Conquer Club

In 2003, Charles Krauthammer, a columnist and psychiatrist, coined a new term. Noting what he said was “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush,” Krauthammer identified a previously unknown malady he called Bush Derangement Syndrome.

No shrink am I, but it seems obvious to this untrained eye that B.D.S. has lately been supplanted by a new disorder. Call it Obama Dementia, the onset of acute cognitive dissonance in otherwise normal people upon exposure to the policies, presidency or existence of President Barack Obama. And let us pray it’s not fatal because if it is, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are not long for this world.

The former railed against the recently passed and Obama-supported Food Safety Modernization Act that, among other things, gives the Food and Drug Administration power to order food recalls and increases inspections at food-processing facilities. You may wonder how anyone could oppose that, but in Beck World, “This is about control and, in the end, starvation.”

Silly me. I had thought it was about fixing a lax food safety system that, in just the last few years, has seen recalls of spinach, tomatoes, peanuts, batter, cheese, chocolate, eggs, crab meat, alfalfa sprouts and Froot Loops.

As for the former governor of Alaska: Palin has repeatedly ripped Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign to combat childhood obesity, calling it the “nanny state run amok.” She even underlined her opposition by taking cookies to a school.

From Lady Bird Johnson’s campaign to beautify the highways to Laura Bush’s work on behalf of literacy, there is a long tradition of the first lady undertaking some apolitical project for the common good. But because Michelle Obama now holds that unofficial office, we’re supposed to believe there’s something sinister in encouraging American kids to put down the video controllers and get off their fat behinds?

Say what you will about the sufferers of B.D.S. — and Krauthammer was correct that “some” criticism of the former president was couched in rhetorical excesses that bordered on lunacy — but at least they were arguing about issues of momentous controversy: war, terror, torture. These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

It’s like they’re not even trying anymore, as if they know they are playing to an audience so primed and Pavlovian they don’t have to work too hard. There is a lazy reflexiveness here that suggests that if Obama came out against brain cancer, they would announce their support for the disease.

Not that Beck and Palin are unique. To the contrary, from Rep. Michele Bachmann’s claim that a presidential trip to India would cost $200 million a day to Rush Limbaugh saying the president was on the verge of outlawing fishing to Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin facing court-martial because he believes the president is foreign-born and his orders thus invalid, Obama Dementia has reached epidemic levels the last two years.

Still, it’s a mistake to define this malady simply in terms of a given president. This dissonance, this divorce of rhetoric from reason from reality, says less about them than about us.

It says we are infected by a view that we are not a nation with a nation’s sense of mission but a loosely affiliated collection of interests willing to do anything to advance themselves. It says we are afflicted by an acute tendency to regard difference of opinion as defect of humanity. It says we are suffering a false belief that argument is its own reward.

I have no cute name for the disorder, just one earnest wish for all of us.

Get well soon.

GabonX wrote:That's a great article for people who want to ignore real problems and pretend they don't exist..

Pitts was awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. He was also a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1992. In 1997, Pitts took first place for commentary in division four (newspapers with a circulation of over 300,000) in the American Association of Sunday and Feature Editors' Ninth Annual Writing Awards competition. The Society of Professional Journalists, the National Association of Black Journalists and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others, have honored him. He is a five-time recipient of the National Headliners Award. In 2001, he received the American Society of Newspaper Editors prestigious ASNE Award For Commentary Writing and was named Feature of the Year Columnist by Editor and Publisher magazine. In 2002, the National Society of Newspaper Columnists awarded Pitts its inaugural Columnist of the Year award. Also in 2002, GLAAD Media awarded Pitts the Outstanding Newspaper Columnist award.

Leonard Pitts wrote:Say what you will about the sufferers of B.D.S. — and Krauthammer was correct that “some” criticism of the former president was couched in rhetorical excesses that bordered on lunacy — but at least they were arguing about issues of momentous controversy: war, terror, torture. These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

It’s like they’re not even trying anymore, as if they know they are playing to an audience so primed and Pavlovian they don’t have to work too hard. There is a lazy reflexiveness here that suggests that if Obama came out against brain cancer, they would announce their support for the disease.

