Counterculture Con HQ

November 14, 2010

The Post-American President

Shellacked and shellshocked.

I am a JFK Liberal– what today we call “conservative.”  This was American Liberalism before the Frankfurt School sunk its moral and cultural relativist hooks into it and transformed the Liberalism of our youth into an ideology of decline, mired in self-loathing and doubt after the Great Wars shattered any further illusions that modernity would usher in an era of Earthly paradise.  They would avoid another apocalypse by “not taking sides.”  To a question about American exceptionalism, President Obama uncomfortably and awkwardly answered that he believes in American exceptionalism the way the Greeks and Brits believe in their own exceptionalism (except the Greeks don’t believe in their exceptionalism unless they’re speaking about the ancient Greeks).  By equating it with mere “national pride,” this was a roundabout way of telling his European audience that he does not believe in American exceptionalism.  An answer you’d expect from a detached college professor, not our nation’s leader.  That’s why I believe the Obama presidency will fail.  Notwithstanding his own self-serving autobiographies, the book has not yet been written on the Age of Obama.  Nevertheless, it’s not looking very good at this point– and not because he is less than innately brilliant as a human being (though modern Liberalism certainly does make you more stupid). But because, well– as a child of the Left–  he can’t and won’t embrace Americanism. He won’t take sides.

No Camelot 2.0: The decline of liberal idealism

For the now aging partisans of Camelot, November is a month of anniversaries. It was 50 years ago last week when John F. Kennedy was elected to the presidency as the sophisticated champion of the new liberalism. And it was 47 years ago next week that the dreams of Camelot were cruelly snuffed out on the streets of Dallas.

The dual anniversaries signify the extreme emotions of hope and despair that recollections of the Kennedy years still provoke among those whose political outlooks were shaped during that era. They are one reason why we have yet to find closure as to the meaning of the Kennedy presidency. Still viewed from extreme and shifting perspectives, JFK’s administration has yet to come into clear focus. Nor, according to some, is Camelot yet a thing of the past. For nearly 50 years it has inspired hopes in many that Kennedy’s spirit eventually will be renewed in the person of some new champion.

Thus it was that Barack Obama came to the presidency two years ago amid breathless expectations that he would restore the spirit of Camelot and revive the fortunes of liberalism. Much as happened with JFK, Obama’s admirers showered him with superlatives out of proportion to his actual accomplishments. The Camelot legend, if it had been studied and its lessons taken to heart, might have proved a cautionary tale about the consequences of excessive ambition and of successes gained too early and without effort. The Arthurian tale, after all, does not have a “lived happily ever after” ending.

Nor, as things are beginning to look, will the Obama presidency. The “shellacking” his party took in the midterm elections has killed off all hopes that he will preside over a renewal of any kind, unless it is a renewal of conservatism in response to his missteps and miscalculations. Rarely in the past has a president been so sharply rebuked by the voters in a midterm election. Nor has a president ever squandered so quickly the kinds of political advantages that Obama carried with him into office. Understandably, then, the references to Camelot and to JFK are not much heard these days.

Obama might have learned a thing or two from the real JFK as opposed to the idealized image of the man that took shape after his death. The posthumous references to Kennedy’s idealism have obscured the fact that he was a politician of exceptional skill for whom persuasion and compromise were keys to success. He never wanted to get too far ahead of public opinion, nor did he try to ram through controversial legislation on partisan votes. Though elected by a razor-thin margin in 1960, Kennedy managed to gain a stalemate for his party in the 1962 midterm elections. He was still widely popular in late 1963 when he embarked on that visit to Texas. Had he lived, he undoubtedly would have won reelection by a comfortable margin.

In truth, the Camelot ideal never fit Obama, who brought to the presidency a sense of ambivalence about the American future and America’s role in the world. It is hard to play the role of inspiring leader while counseling one’s citizens to scale back their expectations. While President Obama is capable of eloquence, his attempts often fall short because they are accompanied by an undertow of caution and pessimism.

It is hard to imagine Obama saying, as Kennedy did, that “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Such bold calls to arms were perfectly consistent with the Liberalism of Kennedy’s time, but for many reasons are at odds with the Liberalism of today. For better or worse, Obama’s ambitions do not approach the high ideals of Camelot—and he and his admirers might be better off if they acknowledged that.

Read the rest.

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: