Bottom Line: The only other possible conclusion is that they’re both machiavellian schemers working actively and aggressively to ruin this, the greatest country that’s ever existed. Take your pick.
I’ve been harsh on our President. I’ve called him stupid, and ignorant. I’ve insinuated that he has, in spades, the nearly universal characteristic of the left that best and most succinctly describes them: intellectual laziness. I believe all of that to be true, and demonstrable, and I’ve worked hard over many pages in this blog to make that case.
Furthermore, if something is true, then we’ll never shy away from saying it, no matter what it might be! Just as important, we’ll never shy away from being corrected.
If someone advances a persuasive argument that counters a contention of ours, we’ll always embrace that correction, admit where we determine that we were wrong, and consider it a double victory for us: we get to (1) disabuse ourselves of a weak notion, and (2) replace it with a stronger one. In that way, we’re always advancing intellectually. This is an active, aggressive state-of-mind in all the writers of our small, but increasingly influential, think tank.
Back to Obama.
People have upbraided me: “C’mon,” they say, “he can’t be stupid. He’s the President! That means that he was able to persuade bunches of people of a vision, and he was able to provide them with enough leadership to be elected, and then re-elected.”
My response is the same as that when I hear people call Hitler, or Muhammad Ali, a “genius.”
I remember the first time I heard someone describe Hitler as “a genius,” and I remember how poorly that sat with me, but I hadn’t yet figured out why. I finally came up with something like: “How can someone be a ‘genius,’ when he was simply extremely good at doing and/or saying extremely stupid things?”
First off, Henri Joly said, “Genius is always creative and not destructive.” I’m inclined, with a lot of nuances, to agree with the conclusion. That would rule out Hitler and Ali immediately. Both were, let’s face it, bent on a good deal of destruction. Whether it was of existing world orders (Hitler), or of the faces of his opponents (Ali).
It’s the same with Obama. He’s really, really good at saying really, really stupid things. His justifications for his various policies are transparently stupid, and he says them really well. A great orator can read the phone book and make it a riveting spectacle. Obama’s not a great orator, but he’s a good public speaker. He’s got style … at a time when America is all about style, and not so much about substance.
Style over substance. That was all Hitler was too. And Muhammad Ali. Being really good at presentation does not require genius, just practice. If you’re really good at presenting a bunch of steaming, stinking, substanceless flapdoodle, then you are, decidedly, not a genius, but rather a moron with style. That’s Obama.
Which is why the ascent of Hillary Clinton is only a bit mysterious. She’s a moron too. But she’s really bad at presenting her really stupid thoughts and ideas. She doesn’t speak or speechify, she bellows. She can’t give a straight answer to any question. She’s the very definition of parasitical Washington, DC fat cat greed and corruption. She moves constantly from boneheaded answer to a question, to a ridiculous scandal that would sink any candidate who’s not a woman, to some idiotic move that makes her look completely ridiculous. Come to think of it, maybe it’s not surprising that the Democrat Party voter base — whose collective intelligence and knowledge you could put into a coffee mug, and still have plenty of room for cream and sugar — would like her.
Here’s what’s going on though: the Democrat Party rabble are in a stupider-than-usual phase, if you can believe that(1) — during which they’ve embraced the style-stuffed, but stooopid-as-a-stump, madder than the maddest hatter lunatic, Bernie Sanders. That the same rabble might take nearly as enthusiastically to the towering mediocrity, the thoroughly empty pantsuit, the woman overloaded with titles, but no discernible positive accomplishments(2), Hillary Clinton, shouldn’t be all that difficult to understand.
So, regarding the relative intelligence of our political leaders: How can Obama be considered intelligent when he’s done precisely nothing of what he promised to do when elected? Instead, though, he’s spent considerably energy and effort to stifle the dynamism of the greatest economy the world has ever seen. He’s been really good at doing that — really good at doing something really stupid.
Hillary Clinton likewise. No accomplishments whatsoever — going back some 30 years in Washington — except exactly the opposite of what she ever said she’d do. Either she’s a complete moron, or she’s really good at telling us she’ll do something, then, when elected or appointed, accomplishing the exact opposite. In other words: really good at doing really stupid things.
So… where does all this leave us? I still can’t shake the conviction that Obama and Hillary Clinton are brainless doofuses. Don’t be too offended, all you defenders of Obama and Clinton, it’s the charitable conclusion.
The only other possible conclusion is that they’re both machiavellian schemers working actively and aggressively to ruin this, the greatest country that’s ever existed.
Take your pick.
(1) Items: George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama and, of course, Hillary Clinton. It should be really hard to top that line-up of morons, half-wits, clodpoles, bone-headed boobies and dolts, but each election cycle the Democrats do. Incredible!
(2) She does have important accomplishments in her résumé. Unfortunately, they were all on behalf of America’s sworn enemies.