Is there a limit to self-delusion? And if there is, what happens
when the limit is exceeded?
New York Times columnist Gail Collins began her
column last week as follows, “When Democrats run into each
other on elevators, they exchange glances and sigh. Or make little
whimpering sounds.” She went on to observe that “Democrats are
going bipolar. Democrats spend all their waking hours thinking
about the swing states. If Wisconsin starts looking wobbly, their
day is ruined.” It makes you wonder what their days are going to be
like if Obama loses the actual election.
Liberals are angry and frustrated with Obama. He, however, is
not the real object of their anger. Someone once observed, “Our
strongest anger is reserved for ourselves.” (If you doubt that,
just ask any golfer.) Liberals are angry and frustrated with
themselves because they bought into the fantasy of Barack
Obama.
For the past four years conservatives have been asking
themselves, “Why can’t more people see what a fraud this guy is?”
That may be an impossible question to answer, but the population of
those who see him for who and what he is seems to be growing.
One of the things that makes Hans Christian Andersen’s “The
Emperor’s New Clothes” such an enduring parable is how it is both
absurd and painfully true. The emperor was naked, but no one wanted
to be the first to admit it. A kind of mass hysteria affected the
citizens. Once a child spoke the obvious truth, the delusion was
shattered. If there were not a lot of truth about human nature
reflected in the story, it wouldn’t be such a classic.
Obama’s nakedness is not physical but rather intellectual.
Time magazine’s Joe Klein
said recently, “Anyone who says Barack Obama is not intelligent
is either crazy or bigoted.” What makes Klein so certain that Obama
is intelligent? The evidence is all in the opposite direction.
Forrest Gump famously said, “Stupid is as stupid does.” The
corollary is also true. Smart is as smart does. Was choosing Joe
Biden as someone to be a heartbeat away from the presidency a smart
decision? If you think so, you need to watch the video of last
week’s vice-presidential debate.
Another reality that may be penetrating the liberals’
self-delusion shield is the Benghazi debacle. It’s been said that a
liberal is someone who will not take his own side in a fight. A
perfect example of that perverse attitude is how Obama, Hillary
Clinton, and Susan Rice were all so eager to take the terrorists’
side in the attacks on our embassies. They used the strongest
possible words in condemning the obscure video and its creator. Ms.
Clinton said the video was “disgusting and reprehensible” and
“truly abhorrent.” By blaming the video so vehemently they
effectively implied the attackers were justified. They took the
terrorists’ side in the fight. They basically said, “We totally
understand why you wanted to kill our ambassador. You don’t like
America; neither do we.”
Democrats ridiculed Clint Eastwood for his empty chair speech at
the Republican National Convention. In retrospect his metaphor
appears to have been spot-on. Eastwood later observed that “Obama
is the biggest hoax ever committed on the American people.”
Even if some Democrats are seeing the hollow reality of Barack
Obama for the first time, it’s unlikely to affect their overall
mind-set. When a liberal has a choice between fantasy and reality,
he will choose fantasy every time. There’s no reason to think that
will change anytime soon.
Beyond the specific reality of Barack Obama, the Democrats’
fundamental problem is their adherence to liberalism. Obama is a
glaring manifestation of liberalism. If he fails to win reelection,
Democrats will blame him. They will do everything in their power to
deny where the real blame truly belongs.
