hasn’t gone so well, refuses to rethink things, and attempts an increasingly autocratic grip on power. In these respects he is becoming more and more like Woodrow WIlson, who was on his way to becoming a visionary near-caudillo when he lost support of both the Senate and the people and his health failed, and FDR, who largely gets a pass because of WWII, but who did try to pack the courts to make his rather radical domestic reform a reality. I consider him to be more like Wilson, however, who had more naked contempt for the Constitution and made little attempt at being a “man of the people” as FDR did.

      The critical similarity between him and Wilson is that both of them set out to try to be great leaders rather than to serve. Trusting those who self-aggrandize is almost always a mistake. Shakespeare in his comedy Twelfth Night, wrote that “some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” J.K. Rowling, amidst all the happily imaginative nonsense and wide-ranging fantasy that made up her wizarding world, displayed some perceptive points, as spoken in the books by mentor figure Albus Dumbledore: one that “humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them,” and another that “perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who… have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well.” I would put these points together, and say, more often than not, it is those who seek greatness for the wrong reasons, like personal ambition, who most usually fall short of true greatness, and those who are forced to become great who achieve it most often.

      Churchill was not looking to become great, he had to become great for he was the only light in a Europe gone dark. Heraclius was not looking to become great, but there was an incompetent tyrant on the throne and an enemy at the gates, who had to be dealt with. Joshua Chamberlain was not looking to become great, but it fell to him to have to defend the indefensible or die trying. Arguably GWB was not looking to become great, but 9/11 forced him to “find his voice” and lead. On the other hand, those who went seeking greatness, like Henry V, who sought to unite England and France when neither country wanted it, Bismarck, who sought to impose the Prussian way on all Europe, and Napoleon, who sought to impose his will on three continents, all fell short of true greatness, partly because they chose to reach above their abilities.

      It is true that occasionally someone comes “out of the wilderness” and becomes truly great, like Abraham Lincoln, who saved this nation from itself, and this is a time requiring great people: two wars, the economy a mess. However, it’s also clear, from that conversation that Obama had with Ted Kennedy, that he was not truly great, and was aiming for the Presidency for its own sake. A senator with only two years in government and none as an executive should have recognized he was not equipped with the necessary tools or experience to lead a nation in this time. A senior senator who saw nine presidents come and go, should have known better than to advise this new-minted senator to run before he had done anything. This poll shows that the people are seeing through all this nonsense, and they do not like what they see.

  8. I don’t go all the way with you on this one, Jack, put certainly a part of the way. A few years ago I learned about projections – how we project what we want/see/expect onto other people even when, or especially when, the projection has nothing to do with who they really are, and the consequence of not seeing clearly the person in front of us. If nothing else, President Obama has been a victim of that idea. In 2008, he was a blank screen onto which people projected what they wanted to see after the Bush years and a rapidly tanking economy. He was HOPE, CHANGE, and perhaps worse, we ennobled him with the idea that he was something other than a standard-issue Washington politician. The fact that he was African American only amplified the idea of his actually making a difference in Washington because he was, indeed, so different from any other candidate we had seen since Kennedy and his Roman Catholicism. I think our ultimate projection might have been that if we could do this, elect a black man, then we would bring change to the country simply by “curing” the centuries-old race issues in the US or making a good run at it. Projections are powerful and in the hands of a collective even more so. After a time during the 2008 election, it didn’t matter what he said or did, he WAS hope and change, not a candidate.

    And, in the absolute cynicism of American politics, all the pollsters, pundits, and creatures of his campaign knew and exploited this (and they’ll do it again for someone else come 2016).

    In the moment he was elected, as an African American, I felt something incredible – a man like me in the White House, a supreme victory after slavery, Jim Crow, and the spilled blood of Till and King. I also felt an unease – could he govern? We knew he could run a crackerjack campaign, but could he replicate that kind of success from the Oval Office? In 2008, I figured only time would tell and to an extent it has. He was neither an outsider to Washington nor a maverick, both projections, not to mention a relative lack of experience compared to other presidents. I will say – and I know you agree – that he did not come to Washington to cause harm, but with a deep love for the country and an expectation that he could do what he had intended and promised. Perhaps those were his own projections upon a system that had no intention of bearing them out. I don’t know.

    Like I said – I won’t go all the way with you on this and the points of disagreement are about perception of events and we each have our own. I will not say, either, that he is the worse president since WWII – that is, again, a matter of perception. Where we absolutely agree is a share of this lies with the American people who have not figured out how to counter systems – both political and governmental – that are increasingly cynical, unethical, and devoid of any sense of the common good for our nation. “Have you no sense of decency, Sir?” is truer today than it was in 1954 and should be asked of every politician in Washington from the President on down. In the last eight years everybody of every political stripe has some blood on their hands for this mess. We lay it at his feet because – unfortunately for him – the buck does stop there.

    So now we wait for the curtains to part on another blank screen onto which we’ll project our hope for a country that is different from the one we’re living in now. We’ll hear from sincere, well meaning candidates who will tell us what we want to hear rather than what is true and doable, and we’ll buy it. The first woman in the White House is ripe for that, as is the first Hispanic, or a TRUE American Tea Party candidate. They’ll all present themselves and we’ll beam on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.