The Audacity of a Failed Diva

liv rockwell 7.jpgby Glenn Fairman
In order to put into perspective the political pathology that is our current President of the United States, it is perhaps instructive to contrast how the previous Democratic Chief-of- State might have approached the current governmental impasse.

While Bill Clinton was not above playing executive hardball; nevertheless, I am convinced that he would eventually have triangulated a satisfactory political compromise, as was his wont, between America’s twin ideologically warring camps in this most divisive of issues. In contradistinction, Obama: forever the Hyper-Left’s quixotic “True Believer,” has thoroughly squandered his precious Days in the Sun because he despised the birthright he was unworthy of — having lacked the political chromosome of compromise. The current drama unfolding is surely the result of his stunning hubris and thin-skinned temperament that intrinsically alienates him from the prudent statesman’s self-reflective art of course correction. As such, we – the citizens of America, are the sorrowful beneficiaries of this lamentable character defect.

The very nature of politics, the architectonic science that rules all others, requires a masquerade of sorts, which is why actors and politicos seamlessly migrate to and fro between these respective spheres. Be that as it may, Bill Clinton – despite his tragic weakness for the fairer sex and cavalier reputation with the truth, will forever be hailed the consummate politico, while the diva Obama will retire into contraction and notoriety: having laid waste to the enigmatic House of Liberalism – having burnt and scattered that which he had not built.

Verily, it takes a rare type of being to embrace and command the politician’s life. Aristotle would say it requires the ruling virtue of magnanimity—-a great-souled beneficent prudence that nevertheless occupies a degree of vertical distance between ruler and ruled. That being said, it is painfully apparent that Obama possesses none of the magnanimity while he doubles down on the dimension of distance – which is in effect, the very wellspring of his audacity.[pullquote]Unduly effeminate in his metro-sexualized comportment, Obama’s entire adult life has been corrupted by an echo chamber of fawning subservience.[/pullquote]

In its traditional usage, the term “diva” has stood as a mark of preeminence describing a female performer of towering virtuosity, generally in the performing arts. The great operatic soprano, Maria Callas, would seem to have been the archetype for such a form. But in our culture’s more common vernacular, the appellations of both diva and prima donna have acquired negative connotations. Indeed, the Urban Dictionary: that crudely fashioned looking glass of our society’s descent into vulgarity, defines diva as a bitchy woman that must have her way exactly, or no way at all. often rude and belittles people, believes that everyone is beneath her and thinks that she is so much more loved than what she really is. Selfish, spoiled, and overly dramatic.

With all apologies to Merriam-Webster, no high brow definition could ever serve to describe more succinctly these qualities of personality that embody Barack Hussein Obama. Unduly effeminate in his metro-sexualized comportment, Obama’s entire adult life has been corrupted by an echo chamber of fawning subservience. But like all accomplished and would-be autocrats, he has fallen into the same fatal error: he has taken to believe the Messianic shtick that has been cobbled together by his Handlers. All self-ordained prophets are loathe to deviate even a jot or a tittle from their own shining historical path, and this deadly flight of hubris renders them ripe for terminal calamity. It is the diva in Barack Obama that rejects accommodating his enemies, because his political world is a zero-sum affair and any concessions granted to infidels are viewed as anathema to his hyper-egalitarian base: romantic spirits who thirst for perpetual peace and plenty while enjoying Starbucks in their Birkenstocks.

Moreover, when your audacity ensures an absolute fidelity to the cause of Socialist rectitude, one need not extend the olive branch of dignity to those in opposition to your slash and burn maneuvers throughout the culture-at-large. Obama emotionally marginalizes his adversaries: going so far as blackening their names for political points at press conferences and memorial service. Unquestionably, such cocksure cynicism emboldens him to throw moderation to the wind when employing scorched-earth tactics to gain the advantage. Obama is politically obligated and morally self-affirmed in the application of torment to innocents in order to make clear his point of “who’s the boss.” And so, in the enlightened second decade of the United States’ 21st century, we have arrayed before us Progressivism’s punitive legacy to America – the Diva Extortionist par excellence!

Mr. Obama, having been given the Nobel Prize early on for literally no human achievement, has underperformed in relation to his worshipers’ stratospheric expectations of political transformation. In reality, he has been in far over his head from the beginning and has only prevailed upon the dull American Middle by masking ideological artifice with his strong suit of carefully scripted rhetoric. But five years under relentless scrutiny has worn away the grease paint, revealing to the world’s stage his diminutive and hollow center. Congenitally unable to build a consensus or approach a middle way, he has acquired an Epicurean’s taste for the expedient and the tyrannical: amassing both the prerogatives of legislator and executive, with the help of a willing media, into a sinister blend of the Imperial.

Nothing evidences this more fully than his loathing of our Constitution’s Separation of Powers and system of Checks and Balances. And it is clear that, like all Progressives who were weaned upon the teat of Wilsonianism, Obama grows frustrated at the glacial flow of a system designed to thwart the demagogue: whose ruling passion is to transform a regime into an arbitrary image of his own choosing. His petulant manner betrays an utter disdain for American Constitutionalism that was cultivated by earlier Marxians – who believed that the arm of governmental power should be decidedly swift and dynamic. Indeed, Obama seems psychologically predisposed to damn every restraint that serves to thwart his agenda of centralizing and metastasizing the State. Grown isolated and imperious on his throne of presumption, he is neither humbled nor moved by the disorder and dislocation he is affecting through his stratagems. In truth, he is exhilarated by the epic struggle and will not rest until he has placed his enemies as footstools under his feet.

On the contrary, how antithetical is our Founders’ understanding of not only government, but of life itself. While Progressives’ hold that not only man’s intellect but his very nature is utterly malleable in the hands of a skilled Guardian class, our Founding Fathers were thoroughly acquainted with the passionate vicissitudes of arbitrary rule, and knew far better than to trust abstract entreaties that are melded in the forge of power and altruism. One needn’t have gone far to discover why – since any wise man in tune with his own heart knows what evils can be justified – given enough contingencies. The Progressive is by temperament immune to such humility, and the lure of good intentions alone are a sufficient enough spur for a Herculean government to then pounce. Who can now deny that Barack Obama is the proverbial “red-diaper baby” who has waxed strong in suckling longingly at the cult of the liberal political daydream, and his monstrous signature policy showpiece will tell us everything we ever needed to know about what this political diva has in store for us?

Let it be said without equivocation: the scourge of Obamacare will not be surrendered without a pitched battle to the very barricades of the Progressive’s radicalized articles of faith. Indeed, its entire philosophical essence is the sine qua non of liberalism’s virtue of equality accelerated to a fevered pitch. For the True Believer, it would be better that the entire architecture of American medicine be pulled down into ruins than for our own foreign born Demi-God of Shared Misery to be denied his rancid pound of flesh.

This bears repeating: Obamacare is symbolic of the unmoored liberal spirit of ill-considered covetousness amplified to the nth degree – for in the smoldering Lilliputian minds of men who worship social leveling and bloodless similitude above all things, it is far better that men share a bitter cup of bile in common than it is to entertain the possibility that humans could be fruitful and content in their unequal liberties. May every base act of their sullen political gimmickry be shattered into pieces upon the granite and marble of our great parks and memorials – tangible proof to all the inhabitants of the earth that the strength of our republic resides in a long prescriptive history of liberty buttressed by our Founders’ genius of judicious wisdom and time-honored law. Such a treasured legacy belongs to the procession of our generations – and is not the province of a single petulant diva stomping his foot in the throes of his own royal tantrum.
__________________________________________________
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at arete5000@dslextreme.com.
 • (1166 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Audacity of a Failed Diva

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    If I were a socialist, if I had been brought up to hate America, if I had been brought up to be a petulant forever-juvenile yute always looking to project myself as a victim while trying to get others to pay for my shallow secular life, I would say that Obama has been a great success.

    And I would applaud him for sticking to his guns. If one is really one of those blinkered whack-jobs who thinks that capitalism is the cause behind all our problems, that “the rich” need to be soaked (if not outright abused), and that all wealth must be “share,” then I see no fault with Obama. Instead, I would see him as the master.

