- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
March 20, 2009
Exclusive: The Escher President
Barack Obama has been in office for less than 100 days and already, much of the public is struggling to comprehend exactly who or what it elected. Not yet for the many who fell for the mesmerizing figure that represented the promise that all things good would soon replace the evils of the prior eight years. They are still lost in the spell so craftily cast by team Obama.
For the rest of the country, including the roughly 57 million who voted against him, President Obama is still an enigma. While many different characterizations have emerged in the national dialogue about exactly who he is, they fall roughly into two categories. And these two general versions often rotate back and forth, foreground to background; much like one’s experience observing a lithograph or woodcut of M.C. Escher.
Escher’s works generally depict two stories or narratives simultaneously, one in white and the other in black. When observing a piece from one perspective, perhaps the white view predominates. Yet when following the logic of that image, something indicates the interpretation can no longer make sense. Suddenly, the black view emerges as the white view recedes to the background. Eventually the logic of the black view similarly dissolves while the white view re-emerges. This experience continues in a figure-eight pattern – back and forth between the two perspectives – to infinity. While we are frustrated with the failure to make absolute sense of the image, we marvel over the genius behind its creation of impossible co-existing realities. One exists in the shadow of the other.
With President Obama, the white view (unrelated to skin color or race) is one which focuses around some form of naïveté and/or inexperience. When he is caught in a misstatement, a reversal of position or simple lack of understanding, the white view explains it as the newness of the job, his lack of certain experience, his not yet having the right team settled, learning on the job, overwhelming pressures and so forth.
Perhaps the white view is best defined by reference to his motivation. No matter his performance, President Obama is seen as American – a “new American” for a new century with American values, attempting to enhance the lives of all Americans with particular emphasis on “spreading the wealth” around a little more to benefit those who have suffered more. Many may disagree with his politics, but he was, after all, elected.
In the white view, nothing is sinister. He may be poorly advised, misunderstanding the realities of the New Deal, the burdens of war, the moral conflicts required in successfully defending our national security, the connections between tax policy and prosperity, government revenues, money supply, inflation, market confidence and so forth. Nothing malevolent is seen in his conflicting messages, such as holding a Fiscal Responsibility Summit for the cameras days before releasing the most fiscally irresponsible budget in history. No ill will is impugned as his spokespersons leak politically-timed statements that no reversal of the Bush “tax cuts” will take place while in a recession, only to be followed by a budget that does just that. No devious motives are ascribed when he has his “diplomats” first announce they will cooperate in the Durban II Conference, only to state later after large objection they are withdrawing, then finally to state that conditions of their withdrawal concern issues easy to correct, yet not the concerns of those who objected in the first place. He may be heading us in dangerous directions which could end in disaster but he only means well and he ultimately may be correct; he was, after all, elected.
In fact, the white view has him standing behind virtues and values which are inarguably good: unity, working together, bringing the world to peace and harmony and, tempered with an unflappable tone, talking about our differences (which will inevitably bring about resolution of all conflicts). In essence, the spell is based on images no one can oppose.
As more of the public starts to doubt the efficacy of his decisions, however, many tighten their grip on the white view. In particular, many of the former “conservative” writers and elites who were swayed by candidate Obama’s hypnotic tools struggle to rationalize their choice while evidence of their being fooled grows. Even while the innocence of inexperience starts to shade into the more disquieting appearance of incompetence, the observer still fights to maintain the president’s dignity. Perhaps Obama’s unmatchable ability to listen and devise the best solution, plus his supposed confidence to admit his mistakes, will guide us back on the correct path.
The white view tells us that while we may have misjudged Obama during the hysteria of the “history making” election, he is still able to learn what is needed to protect us. Sure, it is true that the EU, assisted by Bush, attempted for years to have successful “talks” with Iran only to repeatedly find that Iran has no interest in giving up its march to nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, President Obama and his coterie of diplomacy advocates will be able to figure a way to stop the Islamic Republic without any use of force. While Vladimir Putin has been extremely “unhelpful” in recent years, such is attributable to Bush’s incorrect assessment of his soul. And while other foreign policy problems exist, the new Clinton State Department (fortified with a full palette of special envoys) needs only time to get back our standing in the world before we start to see a resolution to our numerous international pressures. While President Obama may be new to the game, the white view suggests that he certainly has the intelligence and skill and, even more importantly, the temperament to reach bold win-win solutions. Non-Americans like his teleprompted image as much as we do. As a “one world” figure, he was, after all, elected.
And, while he may be swarming Congress with program after program, he is simply responding to urgent problems he inherited. Any errors, failures, overreaching or shortcomings are a result of his simply being overloaded; over time, he will meet the array of challenges. He has appointed many “czars” and “committees and “breakout sessions” to help alleviate the stresses. As such, the white view also functions as a repository for those awakening from the spell that captivated them during the campaign.
