Obama: it's all about me!

After an interview with retiring Rep. Berry (D-AK), ADG reporter Jane Fullerton writes (via GatewayPundit):

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

So says the narcissist-in-chief who must be spending his time looking at mirrors instead of looking at his popularity:
For more on Obama's failure to adapt to the mood of the country, see Jules Crittenden. For the latest on the phoniness of his PR campaign, see Michelle Malkin. Also, Ed Morrissey comments on Obama's record divisiveness.

PREVIOUSLY on the subject of narcissism:
•Confusing Compassion with Narcissism
•Obama's narcissism and the Chicago Olympics bid
•Environmentalism and Narcissism, II
•From OpenLeft: Is liberalism narcissism?
•Environmentalism and Narcissism,
•The side-effects of good intentions

If the IOC hated Bush, how did Chicago get into the finals anyway?

Like many other Democrats, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) blames former President Bush:

"I believe that [Friday]'s action is just the latest example of the cultural breach that still exists between the United States and several leaders of the global community of nations. [Friday}'s vote by the IOC members reflects the tattered relationships that remain after eight years of the catastrophic reign of the Bush administration,"

Chicago was named a finalist by the International Olympic Committee on June 4, 2008, that is, when Bush was president, and eliminated in the first round after the Obamas' weird narcissistic arrogant appeal.

Has Jimmy Carter opined on whether the IOC is racist?

UPDATE: Geo. Will writes on the narcissism of the Obama's presentations.

Confusing Compassion with Narcissism

Nicholas Kristof, two-time pulitzer prize winner and a former associate managing editor, has an op-ed column in the New York Times discussing research that he says shows that conservatives are more generous to charity than liberals.  He writes:

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Are liberals really demonstrating "tremendous compassion" when all they do is advocate that someone else (the government) spend money on a problem?  Thinking of themselves as compassionate while not actually sacrificing anything sounds to me more like narcissism.

As an aside, Kristof's premise seems to be a little off.  Reading further into his column,  it seems that it is religious people, regardless of politics, who are more generous to charities.  (Since religious believers are mostly conservative, that explains the statistical partisan tilt.)  I suspect that this is simply because church members have stronger confidence that their charitable donations will be used wisely than givers to secular charities such as the United Way.

Environmentalism and Narcissism, II

A study at Exeter University found that people who claimed to be environmentalists polluted more than the rest of us, principally because they do more air travel. The (UK) Guardian explains:

Stewart Barr, of Exeter University, who led the research, said: "Green living is largely something of a myth. There is this middle class environmentalism where being green is part of the desired image. But another part of the desired image is to fly off skiing twice a year. And the carbon savings they make by not driving their kids to school will be obliterated by the pollution from their flights."

Some people even said they deserved such flights as a reward for their green efforts, he added.

Yes, the big polluters thought they deserved a "reward" for their pretense of being "green."

Al Gore is exceptionally vocal about his 'environmentalism.' Consistent with the Exeter results, his carbon footprint is exceptionally large too.

PREVIOUSLY, seven examples of celebrity environmental narcissism are here . George Carlin's take on environmentalism is here . More on the strange psychology of environmentalism is here and here .

From OpenLeft: Is liberalism narcissism?

Matt Stoller notes:

There are no forums for respected ideological debate within the Democratic Party, ....

Conservatives are fascinated by ideas and, as for example Wm. Buckley and his Firing Line, enjoy debate. By contrast, how often can a liberal cite the philosophers who influenced him? Liberalism seems more focussed on a cult of personality which might be natural for people who regard a presidential candidate not as a politician but as a potential parent. Continuing on from where Stoller left off, Chris Bowers, also at Openleft, asks "Why should anyone respect the netroots.":

The point is that just doing something beneficial to a politician does not mean that politician will end up respecting you. This is especially the case when you are viewed as a bunch of amateurs ....

What we should aim for is self-respect. If you think that self-starting, people-powered, progressive grassroots activism is good in and of itself, then you should both support it and live it.

So there you have it: the motivating factor on the left is not ideas: it is narcissism.

Hat tip: Instapundit, Ann Althouse, and Big Tent Democrat.

SEPARATELY, examples of narcissism in the environmental movement are here.

Environmentalism and narcissism

Cracked.com has collected the "7 Most [unintelligent] Ways Celebrities Have Tried to Go Green."

Hat tip to Ed Driscoll.

The side-effects of good intentions

The editors of the Wall Street Journal note why college tuition has risen so fast:

Tuition has risen about three percentage points faster than inflation every year for the past quarter-century. At the same time, the feds have put more and more money behind student loans and other financial aid. The government is slowly becoming a third-party tuition payer, with all the price distortions one would expect. Every time tuition rises, the government makes up the difference; colleges thus cheerfully raise tuition (and budgets), knowing the government will step in.

Where does this extra money go? The WSJ continues:

As a result, "colleges have little incentive to cut costs," says economist Richard Vedder, the author of "Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much." Mr. Vedder explains that there are now twice as many university administrators per student as there were in the 1970s. Faculty members are paid more to teach fewer hours, and colleges have turned their campuses into "country clubs." Princeton's new $136 million dorm, according to BusinessWeek, has "triple-glazed mahogany casement windows made of leaded glass" and "the dining hall boasts a 35-foot ceiling gabled in oak and a 'state of the art servery,'" whatever a servery is.

T. S. Eliot explains liberal-think

A letter to the WSJ today quotes T. S. Eliot on those who 'struggle' to do good:

T.S. Eliot (1888-1965) certainly anticipated the liberationists and libertarians of the 1970s and beyond to this day, when he opined: "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." And a pity it is how quickly and thoughtlessly so many slavishly succumb to the siren song of the self-anointed do-gooders.

Jack Lochrie

Farmington Hills, Mich.