    And that’s how we probably need to understand him. Yes, he’s petulant. But the most important thing to understand about Obama is that he is a Marxist. And there are generations of stupid hippies, and post-hippies, who have been indoctrinated into believing most of his nonsense and to forsake the good.

    There are those (not necessarily you, Glenn) who see Obama as inept. If there is such a word, he is as “ept” as all hell.

  2. Glenn Fairman says:

    There is a dichotomy here. As a “true believer” in the Marxian analysis of historical determinism, he believes he has all the answers and that history itself will inexorably vindicate him. The problem is that all species of dialectical materialism are fatalistic and inconsistent with the natures of men. They can be evangelized but in the final accounting they must be imposed top-down when the beast stumbles…..but as windowdressing it is a great apologetic for naked tyranny.

    The rub, however, is that Obama is a poor politician because he lacks the gene of the political. Instead of making inroads, he burns bridges and marginalizes. More than any president he has alienated the parties and races from one another, being psychologically unable to settle for half his loaf. Even with his epidermal political gifts, he can only go so far with a failed ideological engine and a personality unsuited to the task. This makes him utterly dangerous because this political ineptitude at compromise leads him, and us, into the throes of culture war. His way cannot but fail….but along the way he can do enough wrecking to pulverize our society for decades.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The rub, however, is that Obama is a poor politician because he lacks the gene of the political.

      This is where I don’t agree, Glenn. The man is, after all, President of the United States. And he (along with Pelosi and Reed) have rammed their agenda down our throats. It’s true that the Left has changed what we consider good politics, but we still must admit that they are engaging in their own sort and having great success.

      The Left has been gaining its agenda via all sorts of critical choke points previously, including the media and education establishment. Well, now they have the presidency and that choke point is the most powerful one in the world. And Obama has used it magnificently. There must already be a dark commemorative plague carved up by Lucifer and waiting for him even now.

      The technique of the Left of marginalizing and burning bridges has been effective. This may stick in our craw, but it is still true. Why the Left has been so successful is perhaps the subject of your next article. 🙂 And, yes, he has alienated people and parties, but that is simply “good politics” if you haven’t one ounce of decency or honor in you or care about nothing else than power, or the fulfillment of one’s ideology.

      I look at Obama as extremely successful. We might get caught up on the human emotional scale and consider him a failure because he is so off-putting to so many people. But his policies will be hung around our necks like a multi-trillion dollar albatross long after he is gone. This is the failure of Jonah Goldberg, for example. He belittles the notion of an kind of “ratchet” effect of Big Government. But Obama is the one setting the agenda, even if he does so impolitely. He is winning. I don’t like it, but I admit it. And it does no good for conservative commentators such as Goldberg to whistle past the graveyard.

      Perhaps some day we will reach that magical point that many conservatives have always thought is just around the corner, that finally *this* obvious outrage (perhaps the one where veterans were barry-caded out of national monuments while illegal aliens were given the run of the Capitol mall) is the one. But that hasn’t happened yet. And it’s a legitimate question now if it can even happen. The indecent is now so accepted as the decent and good. Our morals have been completely flipped and inverted. If there is a Providential hand over America, that hand is needed now more than ever.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The crucial strength of the Left is their control of the synoptic media, a key goal of the Fabian Society going back a century. if you control the means of communication (as Orwell’s Ingsoc was well aware), you control society. That control is what enables the Evil Party to succeed, particularly given the gross failure of the Stupid Party (especially its Beltway Bandits, who are supposed to be professionals) to figure out how to deal with this problem.

        • Glenn Fairman says:

          Ever the philosopher, I view politics from the perspective of its ideals. Managerial tyranny is not politics in the classical sense, nor is Marxianism and its variant forms. All ultimately are pathological and bring the organism and its constituent parts (people) into a certain smoking ruin. That Obama is a wrecker who uses an amalgamation of guilt ridden fools and government cultivated parasitic drones as a bludgeon to crush society makes him in the end an effective politician in the most venal of senses, but as a statesman who shepherds the virtuous interests of the whole, a null set. In such a way can the great fools and monsters who held their sway for a day in the sun said to be effective…..but in the calculus of history…an Ozymandius.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Unfortunately, the fictional Ozymandias may or may not have been “king of kings”, but he undoubtedly had enough subjects to make that wrecked monument. And so does the modern one.

