Discriminations

[NOTE: This post has been UPDATED]

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe begins a recent perceptive, deeply troubling column about our president’s seemingly boundless narcissism by relating how Obama, who couldn’t be bothered to attend the celebrations in Germany marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, nevertheless managed to make his videotaped remarks about the historic event about ... himself.

.... He referred to “tyranny,” but never identified the tyrants -- he never uttered the words “Soviet Union” or “communism,” for example. He said nothing about the men and women who died trying to cross the wall. Nor did he mention Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan -- or even Mikhail Gorbachev.

He did, however, talk about Barack Obama.

“Few would have foreseen,” declared the president, “that a united Germany would be led by a woman from [the former East German state of] Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.”

As presidential rhetoric goes, this was hardly a match for “Ich bin ein Berliner,” still less another “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” But as a specimen of presidential narcissism, it is hard to beat.

Hard, perhaps, but not impossible. Jacoby also quotes part of this priceless gem of Obamian self-regard:

Patrick Gaspard, the campaign’s political director, said that when, in early 2007, he interviewed for a job with Obama and Plouffe, Obama said that he liked being surrounded by people who expressed strong opinions, but he also said, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” After Obama’s first debate with McCain, on September 26th, Gaspard sent him an e-mail. “You are more clutch than Michael Jordan,” he wrote. Obama replied, “Just give me the ball.”

But wait; Jacoby wasn’t through yet.

At the start of his presidency, Obama seemed to content himself with the royal “we” -- “We will build the roads and bridges . . . We will restore science to its rightful place . . . We will harness the sun and winds,” he declaimed at his inauguration.

But as the literary theorist Stanley Fish points out, “By the time of the address to the Congress on Feb. 24, the royal we [had] flowered into the naked ‘I’: ‘As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress.’ ‘I called for action.’ ‘I pushed for quick action.’ ‘I have told each of my cabinet.’ ‘I’ve appointed a proven and aggressive inspector general.’ ‘I refuse to let that happen.’ ‘I will not spend a single penny.’ ‘I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves.’ ‘I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half.’” In his speech on the federal takeover of GM, Obama likewise found it necessary to use the first-person singular pronoun 34 times. (“Congress” he mentioned just once.)

At this rate, it won’t be long before the president’s ego is so inflated that it will require a ZIP code of its own.

Obama’s supersized ego is no more in evidence now than it has always been, but the mainstream press does seem to be noticing it more, perhaps because his “story” has produced so little of substance since his election. In the Washington Post this morning, for example, Anne Kornblut reports on it in an article under the headline, “Obama’s story infused Asian tour.”

SEOUL -- After taking his message as the “first Pacific president” through four countries in eight days, President Obama wrapped up his tour of Asia on Thursday with talks with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and a planned visit to U.S. troops stationed in the shadow of nuclear-armed North Korea....

The Seoul stop was the last on a trip that has notably lacked concrete achievements but has seen Obama’s personal narrative on full display, as he reminisced about the ice cream he ate during a childhood visit to Japan, invoked his “historic ties” to Indonesia and recalled his mother’s work in the villages of Southeast Asia. After more than a week of using his biography to connect to audiences in Asia -- perhaps the last corner of the globe where he had yet to take his story -- Obama appeared as popular as ever among ordinary citizens in the region.

Kornblut then wonders whether “his biography-as-diplomacy approach beginning to show its limits?” (Beginning?)

And what did The One have to say to those troops guarding the outposts of freedom? Kornblut, now apparently wise to Obamian ways, reports in another article today:

Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time), and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cell phones to snap pictures.

“You guys make a pretty good photo op,” the president said.

Standing on a riser wearing a blue suit and red tie, with a cluster of troops and a large American flag behind him, Obama expressed “the gratitude of the American public” and said his meetings in four countries over eight days in Asia will help deliver a “safer more prosperous world for all of us.”

He got a huge cheer when he told them he was increasing military pay. “That’s what you call an applause line,” he said, before boarding his jet and taking off at 4:11 p.m.

As usual, it was all about him, or rather Him. The world will be a safer and more prosperous place because of his meetings; U.S. troops on active duty a photo op for him, providing an appropriate audience for him to deliver a line designed to produce applause ... for, as usual, him.

I wonder if any of those Democrats who are being herded into position to sacrifice their seats in 2010 for his extravagance are beginning have second (or even first) thoughts.

UPDATE [20 Nov.]

Thanks to Jeff Jacoby for this tweet, and welcome to all of you who followed his link to this post.