The “debate” over the Olympics continues apace. Ah, well, can’t talk about anything of any real importance.

A snapshot of memeorandum has much kerfluffle. Joe Scarborough at the Huffington Post says Thank You, Mr. President, and bemoans the lack of civility in American politics. As a person who read A Texan Looks at Lyndon when it first came out and actually saw the “Daisy” ad, I have to wonder what planet he wandered here from.

At Media Matters, the commentator picks up what has become a fairly common Leftoid theme: Rooting Against America. The thesis is that, by expressing pleasure that Obama has failed again, the Right is somehow glad for America’s failure. Sam Stein at the Huffington Post re-reiterates that theme, with a link roundup and a quote that should have given him a clue but clearly didn’t. Rachel Slajda at TPM LiveWire echoes, Glenn Thrush at Politico chimes in with some neat quotes from Congresscritters, Dalitso Njolinjo at The Moderate Voice wails that it’s America’s Loss, and Amanda Terkel at Think Progress quotes Erick Erickson and a Michelle Malkin interview with the indignant high dudgeon we’ve all come to know and love, without once hinting that she gets the point in any way.

Which is the common thread in all of this. I reckon you’d have to search hard to find a Rightist who genuinely cared one way or the other whether or not the Olympics came to Chicago, and expressing it in those terms is either pig-ignorant tone-deafness or deliberate mendacity intended to keep up the “climate of incivility” Rep. Scarborough deplores. It’s about this president, not about the Olympics or “hating America.”

Tim Reid at the London Times gets it. Money quote:

Chicago’s dismal showing yesterday, after Mr Obama’s personal, impassioned last-minute pitch, is a stunning humiliation for this President. It cannot be emphasised enough how this will feed the perception that on the world stage he looks good — but carries no heft.

Jackson Diehl at the Washington Post has a clue. Tony Romm at The Hill gives an example, and Helene Cooper at the New York Times offers another. Alex Spillious at the Telegraph has a stunning one.

The President of the United States is powerful domestically, but his powers are checked and balanced by the other political establishments. He is almost ominipotent as regards foreign policy, and criticizing the foreign policy of the United States is exactly and totally criticism of the President.

As Rightists and Conservatives, we are not celebrating the “loss of the games” because most of us are either sorry they won’t be here or don’t give a flying damn. We are celebrating another defeat of this President, and anticipating a long string of further defeats to celebrate. This one generates more than the usual cacaphony because it is not substantive vis-a-vis American power — the Olympics are a PR spectacle and an opportunity for the Beautiful and Powerful to congratulate one another, not a war or a trade pact or a matter of national defense. We aren’t going to get tickets anyway, and if all we can do is watch it on TV it doesn’t matter if it’s in Moline or Madagascar, or on Mars for that matter.

This President’s foreign policy is based entirely upon narcissistic hubris combined with a sophomoric understanding of international affairs, and he is so egotistical that nothing gets through to him. He doesn’t have an ideology, he has an ego. From his behavior it is clear that he believes that all he has to do is express the simplistic “solutions” promulgated by his Leftoid and crypto-Marxist circle in mellifluous tones, and the seas will be calmed, the children fed, and universal amity restored. His approach to competitors is that of a frightened elementary school teacher who advises, “Give the bully what he wants and he will go away.” It doesn’t work on the recess playground, because what the bully really wants is to make you do what he wants, thereby demonstrating his power over you, and it won’t work in international affairs for exactly the same reason.

What we on the Right are celebrating is yet another instance of a foreign policy based on ignorance, ideology, and the hubris of an extraordinarily self-centered con man getting slapped down. If you can’t or won’t figure that out and comment on that basis, you are either pig-ignorant or deliberately trying to mislead.

Advertisements