History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.
~James Madison
As we watch our banks, automobile companies and health-care sectors co-opted by a contemptuous executive branch, an elitist Congress, and parasitic lobbyists, American citizens have to wonder what new trick President Obama has up his sleeve to deprive the taxpayers of their wages. Thanks to the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, it appears the President is circling his wagons to launch his next offensive on the free market: climate legislation, also known as “cap and trade,” is looming in the shadows as the next decimator of economic prosperity. It is curious that Obama, whose campaign highlighted the theme that he was above the fray of self-seeking corporate and lobbyists’ interests, is at the epicenter of a form of corporatism that threatens to undermine any sense of fair business practice.
Although Obama’s rhetoric promised to usher in a new era of transparency and responsibility, the President and his charges have become entangled with corporations in a way that fundamentally and irrevocably perverts the relationship of corporate entities and our government. Obama and Congress are using the hazy concept of a “green economy” to push an agenda of political thuggery on par with the Chicago Daley machine or Tammany Hall.
His nomination victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota alluded to his intentions regarding climate change legislation when he said, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Obama’s soaring hyperbole resonated deeply with both environmentalists and the general populace, positioning him as a global prophet sent to save the world from environmental apocalypse. However, his rhetoric ultimately morphed into a cloaked collusion between corporations, lobbyists, and Washington elites who conspire to fleece the American public of their money while simultaneously lining their pockets with the ill-gotten booty. As scientist Bjorn Lomborg, an established and respected environmentalist, pointed out in the Wall Street Journal: “Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.” It is this central piece, the idea of carbon regulation, that is most disturbing, because it is an unholy alliance with the very people that are supposedly polluting our planet to begin with. As Tim Carney, a columnist of the Washington Examiner explains, “cap-and-trade is a corporate welfare porkfest of nearly unprecedented proportions.” 1
What Carney is pointing out is the corporatist nature of the Obama administration. Of course, many Americans point the finger of corporatism directly at Big Oil, and rightfully so. Big Oil has enjoyed a “special” relationship under both Democratic and Republican administrations alike, contributing to campaign funds of various presidential and congressional candidates while extracting tax-payer funded subsidies, and as the oil “spill” in the Gulf would suggest, lax regulations via sympathetic cronies. There is no denying this link. However, according to the Science and Public Policy Institute, which scrutinized government spending records, “The U.S. government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” The reality is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), big government, and “pro-environment” big business have formed a muscular juggernaut that flattens its opponents, demonizes its skeptics, and sucks up revenues in the form of subsidies.
Unfortunately, many people labor under the illusion pedaled by Washington that big business has conspired in a concerted effort to hold down wages, fix the market, and rob the individual of his soul while simultaneously destroying the planet. Conversely, people have been propagandized to believe that our government works tirelessly in some abstract, morally superior, selfless manner to uplift the downtrodden and safeguard our civil rights from the rapacious march of corporations. And while corporations are certainly not saints, it is laughable to overlook the 800-pound gorilla. Our government, in conjunction with lobbyists and the supposed malicious corporations, have underwritten each other’s fates and stuffed the profits in their pockets. As Congressman Ron Paul (TX) so aptly states: “…there is an agenda behind this silly comic-book version of history: to make people terrified of the ‘unfettered’ free market, and to condition them to accept the ever-growing burdens that the political class imposes on the private sector as an unchangeable aspect of life that exists for their own good.” 2
As the old maxim goes, if you want to know the truth, just “follow the money.” In the case of cap-and-trade and a “green economy,” the money trail leads directly to Obama and Congress, and to the energy companies decried for causing global warming, including “king coal.”
