It takes a mighty haughty view of oneself to associate one’s standing with the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Mohatma Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela, but apparently, according to Real Clear Politics, we have a President who has no problem viewing himself in such company. With our economy a wreck, fuel prices soaring, and unemployment persistently above an adjusted 8%(downward, naturally,) and real inflation tracking at a similar level, Barack Obama seems to be better placed in the company of Herbert Hoover, Samuel Mudd and Typhoid Mary. That didn’t deter him from likening himself to Gandhi or Mandela, as he has compared himself to Lincoln before:
“Around the world, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term.”
His is not a name that will be associated with greatness, but with great decline in the standard of living and the culture of the American people. Of course, that’s not how he sees things, and while that’s natural enough, the idea that he sees himself as the sort of transformational leader these others define is something of a problem. He might get close to Mandela, if he can succeed in turning this country into a socialist cesspool, but the history is far from written on that score, for the sake of argument, let’s just say that his view of himself is rather inflated, and I believe dangerously so. Drop by Real Clear Politics and watch the video here.
“What it takes is ordinary citizens who keep believe, who are committed to fighting and pushing and inching this country closer and closer to our highest ideals.”
The question is ever: Whose ideals? I don’t share his ideals. His ideals are foreign to most Americans, once they understand what ideals Obama holds. The fact of the matter is that he talks frequently about his ideals in the generic, generalized form, left vague and indefinite, but he does not often give us an indication of the nature of his ideals in most of his speeches. We are left to infer them instead from his actions. If his actions are the measure of his ideals, I can state unambiguously that I don’t think there is any ideal he holds that I could endorse. His ideals now include violating the separation of church and state, and the free exercise of religion. Under his ideals, the consciences of people of faith are irrelevant to governmental dicta.
This is not a man whose ideals I am inclined to share or support. That he now seeks to place himself in the company of historical icons tells you plenty about his view of himself, but it also offers you some insight into the madness that drives him.