PeteFree.comLiberal Columnist Bob Herbert Summed the Best Argument against Reelecting President Obama — Tactlessly Paraphrased, “He’s a Slacker” — and a Comment about Hard Work’s Foundation in Humility
© 2012 Peter Free
05 October 2012
Energetic liar versus arrogant slacker — a difficult presidential choice
My primary moral irritation with President Obama is that his conceited, self-centered complacence gets our troops (and foreign innocents) killed to no good purpose.
Yesterday, humanist Bob Herbert joined that moral critique:
One of the more remarkable things about the [first presidential] debate was Mitt Romney's absolute contempt for anything resembling facts, truth or reality. Deliberate deception was the bedrock foundation of his strategy.
He wouldn't even come clean on the tax cuts that are a cornerstone of his campaign. And yet it was Romney who had the chutzpah to look Obama in the eye and assert: "Mr. President, you're entitled to your own airplane and your own house, but not your own facts."
How in heaven's name could Obama let him get away with that?
The president had no right to show up for a debate unprepared and offer an expectant nation an embarrassingly half-hearted performance.
The president let his people down.
And if he's capable of doing that in an election that is clearly so important, it means he's capable of doing it again if he wins a second term.
© 2012 Bob Herbert, No More Excuses, Huffington Post (04 October 2012) (paragraphs split)
He “had no right” — goes to the heart of the issue
He “had no right” is the key to understanding the President’s lackluster performance in the debate and over the last three plus years. President Obama apparently feels entitled to greatness, without doing the work and suffering usually necessary to attain it.
He apparently feels entitled to widely acknowledged success in public office, even though he:
(a) regularly disregards the needs of the voters who put him there
and
(b) exhibits “I won’t talk to you” contempt for politicians who hold diverging views.
Bob Herbert is correct to be morally angry.
Absolutely, the President “had no right” to so obviously and unwarrantedly disrespect his political adversary and the American people.
On this point, let’s agree to discount the ethical opprobrium that ordinarily accompanies spiritual arrogance and a companion lack of humility. We will accept that being a politician on the national stage automatically brings with it self-importance, self-centeredness, and a noticeable lack of spiritually admirable character traits.
Even so, we can still legitimately criticize a politician, who so foolishly underestimates the respect-worthy qualities that he should have inferred from his adversary’s obvious past successes.
Conceit makes us both blind and stupid.
Consider the President’s legal background — and the lesson that he did not learn from it
The President, a Harvard law grad and law professor, should be held to a higher standard, when it comes to preparing for argument.
As a former (minor) litigating lawyer, I know that anything short of a best effort is a losing one. One’s legal adversaries are almost always going to bring meaningful counter-arguments to the courtroom conflict. The more that is on the line, the more true this is.
Consequently, a high-level corporate litigator, who turned in a dismal performance to match President Obama’s failure Wednesday night, would almost certainly be looking for another job within the week.
Does the President’s belittling conceit make him un-teachable, as Bob Herbert comes close to implying?
The moral? — Would you prefer an energetic and commanding liar or an inappropriately timed slacker for president?
Not an uplifting choice, is it?
Meanwhile, troops and innocents are still dying in Afghanistan, and a pitiful few among our American population, at sadly serial military bases and posts, will be standing at attention as their flag-draped caskets come home.
Those who serve, and those who toil, deserve better than a choice between liars and slackers for President and Commander in Chief.