WASHINGTON, June 17, 2014 – Conversations must begin honestly. It is perfectly legitimate to analyze leaders with critical lenses. People fight and die for this freedom.
Times are serious, and Obama may not be. The question of whether Obama is lazy evokes everything from discomfort to rage. Yet asking and answering questions provokes “national conversations” that President Obama cherishes.
Racism exists (thankfully, such views are marginalized). Calling blacks “lazy” is one way for racists to spread their message. Denying the connotation denies history.
So how can calling Obama lazy not be racist?
The immediate leftist response is to cry racist wolf. “Lazy” is a “dog whistle” word along with “Chicago” and other verbiage only liberals and canines can hear.
A sliver of Obama detractors are bigots. Yet many Obama defenders are sycophants, equating criticism of him with racism. What if Obama’s race is irrelevant?
President Dwight Eisenhower was called lazy. So was 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson. At my initial stockbrokerage firm, black stockbrokers often did better because they grew up in tougher circumstances than their white counterparts. The white stockbrokers came from privilege, and coasted.
Stockbrokers are not superior by birth or race. My observation is that my colleagues who earned more simply worked harder, regardless of whether they were Black or White. The checks issued at the end of the week often showed the Black brokers simply worked harder.
Supporters credit Obama for earnings by his being “symbolic.” Yet Obama is not an entire race. He is one person who happens to be that race, along with millions of others.
Analyze the individual – not the race. In circumstances good and bad.
Obama is not a Kenyan Muslim subversive. He is a Hawaiian Christian. He is also not revolutionary based on any deeds.
Barry Sotero was ordinary. In college, he represented nothing unique. He was typical, mainstream and generic. His hobbies included alcohol, drugs, surfing, and “chilling.” He was a “stoner” and a “slacker.” This is not an indictment.
Many young people lack ambition.
Supporters tout his intelligence, yet nothing historical shows Obama as intellectually curious. 95% of Americans are “average” within two standard deviations. Mr. Obama’s is not in the bottom or top 2.5%. He is not inferior or superior, but on the average spectrum.
His transcripts and college thesis are mysteries. Sycophants link this to “birthers,” an invalid comparison. His Americanism does not offer basic metrics of his intelligence and beliefs. Worshipers find Obama “worldly,” but many people live overseas. Americans often find British accents “sexy” and French culture “sophisticated.” That has zero connection to aptitude.
He struggles without teleprompters, stuttering and stammering when veering from programmed scripts. Intelligence (or lack of) is not a work ethic. Intellectual laziness is not divorced from physical laziness.
He was the Harvard Law Review President (HLRP). Those advancing the affirmative action explanation are called racists, but the point of affirmative action is to give minorities access. A better explanation is that becoming president of anything, as he would later prove, is often a popularity contest. Obama can be an affable, inoffensive and blandly harmless campaigner. Supporters use circular logic. He has intellectual merit because he was the HLRP and became the HLRP because he had intellectual merit.
This is not proof, and nobody can find his publishings that would offer at least one indicator of his intelligence.
Barack Obama became an adjunct professor, lightly regarded by peers and students. He spent time ‘community organizing’ before entering politics. He ran in Illinois against scandalized opponents.
He was likable, dogmatically liberal, and non-controversial.
Does being President automatically convey hard work and brains? Would liberals concede those qualities to George W. Bush? Not one example exists of anything significant happening specifically because of intense Obama engagement and effort.
Political supporters often engage in fiction. “Saved us from a great depression” is sloganeering, not policy. Obama surrendered on Obamacare, and was bailed out by Nancy Pelosi. Obama is an introvert who eschews building relationships. He enjoys “being” President, but prefers nights at home with his family. He dislikes “doing” the rigorous work of governing.
George Herbert Walker Bush constantly telephoned world leaders built relationships. Bill Clinton spent all-nighters discussing policy with legislators. George W. Bush after 9/11 devoured all information necessary to deal with threats.
Obama loves speaking but appears to loathe governing. Speaking is glamorous. Governing is boring and tedious. He constantly tells everybody else to “get to work” while he is AWOL.
The fiscal cliff negotiations saw Mitch McConnell bypass him and work with Vice President Joe Biden. Obama vacationed and signed the bill electronically from Hawaii.
Obama supporters somehow extrapolate valid criticisms and conclude racism and malice. Mainstream critics do not see Obama as evil, but then being evil would require effort.
Significant events have happened during Obama’s presidency, but not because of anything unique he did. The narrative “al Qaeda is dead and GM is alive” has been discredited.
Obama, like the white stockbrokers of my previous life, coasted. He is the CEO who wants secretaries to work faster without understanding administrative functions. During crises like the BP oil explosion, he is helpless, and therefore useless. Head coaches motivating players must know the playbook. President Obama skips intelligence and economics meetings.
Any evidence refuting his shallowness is hidden by his choosing.
Barack Obama wins awards like the Nobel Peace Prize for his winning smile and politically correct pre-packaged words. Worshipers elevate him based on their feelings of his merit, not his exhibited merit. He is not evil or godlike. He is just, like most people, unimpressive and unremarkable. His cult of personality is a post-modernism aura in a world craving real solutions.
It insults millions of hard-working Americans of all races to give him unearned credit. Once the platitudes are removed, supporters will not find a single policy accomplishment in his entire first term that has anything to do with him.
Others did the heavy lifting while he took credit and deflected blame.
This does not make him a bad guy. It just makes him unmotivated, or in simpler terms, lazy.