Diagnosis Barack Obama
Maybe his friend Oprah can hook him up with Dr. Phil?
After watching Sen. Barack Obama’s major speech on race in America yesterday (read: Rev. Jeremiah Wright), I am convinced he is dissociative.
Webster’s dictionary defines the psychological condition of dissociation as “the separation of whole segments of the personality or of discrete mental processes from the mainstream of consciousness or of behavior.”
Obama’s speech was thoughtful, history-rich, deftly composed, and, in parts, refreshingly candid about racial divides in America and the sources of those divides.
However, he spoke as if he was an innocent bystander to the history he recounted.
Obama discussed our nation’s failings as though he was powerless to act previously or presently.
Obama lamented, “Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.”
That is true.
Although I would offer another notion that may help explain those achievement gaps. What about the cowardly politicians in the pockets of the teachers unions who pay lip service to education while they let generations of low income kids be forced into schools that they know will fail them?
That is what Obama did as a state senator representing Chicago’s south side. And that helps explain why, when he left his state senate seat, there were more than 12,000 kids in failing schools in his district (according to the No Child Left Behind standards).
Obama had seven years in the Illinois General Assembly to do something about perhaps the worst urban public school system in America. He did nothing except propagate the status quo. It is Sen. Obama who has countenanced the pernicious philosophy of “separate but equal” for the children of low income families during his time in public life.
Obama called for white and black middle class Americans to focus on the “real culprits of the middle class squeeze” decrying a Washington that is “dominated by lobbyists and special interests.”
Yet, as Illinois annually contends for the title of most politically corrupt state in America, what was Obama’s record here?
Well, last week Obama appeared before the editorial boards of both Chicago daily newspapers to answer questions about his association with Tony Rezko, an influence-peddling, fundraising impresario who is under federal indictment for a variety of alleged pay-to-play schemes that involved shaking down companies that did business with the state of Illinois. In other words, illegal special interest politics.
Late last year Obama pegged the total amount of campaign contributions he had received from Rezko in the $50K range. Upon further review, Obama disclosed last week that the number is more like $250K.
Moreover, while Rezko was widely reported to be the subject of an ongoing federal probe in 2005, Obama transacted a hinky land deal with him that ultimately resulted in Obama purchasing a parcel of land from Rezko for about $300,000 less than the original asking price.
Obama now calls the land deal with Rezko a mistake.
Obama has also refused to take money from lobbyists and PACs–in his presidential campaign. That is a luxury he can now afford.
When it was not such a luxury regarding the financing of his campaigns in Illinois, Obama was not so doctrinaire, choosing instead the path of least resistance relative to “special interest” campaign cash. This is typical of how Obama cleverly dissociates himself from such previous unpleasantries, as if it was a failure of the system he wants to fix and not his personal choice.
Following the Obama editorial sit-down with the Chicago Tribune, columnist John Kass quoted Obama as saying, “I know that there are those, like John Kass, who would like me to decry Chicago politics more frequently. I’ll leave that to his commentary…”
The implication of Obama’s glib remark is that it is not his job to rail against rampant political corruption in Chicago and Illinois. That is a job for op-ed writers. When, in fact, that is precisely part the job, particularly in Illinois, of someone who seeks to be a leader in public life.
The operative word being “leader”.
When Obama fails to venture into the fray, we are told that he is transcending politics as we know it. What it may instead be is a willingness to do the right thing amidst controversy or political danger only as a last resort.
And that brings us to good ole Uncle Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor and spiritual advisor.
Obama’s answers to even the most basic, staple questions from the media about his relationship with Wright and his knowledge of Wright’s views have clearly “evolved” over the last several days as the controversy went from percolating to boiling over.
I will leave the parsing of words to Obama and rather note the more general observation that, here again, for two decades Obama had the opportunity to go on the record, publicly or even privately (of which he has made no mention to date), and rebuke Jeremiah Wright’s hate-filled spewage.
For two decades, Obama had the opportunity to open up the frank and rational discussion on race that he was forced to endeavor to facilitate yesterday in order to create space in the public’s consciousness between Wright and him.
For two decades, Obama chose to instead go along to get along–with a radical, anti-American, bile-discharging “man of God”, just as he did with the Chicago political machine bosses and their financiers.
Do I think Obama subscribes to the kooky conspiracy theories and overheated rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright? No, I do not. That is only my sense from those who know him well, however, because Obama certainly has not earned the benefit of the doubt on this score.
Going along to get along, not standing up when he knew better, has finally caught up with Barack Obama.
The consequence is that Obama will not be able to dissociate from this political reality: his 35-minute treatise on race relations in America will quickly evaporate into the ether whereas the videos of Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright’s fire-breathing denunciations of the “U.S. of KKK A” are hermetically sealed to his candidacy.
Comment by Augur on 19 March 2008 at 10:16 am:
What nonsense.
A few brief points in rebuttal, in between billable hours:
you say, he can now afford the luxury of not taking lobbyist cash - he took that position long before he was the front runner, and there are many PACs and lobbyists who would love to donate to him. How much lobbyist/PAC did Hillary accept? How much of McCain’s campaign cash is from PAC’s and Lobbyists? What about their former campaigns, hoss?
You surely know that at the state level most campaign resources come from the party leaders, ISDF for state senate races. Obama didn’t really need lobbyist support to win general elections in his district.
Did you forget that Obama passed ethics legislation, or did you not know or were you merely being deceptive?
Do you really think the chicago public school crisis is Obama’s fault? Even with my faith in Obama I don’t think he can, as one of 59 state senators, reverse the plight of the chicago public school system. Those responsible are the folks in the state GOP who build palaces for their kids in the suburbs while making sure kids in the inner cities learn in squalor.
Rezko is an admitted mistake, Obama didn’t know Rezko was a crook when they had their sustained relationship. With the number of supporters anyone in public life has, the law of large numbers says chances are a few will be sketchy. We recently saw just one of the latest sketchy Hillary supporters, the asian crook who’s name escapes me, god knows what is in the clinton library donor list or what she is hiding in her tax returns. McCain has had shady donors too, and is a Keating 5 criminal. In an era where no one is pure, surely being the purest is worth something.
Comment by danproft on 19 March 2008 at 10:35 am:
Augur,
You did nice job avoiding addressing the thesis by quickly moving on to attacks on McCain and Hillary.
This was not a comparative piece on all the candidates respective moral and political failings.
So I’ll address the responses that you offered to arguments I actually made rather than the ones you wish I had made.
First, Obama is not responsible for the system failure of CPS. That’s not what I said. What I said was that he was a State Senator for 7 years and did nothing other than maintain the status quo for a system that fails more than 90% of its 400,000 kids every year.
He was a non-entity in Springfield who was quiet as a church mouse on this matter–and families in his state senate district have suffered as a result.
Second, his non-acceptance of PAC/lobbyist money has nothing to do with when he did it–though, he had lots of big money support lined up prior to his announce (clearly) and so, yes, it was a luxury he could afford in his Presidential campaign from its inception.
Further, if he didn’t need lobbyist support to win his state senate seat, as you say, why did he take it? Why was Rezko funneling cash his way, including for his state senate campaigns? You’re actually right, he didn’t need it…but it was easy to take. And that’s the crux of the problem with him…he does what’s convenient until he is forced to do more.
Further, he did need all that special interest money in the Democrat primary for US Senate in 2004–and he took it.
Obama’s ethics legislation? You cannot be serious. Take about style over substance. How’s that ethics legislation fairing…it’s really cleaned up IL (and DC, before you offer up his US Senate goo-goo record).
Give me a break. His ethics legislation is and was a complete irrevlancy to cleaning up govt (just as was McCain/Feingold, for that matter).
As to your rationalizations on Rezko…they are rationalizations. The same as he offered the Tribune as Kass recounted.
Again, the thesis is not that Obama is corrupt, not that he subscribed to Rev. Wright’s lunatic ravings, but that he stands up and does what he knows to be right only as a last resort.
Remember, he has made his case for President based on his alleged superior judgment. So his judgment must be examined.
He has been cleverly dissociative when discussing the nation’s failing past and present.
And, his judgment and his political courage to do the inconvenient right thing has been repeatedly lacking…and now, as the Rev. Wright would say, Obama’s chickens have come to roost.
Regards,
Dan Proft
Comment by Buck B. on 19 March 2008 at 11:06 am:
From an Obama position paper on education (PDF):
“Illinois is a national leader in investing in children from birth. Following recommendations of the Illinois Early Learning Council, which Barack Obama championed and helped create in the State Senate, Illinois recently launched Preschool for All. The state has made a commitment to provide a universal, voluntary and high-quality early learning program for three-year olds at-risk and all four-year-old children in Illinois, and sets aside funding to support evidenced-based early learning programs targeting infants, toddlers and their families.”
Considering my girlfriend works in early childhood education and I know what a difference it can make later in life, I’d say that’s a good start. The Early Learning Council, by the way, is a public-private partnership that involves companies concerned lack of quality education today will leave them without a viable workforce down the road. Imagine that.
Comment by jeri wright pastor on 19 March 2008 at 4:55 pm:
related video on Obama’s alleged racist Pastor:
FOX OBAMA PASTOR REV. WRIGHT CURSE PROPHECY CONTROVERSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC2JOR5_UN4
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 19 March 2008 at 5:56 pm:
Uh, who is this Dan Proft, and why are we reading about how much he hates Barack Obama?
Comment by Augur on 19 March 2008 at 6:54 pm:
check his bio tab for more info on Dan -
He’s one of our new heavy hitters from the right :p
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 19 March 2008 at 7:33 pm:
Ok, did some research.
From Billy’s Bio:
Dan Proft, a principal of Urquhart Media, LLC, has run political campaigns and served in various capacities in state and local government for the past 13 years. Proft is the featured political commentator on the Don Wade & Roma Morning Show on WLS-AM 890, …where he provides a weekly commentary.
Ok, welcome to the Agora, Dan Proft. It is apparent from you are an intelligent guy, and pretty informed.
You are also a total hack.
I suppose that’s fine, we already have a couple of pro-Obama hacks.
But, I think is a new level of hackery for the Agora.
First, you attack Obama for failing to miraculously fix schools while he was one of 59 state senators. Such an argument borders on the absurd. Perhaps you could have added: “168,000 people in Illinois died from cancer while Barack Obama was in the State Senate. Obama had seven years in the Illinois General Assembly to do something about perhaps the worst health care problem in America. He did nothing except propagate the status quo.” It fits quite nicely.
Even the argument that he’s in the pockets of the teacher’s unions falls flat. He routinely advocates merit pay, something the unions are strongly opposed too.
Second, you raise the specter of Rezko, and the interviews with the Chicago daily newspapers, but your fail to mention that the papers lauded Obama’s openness and honesty (even if they felt it was a little late in coming). In an editorial the Tribune said that the interview set a “standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.” Would the Clintons be willing to sit down with the newspapers and air out their dirty laundry? I doubt it. Even Mr. Ethics, himself, John McCain has more dirt on his nose from the Keating Five scandal then Obama does from the Rezko thing. Obama bought a piece of land near market value; McCain took opulent trips to a Bahamas retreat on Keating’s dime and only paid for them after Keating came under investigation.
I think there are a lot questions that can and should be raised about Mr. Obama. But this article doesn’t do that–this article is a pure hack job.
If this is what we can expect from Mr. Proft, then thanks, but no thanks.
Allan
Comment by Satya on 19 March 2008 at 7:33 pm:
Even if Oprah hooked Barack up with Dr. Phil, he and other mental health professionals would tell you and him there is no such thing as being “dissociative.” The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the undisputed bible of mental health and illness for everyone from practitioners, policymakers, HMOs, and academics (not Webster’s). One category of disorders in the DSM is dissociative disorders, but come in many forms, including depersonalization disorder, dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder), dissociative fugue, and dissociative amnesia. These are all rare disorders. Do you really think Barack suffering mental illness resulting from a trauma?
Comment by danproft on 20 March 2008 at 4:51 pm:
Allan,
Thanks for the warm welcome.
Considering you, like augur, responded to arguments you wish I had made instead of the ones I actually did, I’ll give your name-calling of me the consideration it deserves.
I was fairly specific about the 12,000 children in failing schools in Obama’s Senate District. And I was fairly specific about Obama acting only to preserve the status quo of CPS while in Springfield.
I did NOT blame Obama for not fixing CPS. I’m sorry your inferential skills are so feeble that you would make such a silly accusation.
The pattern with Obama is that he only stands up and does right when he is forced to stand up and do right. When he can go along to get along–as he did with the teachers unions and Dem bosses; as he did with the corrupt Dem pol. financiers in IL (and as a lot of GOPers have done as well); and as he did with the good Rev. Wright–that is precisely what he does.
It’s not transcedence and it’s not rising above the fray, it’s political cowardice/expediency.
And to the other poster—I do not “hate” Barack Obama.
The pro-Obama “hacks” as Allan so eloquently described them are using Wright-esque hyperbole in an effort to dimiss the messenger rather than address the message.
Regards,
Dan Proft