According to Public Citizen, a social justice and pro-environment watch-dog organization, “the Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed the House in June (and a very similar Senate Environment Committee-passed bill) are cap-and-trade schemes [that] hand billions of dollars to corporate utilities, gift Wall Street with a lucrative $2 trillion derivatives market, relies on offsets to achieve false emission reduction targets and raises costs to working families - while bestowing windfall profits to utilities like Exelon.” So once again, big business along with their attendant lobbyists and government shack up to financially and politically enrich each other, and the American citizen gets stuck with the bill twice: once in the form of hidden taxation, and again through increases in the cost of energy use. Carney also points out that other players have gamed the system as well, including agri-giant Monsanto, Alcoa, and…drum roll please, Goldman-Sachs. The Wall-Street bail-out recipient is waiting with baited breath to jump into the carbon-trading market, a dynamic that will set loose a feeding frenzy as traders swap derivatives in a dizzying rush to cash in before the next inevitable bubble burst, splattering the American public with the economic entrails. 3
And these economic implications are far reaching. As Robert Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and a cofounder of the US Climate Task Force stated in an interview with MotherJones: "We are on the verge of creating a new trillion-dollar market in financial assets that will be securitized, derivatized, and speculated by Wall Street like the mortgage-backed securities market.” Of course, our government, in their predictable hubris, promises regulation to prevent such an occurrence.
However, if the savings and loan bailout of the 80s, the dot.com bust of the 90s, our current housing bust, and the BP fiasco are reliable barometers, government regulation is an impotent tool at best. Impotent, unless you’re a company with a vested economic interests and enough financial heft to lobby the living hell out of Washington, or lucky enough to be the political figure showered with corporate largess. And the deeper you dig, the more grotesque the truth becomes: a conglomeration of shady alliances between corporate pimps, lobbyist pushers and political propagandists rolling in a giant bed of taxpayer money—a menage et trois of Machiavellian proportions. Except the taxpayer is the only one who will be screwed in this sick love affair.
1. Carney, Timothy. Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses. Washington, D.C. Regnery Press, 2009.
2. Paul, Ron. The Revolution: A Manifesto. New York. Grand Central Publishing, 2008.
3. Carney, 2009.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Obamanalysis: The Origins of Neurosis and the Unraveling of an Image
President Obama is a psychological mess, and it’s not his fault. Unfortunately, it is his responsibility, and his lack of corrective introspection has led him to be a prisoner of his ideological trappings. This ideological straightjacket is the very phenomenon decried by liberals in their unrelenting assails of President Bush. So much for intellectual consistency. Regardless of the charges of ineptness and deceit of the former administration (some of which are valid), Obama cannot, or will not, escape his troubled youth, nor the psychogenic effects on his attitude and behavior.
So what is behind Obama’s cool and collected exterior? What belies his sense of self-aggrandizement and narcissism? In order to peel back the layers of the psyche and probe the genesis of our President’s belief system, I will use the psychological theory of Karen Horney. Horneyan Theory, which focuses on the dynamics of neurosis by examining inner conflicts, has its roots in Freudian theory. Although Freud has often been dismissed in modern psychiatric circles, his fundamental proposition that humans are inherently in some type of conflict remains germane. If not, the great canons of literature, ranging from the Bible to Shakespeare, to Steinbeck and even popular modern texts, would not have conflict at the center of their literary substrate. It is undeniable that the human condition is rooted in conflict; growth, prosperity, and peace come only when we attempt to resolve this conflict in mature ways. Thus we have gangs, war, terrorism, and domestic violence, even as we strive to make the world safer and more humane. The dichotomy of this struggle is inescapable.
So what does Horneyan theory have to say about President Obama and his behavior? To understand this we have to understand what Horney believed about the basic nature of human beings. Horney posited that people strive to develop our unique potentials, and that pathological behavior occurs when this innate drive is thwarted by external, social forces. Horney believed that “man has the capacity to as well as the desire to develop his potentials and become a decent human being, and that these deteriorate if his relationship to others, and hence himself is, and continues to be, disturbed.” 1
It is not difficult to see how this fits with Obama’s childhood. Early on, Obama was severed from his father, who abandoned him for intellectual pursuits in the name of perpetuating Marxist ideology. This left Frank Marshal Davis to become his psychological paternal surrogate. Davis was indisputably an adamant and radical supporter of communism throughout his career, as evidenced by his writings and actions. Unfortunately for Obama, his mother was an inconsistent force in his life, providing no mechanism for intellectual or psychological counterbalance, ultimately leaving Obama to be raised by his grandparents and, through a sort of mentorship, Davis. This is key, for a underlying communism is the implicit dynamic that government itself is a surrogate for parents, and an appropriate substitute for spirituality. So early on, Obama was “sold out” by the very people who are supposed to build the psychosocial foundation upon which he was to fashion a positive self-concept. In short, he was discarded to the state, establishing the milieu for his personal and socio-political development. Obama himself wrote of his inner conflict in his struggle to find his cultural identify in his book, “Dreams of My Father,” in which he stated:
"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." 2
Here, we can see the genesis of Obama’s neurosis, as he is forced to identify who he is while simultaneously rejecting his white heritage. This orphaning, by his biological parents, and his didactical split from his bi-racial origins, left him vulnerable to establish the belief that the State, the all powerful and omnipotent entity, could become the parental force he was so lacking. Davis capitalized and preyed on this vulnerability.
Furthermore, Horney’s premises can explain Obama’s behavior with regard to the causes of his anxiety, which she believed was the central mechanism underlying all neuroses. As Horney expressed: “As a result (of not being loved and accepted as an individual), the child does not develop a feeling of belonging, of “we,” but instead a profound insecurity and vague apprehensiveness…” 3
Again, we see how Obama’s commitment to collectivistic tendencies are driven by his need for self-actualization and acceptance, as the State becomes the stand-in for absent parents. In his own words: “We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.” 4
But how can one feel alienated and abandoned without a resultant insecurity? There are only tow responses to feelings of alienation; utter withdrawal, or a form of lashing out in order to compensate emotionally. Horney believed that people adopt one of three psychological coping mechanisms in response to this alienation: moving toward people, moving against people, or moving away from people. Obama seems to embrace moving towards people as he grapples to establish identity and security.
According to Horney, moving towards people is characterized by seeking safety, protection and affection of others. In moving towards people, individuals seem to care substantially about the welfare of others, to have an abundance of empathy and solicitude toward those perceived as being weak or maligned by others. However, according Horney, this is a mask, a cover for true feelings which in fact represent a callous lack of interest in others, leading to ‘defiance, unconscious parasitic or exploiting tendencies, {and} propensities to control or manipulate others.” 5
This was exhibited quite clearly in policy coming from the Obama administration. The health-care legislation, which any careful and thoughtful research will show was a massive subsidization of the health-care insurance industry, the very entity derided by Obama, as a prima fascia culprit. Early on, Representative Dennis Kucinich, a bastion of liberalism, pointed out the hypocrisies of the health-care legislation, decrying it as give-away to insurance companies and big Pharma, and that the only true reform was to establish universal health-care through a government-run, single payer system. It was not until very late in the hour that Kucinich relented under the pressure from the Obama administration, selling out by voting for an unprecedented corporate entitlement. After strong-arming, or persuading Kucinich through bribery, Obama and his cronies went on a back-door, arm-twisting manipulation rampage, bringing us the likes of the “Cornhusker” deal and the “Louisiana Purchase.” Psychologically, it was at once a pathetic and grandiose attempt to delude the public about his love for mankind, a masquerade of selflessness covering his need to control in order to resolve his feelings of alienation, rejection, and ineffectiveness.
This psychological dynamic is an indisputable corollary of his sociopolitical view: Collectivism is by nature prone to move toward people, as individuals are submerged in the drive to unify society and give up their uniqueness and self-determination in deference to the needs of the masses and it’s statist apparatus. But it is all a ruse, as the leader enervates society, usurps natural law, and grabs and sustains power at the expense of individualism, making the citizen the puppet of the state, thereby satisfying the need to feel effectual despite the gaping holes of inadequacy.
