-Barack Obama, July 15, 2008
"I will close Guantanamo Bay, no question."
-Barack Obama, to Rolling Stone Magazine, 2008
"...the FBI is now investigating Fannie Mae, which was operated, and run into the ground by Barack Obama's housing adviser, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, head of Obama's VP selection committee whose policy was to loan to unqualified borrowers, often black Americans and illegal aliens, supported by Democrats in Congress, such as Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, and Obama, himself, whom shielded Fannie Mae from prosecution..."
-The New Yorker, 2009
"...Mr Obama has elected not to allow the prosecution of Valerie Jarret, a campaign adviser implicated in the Real Estate bubble-burst..."
-NBC news, Jan, 2009
|The chart of presidential character, as given to us by James David Barber. Obama is difficult to place...at first.|
Unless you are a political science major, or some sort of avid enthusiast, chances are that the name James David Barber isn't one that is a part of your everyday lexicon. James David Barber is perhaps the leading authority on American presidents, and the presidency itself. He passed away in 2004, but his personal contribution to political science is what some consider the most accurate template for judging and predicting the nature of any given president. Although controversial, due to his categorizations into one of four types, his system, still in use today, also still receives criticism for "oversimplifying the complexities of a man, his times, and his relationships to power". However, his system has never been superseded by anybody else's, in particular, any of his critics.
Barber divides the character of a president into four types, and those are based on two basic divisions, active, or passive, then further divided into positive, or negative.
Examples of what Barber considered to be the most desirable presidential character, active positive, would be FDR and JFK. An example of an active negative presidential character would be Nixon. Another example of an active negative president is LBJ. And, a passive negative presidential example would be Eisenhower.
As you may be guessing, Barber surmised active or negative based on public profile, which is driven by that particular president's self esteem, and other, similar contributing factors, such as how and if possible, why a president is or was personally motivated towards his goals. And, respectively, negative or positive describes how a president's relationships with power affect his successes and failures: the latter being every bit as important as the former.
Who Broke The Mold
In the case of Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States, however, Barber's critics may have a point. Obama seems to have a magnanimous self-esteem, driven by positivity all-around. If we only had Washington Post articles guiding us in regards to Mr Obama, he is less man and more demigod. I once infuriated the pilot fish of Washington Post journalists and the 538 Democrat faithfuls who surround Nate Silver by what my conclusions were as to where Obama's place in Barber's system is, but they are feminist journalists whom wrote things on Quora such as, "Russians and Germans don't hate each other..." and, "Hillary will beat Trump in a landslide..."
Though not one among them majored in Political Science, nor lived in Europe, nor has Russian and German friends telling them otherwise since 1980... Eventually, their Jewishness nauseated me to the point where I was content to wait until Black Lives Matter elected Trump, I laughed, called them kikes, and left Quora.
To be clear, Obama's legacy didn't really break the mold...but was hidden beneath the branches and shallow, reflective, and murky waters of what his supporters, in particular, the Washington Post and NYT, are willing to ignore, which makes me very sceptical as to these publications' neutral veracity.
Active positive presidents, like JFK, for instance, run a transparent Oval Office. The most obvious contradiction here would be the reasons FDR did not, which were national security concerns, otherwise, active positive presidents, via inclusion of the American public on television, or radio, do not defer to back room and hidden agendas of national concerns. As the Bay Of Pigs speech by JFK: an active positive president, in the final analysis, takes full credit for failures on the part of his administration.
For Obama's successes, we were lauded and treated to partisan and divisive, often ambiguous celebrations of each time his administration broke wind and nobody knew who did it. For the death of Bin Laden, we ignored national tragedies, wiping them from headlines for weeks (Joplin Missouri, Jasper and Cordova, Alabama) while we pretended we had killed 9-11's actual planner: Benjamin Netanyahu.
In this huge body of reference is a list of very revealing traits of Mr Obama's which actually begin on the campaign trail. This, and not my personal contempt (I think he is a much better president than Trump) is the first clue.
A symptom of presidential character is his believability, as a person. Without having to break any molds set forth by David Barber, we know that credibility doesn't live or die in the press, in spite of the Washington Post's refusal to write and publicly criticize the huge list of disparities between the Obama we elected and the Obama we got. Excuses are the business of the Bilderberger controlled media, political science deals only in fact: Obama's relationships to power were made negative by the unfulfilled campaign promises which outnumbered his fulfilled ones substantially.
This means, no matter how one may choose to believe or not to believe it, but according to David Barber, Obama's presidency, in the second template, would be a negative presidency.
Was he an active, or a passive negative president?
We can examine this in terms of the many crisis that he and his administration faced.
We will examine those most pressing to the long and short term relevance to the US:
3. EU Relations
Libya represents the kind of failure we see in passive negative presidential traits: Obama is not innovating, deferring, and failed by those to whom he deferred. The immediate conclusion is that his making Hillary a "friend" was more damaging to his legacy, and the nation, than ignoring her would ever have been. While the logic is sound, teaching her and her husband that they had any relevance was a very costly mistake, and he would have been better suited to have put someone to head up the State Department whom actually deserved to hold such a vital part of the US gov, one that wouldn't have been more concerned with her own impressions of her ambitions, which injured the Obama Administration, the United States, as well as continued the incompetent act of further destabilizing the Arab world. The clandestine acts in Egypt which resulted in regime change in that nation are also a mistake, as even now it appears that nation will resolve its leadership crises by theocratic means.
Syria combines a lot of the tendencies we see in a passive pursuit of agenda, and negative relationship with power. Where active presidents are innovative, and try to resolve crises whose unique etiology requires a new approach, the passive presidential character tends to try to resolve crises by deference to worn out and generally unsuccessful methadologies. This, of course, continues to remain the case in Syria. The announcement of July, 2013, that there would be a military response for Syria's having violated international law, and the Assad regime deploying chemical agents against the rebels in Damascus, would be the beginning of a total policy failure, which is currently guiding (I use that term loosely) Trump's administration in the region. The convoluted and counter intuitive arming of all sides in this conflict has been a direct contributing factor to the success of enemies of the US, such as ISIL(IS).
|July, 31, 2013: Obama pushes for a US military response to Assad using gas against rebels|
This crisis requires a shift in US policy and geopolitical position, a betrayal of at least the bloodthirsty Netanyahu, and at best Israel altogether, and a resuming of honesty, an elimination of secret and UnAmerican cabals, and an acknowledgement of Russia's seniority in terms of Syria, and this is so even if the false flag event had been real. There are no words to explain Trump's failure, which if you think I am harsh to Obama...when his single term finally ends...hurrah!
In this department EU analysts will provide glowing responses: in spite of the TTIP treaty being closed down, and the ridiculous attempt of the Obama Administration to assist the misguided and insincere humanitarian policies driven by EU here, in the US. But the numbers concerning EU relations in terms of both increasing their financial profiles, and enjoying a higher quality of life, Mr Obama's impressions of their unquestioned wisdom, which is as incorrect as it is deferring, has injured both the meta state, and the US's political awareness of it. These also include the pointless existence of a US role within NATO never being faithfully examined, as well as the emphasis on US money, men, and material being contributed to the NATO effort, when, outside of backing the banking heresies fractional reserve banking is composed of, the role of NATO as well as the US's presence in it, as well as our relationship to EU are all simply ambiguous. The fourth president whom refuses to recognize this currently is in the White House.
The Ceramic Is Dry
What this leaves political science to conclude is that Barack Obama is an example of a passive negative president. These are presidents who have problems keeping campaign promises, as well as tending to surround themselves with "experts" whose direction or advice does not actually resolve problems. They tend to be reluctant to innovate, and thus they are in like lions, out like lambs.
Personally, he was a good president, the better of the last five we have had.
Successes of Obama's administration include the opening of Cuba, reshaping US policy towards Israel via the still classified proof that implicates Israel, for usage of US made weapons, as well as technology that they stole via espionage, on 9-11, the killing of Bin Laden, a gainful and forward motion to the notion that each and every American should be covered by health care, and his easing of the regulatory astringencies governing student loans.
One of his larger mistakes was his attempt to bury the coal industry, and his accepting the deceptions offered him by the proponents of Fraking. He also pushed way to hard for the unrealistic sciences of non fossil fuel developments, which need a lot more time in the egg before realistic applications are in any way practical.
So, the picture of Obama, the president, is passive negative, and may rewrite the status as a new type of this category. But true to Barber's template, there is no other place for him than this.
His presidency is a prime example of mediocrity eating our nation from the inside, although, he himself, is nothing of the kind.
I want to add, also, that the chart at the beginning of this article is itself inaccurate. No president has kept his promises. According to Barber, this makes them negative by definition. But, due to a hesitancy in the academic divide present in Ivy League, a functional truth is being averted by this fallacious oversight. But, it is not one I choose to analyze just yet. But, I will say this: Reagan, "I will end Selective Service". Carter, "I will put the long, national nightmare behind us." Bush, "No new taxes." Clinton, "I will end NAFTA, before it gets started!" ReBush, "I will not engage in Nation Building." Which brings us to today....
We have not had a positive presidency, as defined by Barber, except among the Ivy League ivory tower hobknobbers, whose ability to speak to facts is hindered for reasons of flattery.
Flattery is the enemy of truth.
Each of these men betrayed the defining statements of their candidacies/presidencies.
According to Barber, they are all negative.