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            One can only pray that the ruins of our civilization are not buried under the sames sands as the statue.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    I always saw Bill Clinton as half an upper-class progressive elitist (like Hillary) and half a good-old-boy Southern populist. I don’t agree with either half, but I can sort of accept the populist; we agree on very general social goals even if we disagree on the specifics. But the progressive elitist wants a bifurcated society of rulers and subjects, and of course intends to be in the ruling class.
    One must also remember that the Left cares only about The People (which in practice really means The Cause), not individual people. So the consequences of Obamacare, for example, are irrelevant; so are the consequences of the partial shutdown. Again, Clinton as half a populist wasn’t so ruthless; the Obamacrats are, and one of the main failings of the Republican Establishment is that they can’t bring themselves to be aware of this totally callous attitude.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    FYI, Glenn and Tim, Rush had a great monologue concerning this subject today and he was bouncing his comments off this article by Dr. Keith Ablow, Is Obama Locked in a Victim Mentality?

    • Glenn Fairman says:

      (I took our discussion as the body of a new piece thanks friends…..)

      The Serpent and the Fool

      There is a dichotomy here. As a “True Believer” in the Marxian analysis of Historical Determinism, Obama believes he has all the answers and that History itself will inexorably vindicate him. The problem is that all species of Dialectical Materialism are fatalistic and inconsistent with the natures of men. They can be evangelized as fulfilling some populist longing, but in the final accounting they must be imposed top-down when the beast stumbles–and stumble it will. And while there are legions of devoted wretches who have bitten hard on the shiny lure and perished, it seems that our educational system has spawned a multitude of credulous and insipid minds that are inoculated to the knowledge that Socialism is but window dressing for the bovine class: it is but a tepid apologetic for incremental tyranny.

      Nevertheless, a great war is being waged despite the fact that Obama is such a poor politician in the broad sense. He indeed lacks the gene of the political man. Instead of making inroads, he burns bridges and marginalizes. More than any other president before him, he has alienated the parties and races from one another– being psychologically ill-disposed in settling for only half of his collectivist loaf. Even with his epidermal political gifts, he can only go so far with a failed ideological engine and a personality unsuited to the task. And this makes him utterly dangerous because this political ineptitude at compromise leads him, and us, into the throes of culture war. In the fullness of days, his way cannot but fail….but along the way he can do enough wrecking to pulverize our society for decades.

      As a philosopher, I view politics from the perspective of its ideals. Managerial tyranny is not true politics in the classical sense, nor is Marxism and its variant forms. Secularized Collectivist systems are ultimately pathological and drag the organism (the regime) and its constituent parts (the people) to a certain smoking ruin. That Obama is a proven wrecker who can deftly use the amalgamation of guilt ridden fools and government cultivated parasites as a bludgeon to crush society makes him, in the end, a shrewd politician in only the most venal and temporal sense. But as a statesman who is charged to shepherd the virtuous interests of the whole, he is a null set. Only in such a tortured rendering can history judge those great fools and serpents that held their brief day in the sun as effective leaders. In the full and wise calculus of history…. Obama is Ozymandias: buried to his haughty lip in a cat box.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I think what you’re describing as “not politics as we know it” is the fact that Obama doesn’t like this country. His party is now opposed to the entire idea of America. I don’t think that could have been said in the past, at least before the ascendency of the Left.

        Therefore other people aren’t just wrong or share a different opinion. They are the enemy. And this is true. Never since the split between North and South has there been this division about what America should be.

        Many decry this “polarization.” I don’t, at least in terms of trying to Kumbaya some kind of compromise. There is no compromise with the Left. We cannot keep America free, prosperous, and good by compromising with the Left. They must be politically defeated and (once again) discredited for who they are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *