I’m trying to understand your point, but getting confused. You seem to want Obama to be responsible for what the previous administration did, when in fact he’s taken the position of repudiating what they did. And you seem to see his empathy as the key issue, but a) I don’t quite get who you want him to display empathy for — torture victims? his political supporters disillusioned on the torture issue? concerned people everywhere? — and b) in any event, with all the other things that need to get done on this, I don’t see his personal emotional functioning as particularly relevant. But then again, I may be getting distracted by your thing about seduction = deception = feminine, which I have to tell you is not playing at all well in our house.

I’m trying to understand your point, but getting confused.

Thanks for asking so nicely, and I’m sorry I’m not explaining it well enough to make it easy to understand.

I’ll try to answer your questions and perhaps that will help. I’ll also add some other things along the way, erring on the side of too much information rather than too little – the FDL forum format doesn’t in my experience lend itself to interactive discourse, so I’ll try to make do with long-winded exposition.

You seem to want Obama to be responsible for what the previous administration did

I don’t hold Obama directly responsible for what the previous administration did. Bush is responsible for Bush’s actions, Obama for Obama’s.

But it’s also true that the President, in accepting the power, prestige and privilege that comes with the Presidency, must also accept the responsibilities. They’re not separate. The former flow from the latter. Obama knew these issues would need to be addressed by whoever was President next, and he asked us to let that be him. We did. Now it’s his turn to honor his end of our agreement.

And Obama, by defending Bush’s actions rather than uphold the rule of law, has accepted some of Bush’s positions as his own (e.g., torture) and even extended them beyond Bush’s (arguing not only is unconstitutional surveillance acceptable, but that there are never even grounds for lawsuit and redress of grievances except when the government intentionally discloses the resulting information). It’s actions such as these for which Obama is directly responsible.

when in fact he’s taken the position of repudiating what they did.

While Obama has verbally repudiated some of what Bush did, he’s not acted to repudiate those policies. Again, torture’s the simplest example. If it’s torture then it’s not “a mistake.” It’s a war crime, one of the highest crimes in all humanity, and all the statements about “mistakes were made but we have to look forward” are just so much self-serving “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” deceit and irresponsibility.

So Obama says the right thing, but then continues to do whatever he wants, which turns out to be the same old wrong thing. He doesn’t do this uniformly, just on many of the big things, like torture, war, the economy, stuff like that – the less important little things are where he’s more in alignment, but that of course is a deceptive equivalence.

That’s what I mean by deception and seduction – say whatever it takes (true or not) to get in a position to do whatever I really want, after which I attempt to either explain why what I actually did is OK even though it’s not what I promised, or if that doesn’t work I promise to do it right the next time. Who talked about that old saying in Texas, “Fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.” ?

It’s the behavior of what in dating terms would be called “a player.” Say whatever sweet line she wants to hear, do whatever you want, if she gets upset turn on the charm and act understanding and say whatever to get her to calm down, then play her again. That’s why I call it seduction – because that’s what it is.

Note that Obama’s positions, both in the campaign and now, are all essentially “I’m smart and understanding, I know how to care for you baby, I’ll make you feel good again.”

The Bush equivalent was “I’m brave and strong, I know how to protect you, I’ll make you feel safe.”

Of course, we out here need to take responsibility for our own desire to be seduced and refusal to see the obvious, the same as those in the Bush years need to take responsibility for their desire to be ravished and refusal to see the obvious.

Since I’m talking about rape and seduction, masculine and feminine, let me say I’m talking not about the genitalia associated with those words but with the underlying energies, of which we all have both. The essential energy of masculine is of going out, projecting, penetrating, while the essential energy of feminine is of drawing towards, opening, receiving. When I rape you, I take what I want from you, without concern for you. When I seduce you, I beguile you to give what I want to me, again without concern for you. It’s the same underlying sociopathological act, the only difference is the direction of the energy.

So when I say feminine and deception and seduction, it’s not that deception and seduction are strictly the domain of women (or violence and rape solely the domain of men), but that the way I get what I want through receptivity is to present whatever appearance will bring my victim, irresistibly and uncontrollably, to me. (If my appearance happens to be true then it’s a plus, but a truthful choice is made not because of its truth but because of its efficacy and personal benefit.)

Like a spider and a fly, a flower and a bee, the mythological Sirens with their irresistible song.

(And spiders, flowers and Sirens are all symbols of femininity precisely because of this calling, drawing in, receptive energetic flow.)

One could see Obama as political Siren, his charm and oratory and words of “hope” and “change” drawing the ship of state to him.

OK, on to the next question.

And you seem to see his empathy as the key issue, but a) I don’t quite get who you want him to display empathy for — torture victims? his political supporters disillusioned on the torture issue? concerned people everywhere? — and b) in any event, with all the other things that need to get done on this, I don’t see his personal emotional functioning as particularly relevant.

I was trying to point out how, like rape and seduction are superficially opposites but underneath identical, Bush and Obama are superficially opposite but underneath equally unfeeling, invulnerable to the effect their actions have on other people. Because that means unless we out here change we’ll suffer the same fate as before, which will be to feel all the effect of their actions and be able to do nothing to change it.

I want Obama to show empathy for whoever is on the other side of a particular action.

In the case of the NYC flyover, his response was to want to make the problem go away as quickly as possible (”It was a mistake, as was stated…and it will not happen again.” End of discussion – it’s very, very short, defensive, and hard. Watch the clips), but not to spend any time on the human effect his administration’s actions had on the people of New York, many of whom were scared, even terrified. If I personally did to you something painful, even terrorizing, would you feel better if I simply said “It was a mistake. It won’t happen again. Let’s move on.” ? Even at the scale of a government and a country the effect is the same.

In the case of torture, I’d want him to express empathy for both the victims and the country. Dear God, we tortured innocent human beings to death! An appropriate human response would to tremble in shame and sorrow and to beg for forgiveness – just to begin! And by trying to make the problem go away, saying the critical state of the economy is more important (an argument which itself happens to be raw terrorism), he’s now denying not only the humanity of the victims, but the humanity of all of us who are individually traumatized by those actions, and denying the collective humanity of our entire nation. He’s dehumanizing all of us! So I’d want him to take responsibility, since that’s the job he campaigned for, he said he wanted, and now it’s time to do it, and express sorrow to and ask forgiveness from first the victims of torture and then whole country and the world.

And expressing contrition for any transgression means holding those responsible accountable, not just saying words. Which leads to the last point:

What I want is for the words and the actions to be in agreement.

I don’t really care whether Obama as a person feels one thing or another, it’s not necessary for the job we hired him to do, though I think it would be easier and more generally successful if he could feel it rather than just fake it. (And for me personally, to stay true to the seduction metaphor, I prefer a real girlfriend to just a girlfriend experience.)

So if Obama could somehow simply say and do the things that lead to empathy and release and healing, like some kind of national political courtesan, then for at least a while it would be OK with me if he didn’t himself feel it. I think it would be sad, and I don’t like what it would mean for the country, but I suppose one could say that since Obama’s being invulnerable in all this right now anyway (lack of empathy is just another way of saying invulnerability), it would be nice if the rest of the world didn’t have to suffer along with him.

But knowing what I do about how the two people in any relationship are simply mirrors for the unseen and unfelt parts of each other, I know that either our government and our citizenry both change or neither do. Right now Obama is holding the polarity of unfeeling action, and we out here hold the polarity of feeling inaction. The more we take the action of demanding of Obama, our government, and most of all ourselves that we all behave with compassion and dignity, the more our government will start to behave with sensitivity and integrity, and the closer all of us get to treating each other with love and respect.

Thanks for reading a very long (and very long to write!) post. I hope some of this helped clear up what I was trying to talk about, and thanks again for wanting and trying to understand.

Best wishes,
Bruce

EV – I get what you’re saying, and I like your thought processes, too!

My riff on your comment would be that I think Obama is doing his best to compassionately approach the challenge of rallying All Americans – Dems and Republicans – away from the Bush Mistake, and back to the Rule of Law.

For now, if I were Obama, I’d accept any reason given for Conversion from Bush to the Rule of Law – the Republican Party has ‘lost’ its way or it’s time for a change or Bush told us it was Legal or I’m against Torture, etc – I’d welcome anyone who can ’see’ the goodness of the Rule of Law for themselves, and encourage them to bring their families and friends, too.

And, I’d do it with open-arms – everybody is welcome back to the Rule of Law Family – where we can continue to agree to disagree until the votes are counted, and then We can go forward together – walking tall – to the next issue – in Genuine Good Faith!

So, what we’re seeing from Obama, imvho, is his un-conditionally loving, compassionate side – not showing Malice towards anyone.

After everyone has been given a suitable time to find safety and care, then I’m certain We’ll see Obama put on the Battle Armor and lead the charge against Bush and the Monsters holed-up in The Alamo II.

So, while I think you are right in sentiment, my feeling is that it’s a little early, in the overall context of rallying All Americans to the Rule of Law, for Obama to take Action.

I think we’ll see Action when words (and pictures) no longer influence the debate.

I think the difference between our points of view is that you see a Crafty BushCo, that might Get Away with their Crimes – and I see a Nervous BushCo in a Mating-Net. Imvho, there’s nowhere BushCo can run and hide. The patience I counsel is to err on the side of protecting the innocent, the traumatized and the weak…before taking decisive Action. And, again, once everyone is offered safe passage back to the Rule of Law, then I think we’ll see over-whelming Force used to bring Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al to Justice.

I don’t know how it’s going to end, but I categorically disagree that it’s a “Nervous BushCo in a Mating-Net”.

I can tell you what I think, and that is that the deal has been made, between Obama and Bush (the family, through party elders) to sacrifice Cheney, if necessary, but not Bush. I think Obama’s ‘decision’ not to go after the CIA’s interrogators was one of the terms of the deal. Cheney will be the fall guy, and only as a last resort.

But the deal isn’t indelible.

The deal depends on whether we, the unwashed masses, stand for it. On the Bush side of the deal, they’re leaving the quieting of the unwashed masses to Cheney to accomplish, through those he controls in the media and in Congress. Nobody is willing to waste much of their own political capital on Cheney; only to the extent that they have their own stakes involved. Like, if Cheney has something on them that might destroy their careers. Their hope is that Cheney is kept busy enough with assaults coming from all sides, so that he’ll be forced to marshal his resources carefully and not go after them individually.

Right now the brake pressure is on to head us off at the pass very heavily. And if not this pass, the next one, and the one after that. Until there is no more momentum on our parts to go forward – We’re either too broke, jobless, homeless, sick or dead from this flu (who knows if it wasn’t another false flag operation?).

I also think part of the deal was that Obama had to make some effort, use his persuasiveness and the bully pulpit to contribute toward dampening this down. Perhaps he’s only doing it because he fears what wild animals do when cornered, and is seeking to save us from even worse than what BushCo has already done. But he’s certainly standing in the way.

That’s the general overall outline of what I think is happening.

If I’m right, and I usually am, exercising patience serves those who want this to go away.