GabonX wrote:That's a great article for people who want to ignore real problems and pretend they don't exist..

These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

thegreekdog wrote:Apart from the obvious "Yeah, but youse guys did this to Bush" sort of argument...

These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

Really? Then those critics aren't prominent... Sarah Palin notwithstanding. Because there are a lot more things to be critical of the president than child obesity programs (which every freaking administration has).

Juan_Bottom wrote:

GabonX wrote:That's a great article for people who want to ignore real problems and pretend they don't exist..

Well, my response to that would be Mr. Pitt's impressive resume that has won multiple awards for political commentary:

Pitts was awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. He was also a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1992. In 1997, Pitts took first place for commentary in division four (newspapers with a circulation of over 300,000) in the American Association of Sunday and Feature Editors' Ninth Annual Writing Awards competition. The Society of Professional Journalists, the National Association of Black Journalists and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others, have honored him. He is a five-time recipient of the National Headliners Award. In 2001, he received the American Society of Newspaper Editors prestigious ASNE Award For Commentary Writing and was named Feature of the Year Columnist by Editor and Publisher magazine. In 2002, the National Society of Newspaper Columnists awarded Pitts its inaugural Columnist of the Year award. Also in 2002, GLAAD Media awarded Pitts the Outstanding Newspaper Columnist award.

Juan_Bottom wrote:He was dead-on with this:

Leonard Pitts wrote:Say what you will about the sufferers of B.D.S. — and Krauthammer was correct that “some” criticism of the former president was couched in rhetorical excesses that bordered on lunacy — but at least they were arguing about issues of momentous controversy: war, terror, torture. These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

It’s like they’re not even trying anymore, as if they know they are playing to an audience so primed and Pavlovian they don’t have to work too hard. There is a lazy reflexiveness here that suggests that if Obama came out against brain cancer, they would announce their support for the disease.

Say what you will about the sufferers of B.D.S. — and Krauthammer was correct that “some” criticism of the former president was couched in rhetorical excesses that bordered on lunacy — but at least they were arguing about issues of momentous controversy: war, terror, torture. These most prominent of President Obama’s critics are arguing about (arguing “against”!) food safety and childhood health.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's not that simple. Consider the food safety bill S.510. Certain regulations within it will actually drive out competitors (like small farmers) unnecessarily.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's not that simple. Consider the food safety bill S.510. Certain regulations within it will actually drive out competitors (like small farmers) unnecessarily.

^This is completely fair, and intelligent critisism. You win. Arguing against the bill because "it's about starvation" is not intelligent. That's what Leonard Pitts is kicking at. Obama's most vocal and prominent critics are preaching to an audience who only wants to hear "Obama bad." What they're actually saying isn't important to them. The same states that have laws requiring you to have auto insurance want to put up a fight over being forced to buy health insurance. It's weird.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The same states that have laws requiring you to have auto insurance want to put up a fight over being forced to buy health insurance.

Night Strike wrote:The decisions a person makes about their own life affects themselves, not others, so you can't force them to buy insurance. You can't make a person buy anything simply because they're alive.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The decisions a person makes about their own life affects themselves, not others, so you can't force them to buy insurance. You can't make a person buy anything simply because they're alive.

Either way, if you don't have Auto Insurance or Health Insurance, John Q. Public flips your bill. Hospitals cant turn away people who need urgent care.

Plus, it's still the government requiring you to purchase it. Which is an issue that so many people are attacking.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I was serious. I didn't mean for that to sound sarcastic. Though after a quick re-read I see what you mean.

What you did was find an actual problem within the bill and poured light onto it. What Palin does is not to look for problems, but rather she creates her own vague issues with the Obamas to attack.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I was serious. I didn't mean for that to sound sarcastic. Though after a quick re-read I see what you mean.

What you did was find an actual problem within the bill and poured light onto it. What Palin does is not to look for problems, but rather she creates her own vague issues with the Obamas to attack.