That is, until too much starts to distort the logic of the white view. Spreading around the wealth is one thing but the trillions in Stimulus and Omnibus Bills, as well as the budget (and upcoming reforms in health care, energy policy, entitlement programs, etc.), indicate something is grossly awry. Eliminating secret union ballots, funneling absurd sums to groups that assured his election, including ACORN and the unions, allowing the Pelosi-Reid Congress to legislate billions in ridiculous “pork” projects all raise warning flags.
Foreign enemies such as Iran, Russia, Venezuela and others publicly humiliate the president in response to his immature approaches to them. “Allies” who were supposedly not given respect under Bush are dishonored as they visit the White House. Appointees fail to meet basic standards and contradictory principles are meted out in dealing with foreign competitors and enemies. A gross lack of interest in doing the job itself (as opposed to campaigning for it) as well as farming out the responsibilities to others indicates something very different is going on. Just as with the Escher image wherein the logic of one view is unable to support itself, the logic of naïveté, inexperience and incompetence also cracks and ceases to provide sufficient justification. Something more calculated is at work. The white view quickly vanishes behind a new emerging black view.
The black view is not at all new. In Escher works, when the opposing image flashes, the observer quickly realizes it was there, in the shadows, all the time. With art, this is delightful. With presidents, this is cause for alarm and is precisely the response of those holding the black view. Suddenly, all that was sensed to be there originally becomes not only possible but probable.
As naïveté might characterize the white view, a devious agenda distinguishes the black view. Various agendas have filled storylines since President Obama first appeared as a candidate – Neo-socialist, Marxist, multiculturalist, Islamist, Alinskyite, fascist and so on – anything other than defense of the true American free capitalist democratic values most of these observers hold dear. “Change” to them is destruction of the essence of our nation and the black view thrusts to the foreground the evidence of that annihilation.
From this angle, President Obama’s spending junket and failure to sell confidence is seen as an attempt intentionally to drive down the economy and the stock market. (If anyone can sell, it is the president and his declining to do so is a bold frame for this presidential lithograph). There is also the suspicion that he wanted to drive the nation further into panic and economic crisis in order to more easily facilitate passage of his extreme agenda. Some observers see a possibility that he was simply setting the stage for a heralded comeback in time for the 2010 and 2012 elections, while others see him creating greater dependency on the government for an increasing pool of future Democrat voters. Alternatively, he was suspected of wanting to insure that some of our enemies become more empowered in order to further our own weakening. Most recently, after new advice, the president has attempted to change course. Claiming the economy is sound, his flip-flop serves only to further deplete confidence in him.
And the spending is just too extreme to appear in the white view of inexperience and even incompetence. Having surrounded himself with the required economic “masterminds,” there is simply no explanation for the nonsensically optimistic forecast buried in the budget. More incongruous are the cost assumptions such as postulating that the “surge” would extend until 2019, and then eliminating that expenditure and calling that a “savings.” And as for savings, through the black view perspective, the president’s having snuck into his promises of job creation the additional notion of jobs “saved”, begs the question: how will that number be determined? He will certainly wait until he knows how many he has created and then figure a way to define “jobs saved” to prove he exceeded expectations.
The president’s behavior further suggests he may be a pawn of other more powerful forces. Suspicion is raised by the media’s complicit refusal to have vetted him honestly. The source of most of his “history” is autobiographical – he writes his memoirs before any significant accomplishment and the adoring media accepts his word. The president refuses to release most of his records, fueling major controversies. Some suggest that his college and law school educations were funded by Saudis; that he is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and, thus, is not qualified to be president; that he never quit being a Muslim or is alternatively a Muslim apostate susceptible to capital punishment under Islamic Law; that he adamantly refuses to disclose the barest minimum of easily addressable information and so forth. Suggestive of fostering a secret agenda, he is often sensed as being a “Manchurian Candidate” or a “Meccan Candidate” – the tool of some radical American or foreign effort to take control of America.
Still others, deeply enveloped in the black view, intuit he serves economically-motivated groups, such as legendary currency speculator George Soros whose own firebrand aspirations are thought to typify the neo-Socialist, one-world community vision embedded in much of the president’s oratory. Soros is also suspected of being intentionally “behind” the world market’s collapse. Such economic destruction is presumed to be an important precondition for the true “change” he and the president wish to implement; hence the facetious, if not poignant, label the “Tsuris Candidate.”
For others, the black view highlights the president’s grandiosity – the more powerful force being his own ego. The “Messianic” and “savior” narratives stand out in full relief. The various staged events such as the Denver “column” speech and the inauguration festivities are seen as reflections of a deeply narcissistic man using the nation to satisfy deep unconscious needs. The extreme adoration thrown his way – our own “Dear Leader” – parallels that demanded by dictators and tyrants throughout history.
Satisfying his ego leaves him with responsibilities he has no genuine interest in confronting. He has offloaded onto his huge number of deputies virtually all of the work required of the president so that he can maximize his time in front of his teleprompter saturating himself in adulation. In short, the media creation of his Machiavellian handler, David Axelrod.