In the end, Horney believed this neurosis to consume individuals as they seek they develop an idealized image, a flattering, yet hollow self-concept that promises “unattainable standards that either bring about eventual defeat, or cause the sufferer to shrink from the acid test of reality.” 6 This is clearly evident in how Obama has dealt with the oil–leak crises in the Gulf. His grandiose rock-star image, so carefully honed during the campaign season, shed its patina of pretension and exposed Obama for what he really is: weak, unresolved, insensitive, and ultimately, incapable of true leadership. Much like when the Wizard, from the movie The Wizard of Oz, was revealed to be a fraud, so Obama has shown himself for the empty suit he is—empty save for a small child whose protestations are growing fainter, no longer aided by the amplification which was also stripped from the Wizard.
1Horney, K. Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosis. New York: Norton, 1945.
2 Obama, Barack. Dreams for my father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004.
3 Horney, K. Neurosis and human growth: The struggle towards self-realization. New York: Norton, 1950.
4 Obama, Barack, 2004.
5 Horney, K., 1945
6 Ewen, Robert B. An introduction to theories of personality: Third edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1988.
So what is behind Obama’s cool and collected exterior? What belies his sense of self-aggrandizement and narcissism? In order to peel back the layers of the psyche and probe the genesis of our President’s belief system, I will use the psychological theory of Karen Horney. Horneyan Theory, which focuses on the dynamics of neurosis by examining inner conflicts, has its roots in Freudian theory. Although Freud has often been dismissed in modern psychiatric circles, his fundamental proposition that humans are inherently in some type of conflict remains germane. If not, the great canons of literature, ranging from the Bible to Shakespeare, to Steinbeck and even popular modern texts, would not have conflict at the center of their literary substrate. It is undeniable that the human condition is rooted in conflict; growth, prosperity, and peace come only when we attempt to resolve this conflict in mature ways. Thus we have gangs, war, terrorism, and domestic violence, even as we strive to make the world safer and more humane. The dichotomy of this struggle is inescapable.
So what does Horneyan theory have to say about President Obama and his behavior? To understand this we have to understand what Horney believed about the basic nature of human beings. Horney posited that people strive to develop our unique potentials, and that pathological behavior occurs when this innate drive is thwarted by external, social forces. Horney believed that “man has the capacity to as well as the desire to develop his potentials and become a decent human being, and that these deteriorate if his relationship to others, and hence himself is, and continues to be, disturbed.” 1
It is not difficult to see how this fits with Obama’s childhood. Early on, Obama was severed from his father, who abandoned him for intellectual pursuits in the name of perpetuating Marxist ideology. This left Frank Marshal Davis to become his psychological paternal surrogate. Davis was indisputably an adamant and radical supporter of communism throughout his career, as evidenced by his writings and actions. Unfortunately for Obama, his mother was an inconsistent force in his life, providing no mechanism for intellectual or psychological counterbalance, ultimately leaving Obama to be raised by his grandparents and, through a sort of mentorship, Davis. This is key, for a underlying communism is the implicit dynamic that government itself is a surrogate for parents, and an appropriate substitute for spirituality. So early on, Obama was “sold out” by the very people who are supposed to build the psychosocial foundation upon which he was to fashion a positive self-concept. In short, he was discarded to the state, establishing the milieu for his personal and socio-political development. Obama himself wrote of his inner conflict in his struggle to find his cultural identify in his book, “Dreams of My Father,” in which he stated:
"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." 2
Here, we can see the genesis of Obama’s neurosis, as he is forced to identify who he is while simultaneously rejecting his white heritage. This orphaning, by his biological parents, and his didactical split from his bi-racial origins, left him vulnerable to establish the belief that the State, the all powerful and omnipotent entity, could become the parental force he was so lacking. Davis capitalized and preyed on this vulnerability.
Furthermore, Horney’s premises can explain Obama’s behavior with regard to the causes of his anxiety, which she believed was the central mechanism underlying all neuroses. As Horney expressed: “As a result (of not being loved and accepted as an individual), the child does not develop a feeling of belonging, of “we,” but instead a profound insecurity and vague apprehensiveness…” 3
Again, we see how Obama’s commitment to collectivistic tendencies are driven by his need for self-actualization and acceptance, as the State becomes the stand-in for absent parents. In his own words: “We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.” 4
But how can one feel alienated and abandoned without a resultant insecurity? There are only tow responses to feelings of alienation; utter withdrawal, or a form of lashing out in order to compensate emotionally. Horney believed that people adopt one of three psychological coping mechanisms in response to this alienation: moving toward people, moving against people, or moving away from people. Obama seems to embrace moving towards people as he grapples to establish identity and security.
According to Horney, moving towards people is characterized by seeking safety, protection and affection of others. In moving towards people, individuals seem to care substantially about the welfare of others, to have an abundance of empathy and solicitude toward those perceived as being weak or maligned by others. However, according Horney, this is a mask, a cover for true feelings which in fact represent a callous lack of interest in others, leading to ‘defiance, unconscious parasitic or exploiting tendencies, {and} propensities to control or manipulate others.” 5
This was exhibited quite clearly in policy coming from the Obama administration. The health-care legislation, which any careful and thoughtful research will show was a massive subsidization of the health-care insurance industry, the very entity derided by Obama, as a prima fascia culprit. Early on, Representative Dennis Kucinich, a bastion of liberalism, pointed out the hypocrisies of the health-care legislation, decrying it as give-away to insurance companies and big Pharma, and that the only true reform was to establish universal health-care through a government-run, single payer system. It was not until very late in the hour that Kucinich relented under the pressure from the Obama administration, selling out by voting for an unprecedented corporate entitlement. After strong-arming, or persuading Kucinich through bribery, Obama and his cronies went on a back-door, arm-twisting manipulation rampage, bringing us the likes of the “Cornhusker” deal and the “Louisiana Purchase.” Psychologically, it was at once a pathetic and grandiose attempt to delude the public about his love for mankind, a masquerade of selflessness covering his need to control in order to resolve his feelings of alienation, rejection, and ineffectiveness.
This psychological dynamic is an indisputable corollary of his sociopolitical view: Collectivism is by nature prone to move toward people, as individuals are submerged in the drive to unify society and give up their uniqueness and self-determination in deference to the needs of the masses and it’s statist apparatus. But it is all a ruse, as the leader enervates society, usurps natural law, and grabs and sustains power at the expense of individualism, making the citizen the puppet of the state, thereby satisfying the need to feel effectual despite the gaping holes of inadequacy.
In the end, Horney believed this neurosis to consume individuals as they seek they develop an idealized image, a flattering, yet hollow self-concept that promises “unattainable standards that either bring about eventual defeat, or cause the sufferer to shrink from the acid test of reality.” 6 This is clearly evident in how Obama has dealt with the oil–leak crises in the Gulf. His grandiose rock-star image, so carefully honed during the campaign season, shed its patina of pretension and exposed Obama for what he really is: weak, unresolved, insensitive, and ultimately, incapable of true leadership. Much like when the Wizard, from the movie The Wizard of Oz, was revealed to be a fraud, so Obama has shown himself for the empty suit he is—empty save for a small child whose protestations are growing fainter, no longer aided by the amplification which was also stripped from the Wizard.
1Horney, K. Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosis. New York: Norton, 1945.
2 Obama, Barack. Dreams for my father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004.
3 Horney, K. Neurosis and human growth: The struggle towards self-realization. New York: Norton, 1950.
4 Obama, Barack, 2004.
5 Horney, K., 1945
6 Ewen, Robert B. An introduction to theories of personality: Third edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1988.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)