Friday, October 2, 2015

Electoral Politics and the Selection of Persons with Peculiar or Exaggerated or Exceptional Defects of Character, Mind and Emotion

Michael S. Rozeff

Obama’s U.N. speech is astonishing. I read 9 paragraphs and had to stop to answer the question arising in my mind, which was “How do we describe a person whose thinking lacks objectivity in the way that Obama’s does?”
His comments are blind to their application to the U.S. and himself. This has been called hypocrisy, but Obama regarded this speech as important and worked on it for months. He believes what he said, although he also is using it as a political vehicle. When he says “On this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law,” he isn’t referring to an obvious case, the U.S. When he mentions as a criticism that “information is strictly controlled,” he isn’t thinking of his own treatment of whistleblowers and journalists. When he criticizes rules of the past when he says “the belief that power is a zero-sum game; that might makes right; that strong states must impose their will on weaker ones; that the rights of individuals don’t matter; and that in a time of rapid change, order must be imposed by force,” he is not thinking of the severe infractions of U.S. administrations of the past 20 years including his own. He is blind to the application of his ideas to himself and the U.S. He lacks insight and objectivity.
How do we describe such a person?
I asked this question of Google and found a website with several answers.
The question that site discussed is “What quality does a person lack who cannot understand another’s point of view?” This is not a political site. It doesn’t refer to any one figure. It’s “a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts…” I wanted to know how I might reasonably and without bias describe Obama’s personality, having observed what I see as a blind region in his thinking concerning the U.S.
The answers that 9 different people came up with are very interesting. These are the kinds of words that cropped up:
lack of empathy
lack of social intelligence
lack of insight
lack of decentering
lack of objectivity
lack of wisdom
psychopath or sociopath
unaware of or indifferent to other’s thought processes
I do not think that these or similar or other worse negative characteristics belong only to the 44th president of the U.S. I think they and others belong to MANY U.S. presidents. I think the system of electoral politics, preceded by the educational system and other social inputs, acts to select persons with peculiar or exaggerated or exceptional defects of character, mind and emotion to “lead” the nation.
The above originally appeared at


  1. Amazing that Obama has the audacity to criticize 'Might makes right.' What exactly does he think democracy aka 'Majority Rules!' is?

  2. Justin Raimondo has a pretty good write-up about Obama's speech at the UN:

    I do ponder how many people actually believe the lies that Obama spouts.

  3. Mike, sounds like a textbook case of borderline personality.

  4. "What quality does a person lack who cannot understand another’s point of view?”

    As I endlessly point out, that syndrome appears to afflict EVERYONE who does not already adhere to the NAP or does not already understand the concept of voluntary exchange and economic calculation. Did Keynes engage and refute Hayek and Mises in his TGT? Do Krugman and Bernie engage and refute our critiques of socialism and Keynesianism? Ever? Ever?

  5. Couldn't agree more with Mr. Rozeff and I urge everyone not to vote. But I do recognize the futility of such advice. Electoral Politics is a product of human nature and is not going away. Interacting with friends, neighbors, relatives, competitors, service providers, etc. suggests to me that if the main stream media printed all the stories that reflect Mr. Rozeff's "...persons with peculiar or exaggerated or exceptional defects of character, mind and emotion..." there would be little else to read. My own friends and relatives who are mostly tolerant, hard working, peace loving people frequently mention some area that needs mandates or regulation to control others. From global warming to "terrorists" to gun control to the profit motive, the human urge to tell others how to live never ends. Not even a pause to consider the effects of their proposed initiation of force on other human beings or even on themselves. Perhaps the reason people with character and emotional "defects" are frequently elected is because they are so common in the human population.