The president’s adoration of diplomacy as an end itself also foretells an ominous agenda to those holding the black view. Rather than being willing to fight enemies who have no interest in negotiated outcomes, he is insulated from inaction charges by the call for further diplomatic “talk.” Utilizing the optics and aurals of “statecraft” and “soft power,” he gives further life to improbable approaches such as driving a wedge between Syria and Iran, pushing a two-state solution for Israel and its “partner in peace,” the Palestinian Authority, turning Russia into our true ally despite its “Cold War”-like behavior, and so forth. While proffering a budget with astronomical spending, he seeks to reduce defense expenditures to dangerous levels we haven’t seen for decades. Meanwhile, our enemies, seeing only weakness in his behavior, advance their own agendas without any seeming political cost to the president – at least yet.
President Obama convinced much of the electorate he is “pro-Israel.” Yet when observing the black view, what becomes apparent is his suggestion of anti-Israel Chas Freeman to critical positions. Special Envoy George Mitchell’s history raises doubts as to his true allegiance and even Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s radically left-wing agenda for Israel is falsely credited as a strong asset for pro-Israel support. And the president’s first call in office was to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Even Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, having convinced many of being pro-Israel, stands ready to send $900 million to Gaza while rocket fire from Gaza into Israel has returned to pre-battle levels.
And while banks and corporations receiving “TARP” funds are forced to accept numerous conditions of government funding, Clinton has not even insisted on the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit in return for this Gaza funding. Nor has she even insisted that Abbas, the so-called “moderate,” cause his own controlled media to cease to broadcast extreme anti-Israel, Anti-Semitic, holocaust-denying teachings to Palestinian children. Nor has she or Obama even dared to straighten out the lies they have disseminated that Abbas’ Fatah party recognizes Israel and wants Hamas to do the same. When goodwill gestures substitute for responsible conditions, true diplomacy can never be effective.
In the black view, the extreme pace at which new proposals are proffered by the White House is not seen as efficient work of an ambitious group. Rather, it demonstrates the “whack-a-mole” principle of flooding the opposition with new battles so it can never get resistance firmly established; the shock and awe of legislative initiatives such that by the time one is ready to intelligently confront, say, the Stimulus Bill, the administration has already moved onto the Omnibus Spending Bill.
The black view has come into great prominence given the president’s response to our economic strains and challenges. In this view, he wishes to fulfill the objectives of his guru,Rules for Radicals author and community organizer creator Saul Alinsky, whose singular goal was to transfer power from the “Haves” to the “Havenots.” And nothing could serve as better evidence here than Obama’s policies put forward to generate massive wealth redistribution.
The president also wants to seduce the public into everlasting dependence upon himself and his successors through the creation of a “nanny state.” His policies to assist the poor and needy appear motivated by the recognition that these groups will insure Democrat power for decades to come. Doubling the national debt to flood the population with handouts, granting amnesty in some form to the large illegal immigrant population, keeping the borders open for new recruits to be bought off, transforming free market economies and government services into government-controlled operations, transferring control of the Census – with all its implications – to the White House are some of the trends revealed so far. Increasing to a majority those who essentially pay no taxes is intended to be the true “change” he seeks – “representation without taxation – so long as you vote for President Obama!” And just as every new tyrant seeks to obtain control over the guns and microphones, the president has already given hints of an agenda to drastically restrict gun ownership and form his own federally-controlled civilian paramilitary force – reminiscent of the “Brownshirts” – while muting the voices of his opposition: talk radio.
In short, the black view strips the president of the protective coating of naïveté, inexperience, and incompetence. Instead, he appears more the consummate liar. Actions that do not comport with rhetoric are understood finally to be intentional, not the product of faulty planning, political realities or innocent fine tunings. A gifted orator swiftly becomes the gifted con-man, none of whose actions can be trusted.
Just as Escher’s works can have multiple subjects, the impression of President Obama is often shaded with the influence of others such as Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Rahm Emanuel, and the pre-election favorites Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et al. The contribution of these voices further solidifies a man with radical interests cloaked in a style graced with calm, articulateness, control. To the eyes of one in the black view, a fraud is all that appears.
That is, until the logic of this view feels or appears too extreme to be credible and/or too frighteningly futile to correct; and another shift in perspective back to the white view is taken. The black view, when deeply engaged, makes the observer too fearful to maintain focus. Could we, as a nation, be so blind and foolish to have let in a president with such a self-destructive agenda under the Trojan Horse guise of great rhetoric, tone, and temperament? This is that point once again in the Escher experience where the logic of what is seen may no longer seem to make sense. How could such a scamming of the American people be allowed to take place? How could so many people conspire to be duped? And duped for exactly whose agenda? And the figure eight structure pivots back to the white view.
What makes an Escher piece so extraordinary is not merely the perfection with which the dual views are executed. It is also the ultimate reconciliation that both views exist simultaneously depending upon how the viewer observes the impossible reality. For the time being, President Obama is very much an Escher president with more of the questioning population cautious that not enough evidence has surfaced to support one view over the other. Only time will tell which view emerges as the more accurate representation.
While those under “Obamanosis” remain spellbound, it is time the remainder of the population obtains a clearer vision of exactly who President Obama is. And while both views portend disaster, today’s impossible reality can not be sustained much longer. He was, after all, elected.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
