I don't have a lot of patience for the "birthers," those con men of conspiracy spreading the unsubstantiated rumor that President Obama was born outside of the U.S. and therefore fails one of the Constitutional requirements to hold the presidency. On January 20, 2009 that ship sailed. End of story. I don't much care where he was born; he's our president now and let's move on.
On the other hand, I am intrigued about the lack of information about the President's scholastic achievements. During his meteoric rise to power we heard a lot about how brilliant he is. Stands to reason if he is so brilliant, he'd want to show off everything from his 5th grade runner up green ribbon in the spelling bee to a magna cum laude diploma, if he has one. But the door to his academic accomplishments is shut tighter than the door to the Oval Office when the Petroleum Institute comes calling.
So it was interesting to read today in the Wall Street Journal the observations of Richard Epstein. Mr. Epstein is a law professor at the University of Chicago. In the interest of full disclosure I hold a graduate degree from that university, although not granted by the law school. I knew neither Prof. Epstein nor Pres. Obama when he was an adjunct professor there.
Professor Epstein made his comments to Reason TV. Reason TV is a video service of a website called reason.com. Reason.com is a somewhat libertarian-leaning website. Prof. Epstein's observations are remarkable only because it's taken six years for someone to make them. He was speaking about the economy and comparing the differing approaches of Presidents George Bush and Obama. He noted that neither president could be called a "strong believer in laissez-faire principles."
However, speaking about Pres. Obama's tendency to try and muscle up for a home run, when a single might do, he had this to say: "The difference between [Presidents Bush and Obama], which is why Obama is the more dangerous man ultimately, is he has very little by way of a skill set to understand the complex problems he wants to address, but he has this unbounded confidence in himself." [emphasis added]
This is a former colleague of the President saying that 1) Barack Obama is more dangerous than George Bush; and 2) he (the President) isn't smart enough to understand the problems he's trying to solve. Remarkable. To my liberal friends, for whom no one was more dangerous than George W. Bush, nor stupider, it must come as a shock that a fellow law professor would essentially say that the current President doesn't have the chops to deal with the issues at hand. And furthermore, the fact that the Pres. thinks he does is an exercise in political hubris that poses a danger to the country.
Speaking personally, I never met more smart people in one place than at the University of Chicago. You'd think some of that intellectual karma would have rubbed off on the President (It didn't on me, but that's a post for another day). According to Prof. Epstein, apparently not.
He goes on to say in the interview that Prof. Obama was aloof from the other faculty members, and didn't much care for the intellectual give and take that goes on among faculty colleagues. Barack Obama apparently was so busy with what Prof. Epstein calls "collateral adventures" that he pretty much "kept to himself."
So maybe the future President was a shy, retiring academic, who kept kept his head down and minded his own business. Like the village librarian. What's wrong with that? Well, as Reason quotes Prof. Epstein: "The problem when you keep to yourself is you don't get to hear strong ideas articulated by people who disagree with you." [emphasis added] So if you're a professor who becomes President, maybe that's why you go two years without a business person of consequence in your cabinet, while at the same time racking up a reputation as the most business unfriendly president since FDR.
I don't know if the President was an A student or a D student. I suppose someday we'll find out. But I think it's interesting that his alleged brilliance seems to be called into question by a former colleague who in effect says the President isn't up to dealing with the complex tasks he faces, that his booming self-confidence in the absence of the required leadership skills poses a danger to the country, and that his personality apparently is to avoid listening to strong people who disagree with him.
Most conservatives, I think, have always felt this way about the President. But to hear a former colleague say the Emperor has no clothes, when his courtiers and he himself would have us believe otherwise is truly breathtaking.
Just thought you might like to know.
On the other hand, I am intrigued about the lack of information about the President's scholastic achievements. During his meteoric rise to power we heard a lot about how brilliant he is. Stands to reason if he is so brilliant, he'd want to show off everything from his 5th grade runner up green ribbon in the spelling bee to a magna cum laude diploma, if he has one. But the door to his academic accomplishments is shut tighter than the door to the Oval Office when the Petroleum Institute comes calling.
So it was interesting to read today in the Wall Street Journal the observations of Richard Epstein. Mr. Epstein is a law professor at the University of Chicago. In the interest of full disclosure I hold a graduate degree from that university, although not granted by the law school. I knew neither Prof. Epstein nor Pres. Obama when he was an adjunct professor there.
Professor Epstein made his comments to Reason TV. Reason TV is a video service of a website called reason.com. Reason.com is a somewhat libertarian-leaning website. Prof. Epstein's observations are remarkable only because it's taken six years for someone to make them. He was speaking about the economy and comparing the differing approaches of Presidents George Bush and Obama. He noted that neither president could be called a "strong believer in laissez-faire principles."
However, speaking about Pres. Obama's tendency to try and muscle up for a home run, when a single might do, he had this to say: "The difference between [Presidents Bush and Obama], which is why Obama is the more dangerous man ultimately, is he has very little by way of a skill set to understand the complex problems he wants to address, but he has this unbounded confidence in himself." [emphasis added]
This is a former colleague of the President saying that 1) Barack Obama is more dangerous than George Bush; and 2) he (the President) isn't smart enough to understand the problems he's trying to solve. Remarkable. To my liberal friends, for whom no one was more dangerous than George W. Bush, nor stupider, it must come as a shock that a fellow law professor would essentially say that the current President doesn't have the chops to deal with the issues at hand. And furthermore, the fact that the Pres. thinks he does is an exercise in political hubris that poses a danger to the country.
Speaking personally, I never met more smart people in one place than at the University of Chicago. You'd think some of that intellectual karma would have rubbed off on the President (It didn't on me, but that's a post for another day). According to Prof. Epstein, apparently not.
He goes on to say in the interview that Prof. Obama was aloof from the other faculty members, and didn't much care for the intellectual give and take that goes on among faculty colleagues. Barack Obama apparently was so busy with what Prof. Epstein calls "collateral adventures" that he pretty much "kept to himself."
So maybe the future President was a shy, retiring academic, who kept kept his head down and minded his own business. Like the village librarian. What's wrong with that? Well, as Reason quotes Prof. Epstein: "The problem when you keep to yourself is you don't get to hear strong ideas articulated by people who disagree with you." [emphasis added] So if you're a professor who becomes President, maybe that's why you go two years without a business person of consequence in your cabinet, while at the same time racking up a reputation as the most business unfriendly president since FDR.
I don't know if the President was an A student or a D student. I suppose someday we'll find out. But I think it's interesting that his alleged brilliance seems to be called into question by a former colleague who in effect says the President isn't up to dealing with the complex tasks he faces, that his booming self-confidence in the absence of the required leadership skills poses a danger to the country, and that his personality apparently is to avoid listening to strong people who disagree with him.
Most conservatives, I think, have always felt this way about the President. But to hear a former colleague say the Emperor has no clothes, when his courtiers and he himself would have us believe otherwise is truly breathtaking.
Just thought you might like to know.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment