Manny Mondays: Has Our National Affliction Reached the White House?

Morning all! I know that most of us want to stay away from overt political commentary on this blog, but a NY Times Op-Ed caught my eye over the weekend because it touches on one of the seeming afflictions of the populace that has both mortified and stupefied yours truly, in addition to other posters and commenters at other blogs. What's this "national affliction", you ask? Answer: Stockholm Syndrome.

What is "Stockholm Syndrome", you ask? Here is a rough definition of it courtesy of Wikipedia:

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially mistaking a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.[1] [2] The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]

It's been my premise since this crisis started that much of the public continues to suffer from at least a mild form of this affliction, with many, instead of "connecting the dots" by doing some actual critical thinking, continually defending their "captors" or "masters", including the big Wall Street banks, banking system itself, and the Fed, as well as those political leaders who continue to make policy decisions that do actual great harm on most of its stakeholders, namely We the People, instead of benefiting us.

Well, according to Frank Rich in yesterday's Sunday NY Times, this affliction may have also reached the Executive Suite in the White House. Rich eviscerates the President for continually trying to placate the GOP, a body that has continually and openly stated that its main and only goal is to destroy his presidency and "make Obama a one-term president" no matter the short or long term harm inflicted on the country as a whole. Here are some key passages from the article:

This dynamic was acted out — yet again — in President Obama’s latest and perhaps most humiliating attempt to placate his Republican captors in Washington. No sooner did he invite the G.O.P.’s Congressional leaders to a post-election White House summit meeting than they countered his hospitality with a slap — postponing the date for two weeks because of “scheduling conflicts.” But they were kind enough to reschedule, and that was enough to get Obama to concentrate once more on his captors’ “good side.”

More here:

And so, as the big bipartisan event finally arrived last week, he handed them an unexpected gift, a freeze on federal salaries. Then he made a hostage video hailing the White House meeting as “a sincere effort on the part of everybody involved to actually commit to work together.” Hardly had this staged effusion of happy talk been disseminated than we learned of Mitch McConnell’s letter vowing to hold not just the president but the entire government hostage by blocking all legislation until the Bush-era tax cuts were extended for the top 2 percent of American households.

Rich goes on to make the very important point (I believe) that what the country yearns for (and thought it was getting in Obama) is real leadership, which means someone who can make the difficult decisions and make the case plainly and bluntly to the American people (speak the "hard truths"). In short, what people admire in a leader is continually knowing what they stand for, which might partially explain George Bush's ability to get elected, then re-elected, in addition to being able to get much of his agenda through Congress without even close to a filibuster-proof Congress.

Now I think that "W" was wrong on just about everything, but we always knew where he stood on the issues and who he was representing (he certainly didn't care about what I thought or the 50% of the country that didn't vote for him). Obama seems to lack any conviction of just about anything. Everything is up for negotiation right off the bat, even his most prized chips. It would be one thing if he were a shrewd negotiator but he gives up his most important negotiating chips right from the get-go, which is very disheartening to many people who voted for him in '08. In times of crisis, the country needs a leader with a capital "L" that can use the bully pulpit to stand up for his ideals and values (assuming he has any) and rouse "We the People" to follow. Obama seems to be more of conciliator and mediator and one who prefers to find the "good" in his adversaries and namely "get along" with the other side and find what he perceives to be "middle ground", even if his enemies ending up getting the lion's share of what they want, while the other side fights for scraps off the table. That might be OK if we weren't in a time of dire crisis where what's required, and what the people yearn for, is a real leader who LEADS by and with his values and convictions, even if many might disagree with them.

Here's more from Rich on how NJ governor Chris Christie is governing, no, LEADING, in contrast to Obama, and how even many of his adversaries seem to be falling into line:

Christie’s popularity among national right-wing activists and bloggers has been stoked by a viral YouTube video where he dresses down a constituent in a manner that recalls Ralph Kramden sending Alice “to the moon.” But the core of Christie’s appeal at home is that he explains passionately held views in concrete, plain-spoken detail. Voters know what he stands for and sometimes respect him for his forthrightness even when they reject the stands themselves. This extends to his signature issue — his fiscal and rhetorical blows against public education. He’s New Jersey’s most popular statewide politician despite the fact that a 59 percent majority in the state thinks public schools deserve more taxpayer money, not less.

G.O.P. propagandists notwithstanding, Christie’s appeal does not prove that New Jersey (and therefore the country) has “turned to the right.” It does prove that people want a leader with a strong voice, even if only to argue with it.

A lot can happen until the '12 election, but I fear for this reason among all the others at this point Obama will not only be a one-term president, but he may even see a primary challenge (which actually might not be a bad thing for the Dems and country long-term, as I think it's time to break the stranglehold the current two-party system has on the country).

Go read the whole article here, and if you have time, read many of the reader comments as well. They are MOST telling of the increasing despair that's out there, and gaining momentum about the President's lack of toughness, resolve and real leadership qualities.

All the President's Captors