It isn’t hard to predict a narcissist’s behavior

On October 22, 2008, I wrote this:

The MSM has been remarkably cavalier about Joe Biden’s bizarre statement regarding the “fact” that America will be attacked six months into a Barack Obama presidency and that people will be shocked and disappointed by Obama’s response (meaning that he’ll either collapse in a sobbing heap, thereby horrifying most Americans, or launch a nuclear missile strike, which will alienate his base).

The sobbing heap is well hidden from public view, but the collapse is obvious:

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

(See also Hot Air.)

Narcissists have no strong inner sense of self.  Instead, they have just a gaping hole of inadequacy.  They compensate by elevating to staggering levels of importance the way in which others view them.  Other people’s perceptions provide their mirror.  Think about this for a moment:  I bet you know who you are and what you stand for.  If you think you’re a good or smart person, the fact that your wife is 10 pounds overweight or your husband has a stutter is irrelevant to your sense of self.  For a narcissist, the spouse’s “failings” indicate to everyone that the narcissist is a loser.  Remember, he has no inner guide to his own qualities.  Despite (or because of) this internal emptiness, narcissists are obsessed with hierarchy, and with the need to remind themselves, and everyone else, that they are on the top of the heap.  It’s the low self-esteem of the exceptionally arrogant person.

Clinton was a narcissist who filled the emptiness with female adulation.  His little brain was ticking away with “I’m a charming stud.  I’m a charming stud.”

Obama’s little brain says “Everyone can see I’m a genius.  Everyone can see I’m a genius.”  The problem with that definition, of course, is that it’s unanchored to moral beliefs or values or guiding principles or anything else decent and internalized.  It’s a standard measured only by other people’s praise.  The problem with this external measurement, of course, is that if you make a mistake the praise goes away.  Narcissists cannot afford mistakes.  And the best way to avoid a mistake is not to make a decision.  And there you have it.  Obama is being tested, and he cannot afford, because of his own self-image, to make a decision that might be wrong.  So he does nothing at all, while the Taliban burnishes its strength, and our troops die.

I know I miss Bush, but I never thought I’d miss Clinton.  The one had values, and was willing to make decisions, even if they were wrong; and the other, at least, had charm.  All Obama has is a scarily impassive arrogance that may yet be the death of us.

Be Sociable, Share!

    Remember, Coca Cola’s campagin… ‘the pause that refreshes’. Well, that was a commercial and he’s the president and doesn’t know the difference.
    Does he actually delude himself into believing for a minute that his pondering (strike) dithering (strike) inability to sh*t or get off the pot is  not apparent. This is where the rubber meets the road and the community organizer, who has never had to say much more than ‘present’ to circumvent making a decision is now sitting on ‘ one ‘ enroute to Asia.   He wanted the job, paraded and pranced around the globe for it – now he’s got it and doesn’t know what to do with it.
    Moral of this and other horrid stories to come: DON’T SEND A BOY TO DO A MAN’S JOB.

  • gpc31

    Yes — I have found myself telling my wife that in retrospect, Clinton wasn’t so bad.  Reckless and personally corrupt, sure, but un-American, no; and at least he had executive experience. A horrifying commentary on the times.

  • Mike Devx

    I’d like to reiterate gpc31’s point.  Though I disliked Clinton’s political leanings, there was never much doubt that he was sincere in promoting the interests of America.  Sometimes in ways I disagreed with, true.  But when it comes to Obama, I have no such illusions.   We have a president who is practically hostile to the interests of America.  This truth will emerge, with proof, eventually, but it will be a decade or more before that happens, caused by post-analysis of what is currently going on.  The power-brokers that have the most influence in this administration *will* be found to be anti-American in outlook and policy.  In some cases, it will be because their brand of far-leftism is that brand that hates what America has stood for, and sees this country as primarily corrupt and evil.  In other cases, we will find that they are internationalists, and that American power in their sphere of interest needed to be deliberately weakened.  Think George Soros and international finance markets, and you’ll have it.
    Obama has hobnobbed with the “hate-America” crowd ever since his early college days, and it’s no secret he’s a part of their circle.  He also has made it clear in his speeches that he’s an internationalist.  The question for me has always been, is he a hard-core believer in both of these circles, or is he merely sympathetic to their goals, caught in orbit around the hard-core true believers?  Does he really understand how far they want to go in undermining our country?  I suppose I’m wondering, really… is Obama an intellectual lightweight, participating in our destruction without truly understanding that that’s what he’s doing?  Merely because his political and cultural leanings have placed him within the influence of many people who *do* truly understand what they’re doing as they tear us down?
    I never thought I’d say that I’m observing a Presidency and an administration worse than Jimmy Carters’ but it appears that’s what’s happening to us, right now.

  • suek

    >>Reckless and personally corrupt, sure, but un-American>>
    At least his corruption was limited to women and personal benefit.  I fear that Obama’s corruption will expand to include anything that includes the possibility that freedom loving people will take back the country.  I fear the possiblity that we’ll be forced into an armed confrontation…

  • Charles Martel

    Mike, I don’t for a second believe that Obama has a powerful intellect. He is obviously not a well read or educated man, nor does he display any curiosity about the world. That doesn’t mean he isn’t clever. Even the slowest kid in class picks up a trick or two along the way for manipulating those around him.

    But you ask a complex question: If he is an intellectual flyweight, does he understand what he’s doing to the country? I believe he does. I think Book has nailed Obama. For the narcissist, his reflection in the pool is the most important thing in the world. Nothing, not even the United States of America and all the good and great things it has stood for, can get in the way of his need to be admired by the band of sociopaths who created him.

  • Mike

    Since Clinton’s name was mentioned here today…I just wanted to share Hillary’s helpful hint of the day – certainly not as helpful as Heloise. Now, if only we could get the same support here.

    “I would just reiterate that the United States stands ready to assist our friends in the Philippines who are seeking to counter terrorism and the threat of extremism and we will be willing to support them in any way that is appropriate that they request,” Clinton said.


    Mike, just read it.
    No wonder they’re pushing health care – half the country is in need of mental health counseling.


    Snopes credits Ali Sina with the article.

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » AP assures us that Obama’s Afghanistan dithering is actually a show of strength()

  • Pingback: Links « Rhymes With Cars & Girls()