The decision to run for the office of President of the United States, alone, already indicates a significant degree of psychosocial pathology. Which person of sane mind would voluntary go through the typical abuses of an election campaign? Who would really want the responsibilities that come with the highest office in the land and, most importantly, what sane mind would consider himself/herself qualified to shoulder those responsibilities?
An unusual degree of self-esteem, self-confidence and, yes, outright narcissism, therefore, appears to be an absolute prerequisite to pursue the country’s highest office.no doubt, very strongly believes in his, almost messianic, abilities, as he in the 2008 presidential campaign freely noted, when promising not only “to change America” but “to change the world.” His most mega maniacal moment in the campaign occurred, however, when he associated himself with: “ . . the moment when the rise of the ocean began to slow and our planet began to heal” (June 4, 2001).
While probably even somewhat more grandiose in his self-esteem than most of his predecessors in office, Obama, in principle, however does not appear too different from either Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton nor, for that matter Hillary Clinton, who is preparing to announce her candidacy for 2016.
What Nixon, Carter and the Clintons have in common with Obama is that they are not descendants of the political class and are not among those expected to be candidates for the highest office in the land.
John F. Kennedy not only came from money – big money – but was the scion of a political family. So was Bush I and, of course, Bush II. Johnson was not a product of the political class by birth but joined it through his long-term service in the Senate (and was really never elected by the public, and neither was Ford).
Absent such background by birth, to pursue the presidency, is not only more difficult but requires even stronger determination and an even more strident, self-centered and narcissistic personality, convinced of ones own abilities. Nobody among recent U.S. presidents, not even Bill Clinton, in this sense comes even close to the degree of narcissism exposed in Barack Hussein Obama Jr.
Both of these presidents were products of single mothers’ homes. This may be one reason why Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, indeed, appear to share many personality traits; but even Bill Clinton would have never had the “chutzpa” to run for office without prior executive experience as two-time governor of Arkansas, while Barack Hussein Obama Jr. apparently never had any doubts to be more than fully qualified.
Obama is definitely “different” from all of his predecessors, and not only because of his race: What really differentiates him from other past narcissists in the office of the President is his “coolness under fire.” The country (and much of the world) initially found this trait refreshing, especially in comparison to his rather simplistic and at times emotional predecessor (Bush II). It was, indeed, widely perceived as evidence of superior intelligence. Obama’s “coolness” is now, however, increasingly viewed as removed and detached, qualities usually associated with a sociopath personality.
Antisocial personality disorders (the summary term for sociopaths and psychopaths, who share many key traits) were recently well defined in an article in Psychology Today (by Scott A Bonn, PhD). Psychopaths are unable to form emotional attachments or to feel real empathy. They, however, are clever pretenders with disarming and charming personalities. They aye highly manipulative and, therefore, very successful in gaining trust by mimicking emotions even though they are really not able to feel them. To unsuspecting people they, therefore, will appear entirely normal, even sympathetic.
In contrast to sociopaths, psychopaths are often well educated and able to hold steady employment. Even their own families may not know that they are dealing with a psychopath in their midst.
Bonn emphasizes in his article “psychopathy is the most dangerous of all antisocial disorders because of the way psychopaths dissociate emotionally from their actions, regardless of how terrible they may be.”
Does all of this sound familiar?
Observing Obama’s behavior patterns, one cannot but conclude that it almost perfectly matches the classical profile of a psychopathic personality. He, of course, is highly intelligent and charming (when he wants to be), yet seems strangely unable to form emotional attachments and relationships. And this does not only involve his very obvious inability to develop political friendships or even just relationships in Washington, including within his own political party.
Most of his close Kenyan relatives, including a half brother, who looks and talks like him, either never met and/or heard from him or, at most saw and/or spoke to him once or twice during their lifetimes. Close African relatives in the U.S., one a long time illegal alien, allegedly have had no contact with the President either. Even his maternal half-sister, his closest living relative, appears distant.
An then there is his increasingly strange relationship with his wife Michelle, which, based on various recent press reports, appears strained, and is characterized by separate vacations, separate bedrooms and maximal time on the golf course for the husband. Yet, he is regimented in attending family dinner, even if it means to let Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu wait for over an hour with his whole entourage or having the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Dempsey, debrief him on matters of crucial national security in the presidential limousine because his wife (and Valerie Jarret) are waiting for him for a private social dinner at a restaurant.
These widely reported behavior patterns not only suggest a rather unusual relationship between Obama and his wife Michelle (and maybe also Valerie. Jarret) but also attest to a degree of narcissism, egocentricity and self-centeredness, which reaches far beyond what can be considered psychologically normal.
His lack of empathy is also well documented in the inability to judge what represents appropriate behavior in crises situations. His disappearance during the Benghazi crisis, where the U.S. ambassador was murdered, is simply unprecedented in U.S. presidential history. The White House till today refuses to disclose his whereabouts during those crucial hours. Obama’s insistence on traveling west for a fundraiser the next day, while the ashes of the U.S. compound in Benghazi were still smoldering, is almost beyond understanding. Considering the circumstances, the fundraiser would probably have been financially even more successful had the President explained to donors via Skype or videoconferencing why he could not attend in person.
The motivation to leave Washington, therefore, had to be another one: Whether he simply wanted to get away from Washington (or Michelle) or was just seeking an opportunity to play another round of golf with a celebrity (he, indeed, did play a round), really does not matter. His personal wants and needs always appear to supersede the nation’s business, – even if of greatest importance for national security, the President’s primary duty under the Constitution. Going on the trip was, simply, more important to him than personally managing the Benghazi situation at the White House, even though it involved loss of life of U.S. diplomatic staff, including the life of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, like all U.S. ambassadors a direct emissary of the U.S. President.