Obama's mistake in 1st term: He wasn't a good storyteller … US President Barack Obama has acknowledged that the biggest mistake of his first term was not being a good enough storyteller, saying he needed to communicate better to the American people about his policies to foster "a sense of unity and purpose and optimism." … "When I think about what we've done well and what we haven't done well, the mistake of my first term — couple of years — was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right … The nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times," Obama told CBS News in an interview. – FPI
Dominant Social Theme: It is necessary to inspire, and Barack Obama needs to do a better job of that.
Free-Market Analysis: This is a good day for us. We have certain themes we try to analyze as a way of explaining that there is currently a struggle going on between those who want world government and those who want to expose it.
The struggle is all-inclusive and people have to understand it if they want to be more successful investors, businesspeople or even family-members and parents.
But usually we don't receive much in the way of mainstream confirmation of our themes and memes. Today was different. Two mainstream media stories confirmed in startling ways what we have been writing for years.
First was a statement by the New York Fed that central banking manipulations may have expanded market averages by half over the past 10 years. (See our lead story.)
And in this story, below, we examine the extraordinary statement by Barack Obama that he didn't do well at providing Americans with a narrative in his first term in office.
Two of our main platforms – arguments if you will – are that central banks are extraordinarily destructive mechanisms of monetary manipulation and that the elites like to operate via the establishment of certain propagandistic themes.
We don't need confirmation of our analyses, of course. We're fairly confident of them. But it's only human nature to be pleased by high profile endorsements, even if only of a secondary, impersonal nature.
The Obama admission in particular is a startling one because rarely do powerful people admit the reality of such manipulations, much less confess as Obama just did that the "power of presidency" actually resides in its conversational elements.
The TRUTH is that Obama has very little in the way of decisions to make. The power elite placed him in office apparently to continue to pursue policies that will result in world governments.
The elites are creating world government via war, economic depression and the promotion of various kinds of cultural destructiveness. Obama campaigned on a (ludicrous) platform of "change" – "yes we can" – but even the modest elements of change that he promoted didn't ever occur.
He claimed to want to get the economy on track, to diminish America's wars and to be a "uniter" rather than a divider.
In fact, his administration has proven to be the most fiscally irresponsible ever, America's wars have expanded radically under his watch and instead of uniting he has operated with a firm disinterest in the finer points of the legislative process and has been actively divisive as it suits him.
The reason that Obama's actions have nothing to do with his rhetoric is because he is not in charge of the process he supposedly supervises. Like so many others in places of power in the West today, Obama is merely a kind of place-keeper, a warm body whose job is to justify policies not create them.
His main value to the real power elite is that he is a known quantity who exhibits the most desirable characteristic: He does not surprise. Day after day in measured tones, Obama says one thing and does another, as required. Here's some more from the article excerpted above:
"In my first two years, I think the notion was, 'Well, he's been juggling and managing a lot of stuff, but where's the story that tells us where he's going?' And I think that was a legitimate criticism."
Pressed about what he felt he needed to explain better to the American people, the President, who gave the interview from the White Houses Blue Room with his wife Michelle sitting by his side, said that he wanted to do more "explaining, but also inspiring." …
The President said he plans to spend more time outside of Washington with the American people, "listening to them and also then being in a conversation with them about where we go as a country. I need to do a better job of that in my second term."
Responding to his comments, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney issued a statement saying that "President Obama believes that millions of Americans have lost their homes, their jobs and their livelihood because he failed to tell a good story.
"Being president is not about telling stories. Being president is about leading, and President Obama has failed to lead. No wonder Americans are losing faith in his presidency."
As Obama does almost nothing that he is not "told" to do, this rumination may actually have arisen from conversations with "handlers" that have engaged in an ongoing debriefing over his first term in office.
Apparently he has been reminded that the powers-that-be maintain control of the masses via what we call dominant social themes, the stories that the powerful have always used to manipulate society for their own ends.
In the modern era, these promotional elements have focused on fear-based propaganda designed to inform people that salvation resides in globalist solutions such as the United Nations, World Bank, IMF etc.
What Obama is confirming for us – what we already knew of course – is that the modern presidency is not about Bill Clinton's wonkishness or Franklin Delano Roosevelt's supposed determined confrontation with the Great Depression.
In fact, Roosevelt did as he was told, as well – deepening the Great Depression and initiating numerous authoritarian trends that further strengthened the federal government.
American presidents don't really have to do much, in fact. They can generally steer the ship of state by signing executive orders and suggesting various kinds of legislative initiatives that, one way or another, expand further the power of Fedgov.
Most of what US presidents do involves consensus building, telling a story to the long-suffering inhabitants of Leviathan as to why they need more of the medicine that has already sickened them.
What Obama needs to do more of – and more convincingly – his handlers are apparently telling him, is create and deliver a stirring narrative that further justifies America's descent into the madness of warfare, authoritarianism and economic ruin.
To some degree, these narratives tend to be built around the personage and personality of the president involved. Ronald Reagan with his sunny personality was provided a narrative that claimed to be anti-state even as he hugely expanded the military industrial complex.
George W. Bush found his "voice" promoting the phony war on terror and the great dangers it imposed on American freedoms. He promoted this narrative even as he further attacked what was left citizens' freedoms via Homeland Security and a dozen Intel agencies busily wiretapping an expanding pool of dissatisfied citizens.
Obama, because of his upbringing or just because of the way his character has matured, tends to be a measured and cautious individual. It is likely for this reason that a heroic narrative has failed to coalesce around him in the first half of his administration. In this sense he must take responsibility, and apparently he is.
If Obama is re-elected – and we believe he remains the choice of the power elite – he will no doubt "cement his legacy" via noticeably more strident rhetoric.
In doing so, he will have embarked on the only important job that the US presidency still offers –convincing US citizens that the country's best years lie ahead of it.
They do not of course. One reason they don't has to do with candidates like Mitt Romney and Obama. Their very mediocrity and malleableness is what endears them to power elite. Their evident moral vacuum and lack of a significant belief-structure qualifies them for the job.
Their success in the modern era is measured by the authenticity of their lies and the conviction with which they can deliver them.