Barack Obama is No Adolf Hitler

Countless are the differences between Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama.  Hitler was the paradigm of evil.  Nothing of the sort holds for Obama.  Alas, there are also some striking similarities between the two.  These similarities do not make Obama evil.  However, the similarities may shed light on why his support is eroding so precipitously.  In the words of the distinguished newspaper Le Monde, there a kind of “chute libre”—a free fall, if you will—that is occurring in the support for Obama.  How is that possible?

If it is obvious that President Barack Obama is one of the most gifted speakers of just about any generation, what is far less clear is that he is actually attentive to what others say and think.  And that is a comparison between Hitler and Obama. 

No one can doubt that Hitler was gifted orator.  I am moved when I watch him speak; and I have not a clue what he said.  People fainted at rallies at which Obama spoke.  Yet, I doubt if anyone can point to anything that he said that would warrant anyone’s fainting.  Hitler captivated people a time when people needed a sense of hope.  Do I need to note the comparison with Obama?  People were so busy blaming George Bush for anything and everything that anyone who could sound like a viable alternative to Bush already had an enormous advantage.  And if, in addition to sounding like a viable alternative to Bush, a person could speak with a certain je ne sais quoi: well, then that person might as well be dubbed a prophet. 

In desperate times, a very articulate and eloquent speaker who offers a contrasting alternative is readily seen as a godsend.  Not so much because of what he actually said, but because of what the speaker in fact represents in terms of a hopeful alternative. 

Obama was the anti-Bush; and as such, it mattered less what substantive things he actually said than that he maintained his stance as the anti-Bush.  And as the anti-Bush, Mr. Barack Obama was truly brilliant. 

One very poignant drawback to Obama’s power of charisma is that far too few people actually reflected upon what Obama indeed stood for other than—day I say it: change.  Otherwise smart and thoughtful people wanted Obama as President of the United States because he stood for change.  Almost none of the very same people had a clue as to what change amounted to other than that it was an anti-Bush stance. 

Now, just as Hitler was not very good at taking advice from others or paying serious attention to what others said, it would appear that the same holds for President Obama.  Hitler was more than a little besotted with himself.  The same holds for Obama. 

In one very obvious sense, the Henry Louis Gates fiasco is most inconsequential.  In another equally obvious sense, it is most revealing about Mr. Obama.  From the very outset, President Obama should never have gotten involved in the matter.  There was no major moral or social issue at stake.  Neither the life nor the career of Gates was hanging in the balance. 

Yet, Obama moved most impetuously; and it is that fact that is most revealing.  What does it reveal?  It reveals that Obama is so taken with his ability to impress people that he does not see himself as answerable to people.  And that was the case with Hitler.  Arguably, in fact, the reason why Hitler lost the war is that he did not see himself answerable to others. 

Unfortunately, there is another way of putting the point: Hitler hardly took other people seriously.  It is far from clear to that Obama takes other people seriously.  There is all the difference in the world between masterfully maneuvering amidst a crowd and taking other people seriously.  With regarding to maneuvering in a crowd, Barack Obama stands as a master.  With regard to taking other people seriously, I do not see the evidence of that Obama is disposed to do so. 

There is a program-segment called Arrested Intelligence.   What makes that segment so disturbing is that ordinary people often prove to be clueless about some of the most basic things.  In one segment people were asked “When Bush gives his State of the Union address, what union will he be talking about?”  To this question, painfully many people responded: “I don’t know”. 

The truth that most people are clueless about basic things is one that Obama grasped better than many would suppose and which he used to his advantage.  And if that is right, then the people themselves constitute a fundamental part of the explanation for Obama’s irresponsible success, as I shall say.  Not only that, this may suggest that Obama is indeed just like any other politician, namely more concerned with winning office than doing right by the people while in office. 

Another clue in this regard was Obama’s decision to leave Pastor Wright’s church.  That decision had nothing at all to do with a deep personal conviction about right and wrong and everything to do with political expediency.  Yet, we as a nation refused to make Obama accountable in this regard; and that is precisely what he counted on.  What could possibly have been more revealing about Obama than that he attended that church for 20-years?  That was no mistake; and it revealed a hostility that made him unfit to be president—a hostility that he had notwithstanding the fact that every reasonable account he had done and was doing better than the vast majority of the American population.  Bitterness and hostility notwithstanding one’s success are never good signs.  By the way, Hitler was also a bitter man.

Change!  That is what Barack Obama stood for.  That is what Hitler stood for.  Indeed, it is surprising how common it is nowadays for people to explain themselves by references to a simple bit of terminology, even though the terminology admits of countless interpretations many of which are morally fulsome.  For instance, all sorts of people are for diversity nowadays.  These very same people seem to ignore the truth that talk of diversity is compatible with attributing essences to people; and history shows that attributing essences to people invariably leads to gross injustices. 

This history lesson, then, is this: One should never be so disenchanted with a given state of affairs that the only thing one is interested in is change.  For then one may get what one asked for, namely change, but not wanted one actually wanted, namely something better. 

A final question, which is worse: Having a president to stupid to lead, as many will say was true of Bush, or having an intellectually gifted president who is full of himself and quite given to both deception and self-deception? 

Some will take the above remarks to mean that I preferred Bush to Obama.  My remarks do not entail that.  All that the above remarks entail is that it is anything but obvious that Obama is in the end a better choice than the idiot that so many supposed Bush to be. 

People were much more interested in not being called racist than in holding Obama accountable.  And they were far too interested in holding Bush accounting for everything than holding themselves accountable for anything. 

History shows that irresponsibility and fear have never contributed to choosing well.