AJ DiCintio

Messiah, Lincoln or Less?
March 30, 2009

So, given the evidence thus far regarding The Case of Barack Obama, which is it? Is our president a messiah, a reincarnated Lincoln, or something less?

Well, given the beliefs that make up the American Ethos, the great majority of citizens recoil from the politician-as-messiah business, however it is finessed, for example, by Ezra Klein, associate editor of the Web’s American Prospect (a font of “Liberal Intelligence”) and author of the following magnificent example of the unintelligible drivel that underlies so much of “perfectly rational” liberal “thought.”

He [Obama] is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves...

Tired and sick of such sycophantic slobber, common sense folks also reject the bluster about Obama-as-Lincoln as fast as a bat flies out of hell — or even faster.

The reality is, then, that the great majority of Americans regard the president as something else. However, within that majority, two groups come to opposite conclusions.

One perceives him as a truly exceptional “post everything” visionary who, in addition to his intellect and wisdom, exhibits an extraordinary degree of courage, honesty, and commitment to principle.

The other agrees with EU President Mirek Topolanek, who implied Obama is a dangerous demagogue when he condemned the administration’s plan to borrow and spend America to prosperity as creating “a road to hell.”

Now, unlike those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the hellish consequences of the president’s policies — let alone discuss the pain they will cause to the nation’s body and soul — those of us deeply concerned about the “road to hell” behave oppositely.

Moreover, we employ our analyses to arrive at a fair estimate of the president — as revealed by the following questions, which we share with every open-minded person at home and abroad.

When he proposes a fiscal leap of faith that the Congressional Budget Office says will produce an unprecedented $9.3 trillion of debt in the period 2010-2019, does an intellectually honest visionary fail to address the public to explain precisely how such massive borrowing, spending, and resultant governmental expansion will avoid exchanging the vibrant, innovative American Economic Model for its bleak, stagnant European counterpart?

(Those explanations, of course, presented with an earnest sobriety from the place where the buck stops — not the joking, frivolous, cotton candy atmosphere of late-night entertainment shows or other venues of that ilk.)

When Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (stunningly) rejects U.S. calls for more deficit spending in Europe by arguing, “You can’t think you can solve everything with taxpayers’ money,” does an intellectually honest visionary fail to proudly and methodically point out why the Swedish PM is mistaken?

When the Federal Reserve Bank prints and then pumps 1.1 trillion dollars into the economy to keep interest rates low, does a brave, wise visionary simply smile instead of explaining the consequences of that action, including the dollar’s immediate fall against the euro (the largest one day slide in nine years) and oil’s just as immediate rise in price?

When a profligate Fed floods the nation with an ocean of dollars, causing a major currency trader to shout, “Sell the dollar!” does a courageous, Lincolnesque visionary fail to address the people with plain, straight talk about inflation — that wealth ravaging incubus feared most by seniors living on fixed incomes?

When members of his party speak of a second “stimulus” package, prompting another monetary expert to conclude, “[Then] the dollar is done,” does a principled visionary again fail to speak soberly and truthfully about truly profound consequences?

When the public properly explodes in anger over AIG bonuses, does a courageous, “post-partisan” visionary refuse to immediately take responsibility for the AIG bailout he and his party rushed through Congress? (Though not as fast as they zipped into law an $800 billion “stimulus” bill porked with 8,000 earmarks.)

Moreover, does a “change we can believe in” visionary fail to stand tall in admitting that the $165 million “bonus mistake” is a mere “damn” compared to the unspeakable obscenities he and congressional Democrats laid on the public when they approved a bailout that allowed AIG to pay tens of billons in obligations to the likes of Goldman Sachs and foreign banks at 100% value — that is, without forcing those politically well-connected enterprises to take what denizens of Wall Street call “a haircut”?

When Washington insiders who have enriched themselves by taking advantage of the public/private sector revolving door are suggested for important posts, does a Lincolnesque visionary fail to respond with a steely minded “no.”?

Regarding his Chief of Staff, for example, does he fail to reject a person such as Rahm Emanuel, the former Clinton “war room” hit man and (through Clinton’s graces) former Freddie Mac board member?

... the same board member Rahm Emanuel, who, according to the Chicago Tribune, knew about a plan by Freddie’s executives “to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits...[thereby] helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.”

... the same board member Rahm Emanuel who, the Tribune reports, earned a $20,000 annual fee (for six meetings of brilliant work a year) supplemented by “$380,000 in stock and options.”

Far from complete, these questions haven’t even touched upon how a truly wise, honest, courageous visionary would discuss the profound social and economic consequences resulting from his policies regarding health care, energy, and carbon reduction.

They haven’t illuminated how an intellectually honest visionary would react to national defense issues such as the following:

... employing “You Tube diplomacy” with respect to theocratic fascists

... ditching “terrorism” in favor of “man-caused disasters,” a term his Secretary of Homeland Security calls a “nuance” that avoids “the politics of fear”

... replacing “war on terror” with the perfectly stupid and immensely dangerous Orwellian euphemism, “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

Nor have the questions offered in this piece fully directed a powerful beam upon the fact that a visionary devoted to the full meaning of the Spirit of ’76 never plays upon the people’s pain, fear, and uncertainty to propose policies that place Liberty, Individualism, Self-Reliance, Innovation, Meritocracy, and Social Mobility on the road to hell.

Yet the hope is that enough is presented here to spur those who have succumbed to the web of fantasy spun by and for Barack Obama to consider the thought that he is neither a messiah nor even a near-Lincoln but something less, indeed so much less that he stands the chance of joining the company of other captains who have brought down not just themselves but the entire ship — for example, Ahab of Melville’s enduring tale about the destructive effects of megalomaniacal pride.