Weak President or Superman?






January 18, 2016

President Barrack Obama is perceived as a “weak” president because of traditional American prejudices. He admitted, to begin with, that he was not the usual kind of candidate for the presidency.

First of all, he was a dark-skinned mulatto who, as one critic put it, must be prejudiced because he is familiar with more black people than white people. And he was raised in Hawaii, which is barely a state, and in Indonesia, a Third World country, where he probably ate a lot of rice; hence he barely meets the qualification for the presidency, that he be a natural born citizen, born, bred and corn-fed in this great nation of ours.

Never mind that he was also a tough Chicago resident, and a Harvard lawyer with a golden tongue marinated in the Greek and Roman trivium; notwithstanding scientific progress and the suppression of the classical curriculum, the first three of the seven liberal arts – grammar, rhetoric, logic – still rule the world. Never mind that we have already had a few distinguished black WASPs in high government. No, we must not have Big O in the Oval Office. But ‘O, how sweet that justice would be given the fact that slaves helped build the White House and the Capitol; slave owners were paid $5 per head per week, from which they paid the cost of feed, while German and Irish immigrants were each paid from $4.65 to $10.50 per week.

No, President Obama was definitely not the typical American superhero, the Great White Hope upon whom the descendants and admirers of Northern Europeans could project their sole-superpower longings. They naturally preferred a red, white and blue Superman like the comic book hero inspired by science fiction writer Phillip Wylie.

The protagonist of Wylie’s novel Gladiator, Hugo Danner, is the equivalent of Clark Kent. Wylie, who is, not surprisingly, best known for Generation of Vipers, a critical rant he penned about America’s “cancer of the soul” when he returned home to Miami Beach from Washington.

Wylie was evidently a frustrated WASP. One malignant symptom of the social cancer he diagnosed was “momworship” or “momism,” the placement of overweight, high-heeled brazen hussies, idle middle-class women and vain Cinderellas on pedestals – the complaint today is of the “feminization” of society. Another symptom was the money grubbing cultivated by vulgar immigrants.

“When the eighteenth century ended, and man power was needed for the exploitation of the West, the sole test of a man’s suitability for citizenship in this lofty and intricate republic became, in the case of millions, his ability to swing a pick…. Some headway has been made in instructing them, and their descendents, about democracy; but we should not forget that, while they paid loud lip service to our ideals at Ellis Island, they came here in the first place to get. One reason for the fearsome default of democratic government is to be found in these persons and their descendents, who now must number half the populace, and their identification still with their basic reason for being here.”

Liberty gets a lot of lip service as an ideal, he explains. Liberty is subjective, an individual matter for which individuals must be held responsible; it “depends wholly on individual integrity…on insight, foresight, and hindsight also.” It does not depend on a universal education but on the moral part of education that teaches honesty and preaches wisdom.

“Where individuals make erroneous or stupid or avaricious choices – as they do in this nation almost universally – liberty dies that much. In its place comes slavery – slavery to instinct, to bosses, to lathes, to generals, to a state, which is then the repository of instincts instead of the church.”

So we worship liberty in name only: we are in fact a nation of hypocrites:

“While we have alternately scorned and dread the physical regimentation of the totalitarian societies around us, we have proceeded with the regimentation of our attitudes, prejudices, feelings and values in a parallel manner, if not to an equal degree. To read the same stories, to see the same movies, to purchase from the save advertisements, and above all to listen to the same radio programs, fifty million oafs at a time, is to accept unwittingly a stringent regimentation.”

But if people had unsubscribed to their hackneyed newspapers and insipid glossy magazines, turned off their televisions, stayed off the Internet, and read heroic comic books, Barrack Obama would not have been around to save the world for the downtrodden, to lift the power elite off their backs, and endeavor to fulfill the prophecy that the meek shall inherit the earth. Superman would preside instead. Do we want a “weak” president or Superman?

# #


One thought on “Weak President or Superman?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s