Diane Ravitch observes:
Our president must somehow wake up to the idea that he can’t “engage” people who strap suicide belts to their bodies or who drive cars loaded with explosives into crowded areas. No amount of outreach, no concessions, no sweet talk will persuade them to abandon their jihadist ideals. They are not persuadable. They are fanatics. They don’t care if we close Gitmo or give their brethren Miranda rights. They live to die, preferably by causing the deaths of many others, be they Christians, Muslims, Jews, Americans, or Europeans. They kill indiscriminately. That’s the nature of terrorism. Panetta knows this. When will Obama figure it out?
Obama’s spinners and wishful observers contend that Obama has figured this out. Or he will. Or there are hopeful signs that he will. And yet, if the light had dawned, one would expect some telling sign of a revelation — a shift in policy on Guantanamo or a short-circuiting to the KSM trial, for example – that Obama is convinced that our enemies must be defeated with every tool at our disposal, not talked out of their grievances. We have seen no such sign. Likewise on Iran, after many got their hopes up, we aren’t yet hearing about the prospect of those crippling sanctions. If anything, Obama has been consistent — some would say bull-headed — in his refusal to adjust his policies despite a plethora of evidence that engagement only works with those who wish to be engaged.
Among Obama’s advisers (including his chief of staff and secretary of state) as well as his most dutiful pundit cheerleaders, the talk is still engagement-happy. Clinton says we are leaving the door open for the mullahs — just in case they want to give up their nukes and stop murdering their citizens. Rahm Emanuel speaks fondly of the Cairo speech as a great achievement, as if we are expected to avert our eyes from the results of their shockingly counterproductive Middle East policy. You would think those working for Obama would be brandishing new talking points if in fact we were in for a course correction.
Some of Obama’s media enablers swear that Obama turned a corner. Eleanor Clift reports that she spotted the president’s “inner outrage” over the Christmas Day attack. Really? Hard to spot it amid all that deadening bureaucratic talk. And hard to believe it, given that no one is to be fired and no fundamental policy assumptions are to be re-examined. It would be nice to think that Obama will “grow in office” — what conservatives are always urged to do (otherwise known as accommodating liberals). Unfortunately, he appears rather stuck in his ways. Unless Congress seizes the reins on some of these issues or the voters deliver a blow that cannot be ignored in the 2010 elections, I suspect we’re going to see more of the same. So, to answer Ravitch’s question, I don’t think Obama will figure it out any time soon, perhaps ever.
It took you two days?
JPod is absolutely on the mark! Obama may in reality be a lightweight, but his political skills(and those of his advisors) are not to be taken lightly. There is something that is somewhat politically heartening out of this: McCain’s aggressiveness in taking him on over the issue of dealing with terrorists.
John may be correct, and the cautionary is importany. Seth displays his usual fine wit. I hope Paul is right, but I am still struck by the reaction to the word appeasement. This is a raw nerve that has been hit sqarely by truth-force.
A fourth benefit is that it turns the discussion into Obama vs. Bush/McCain.
McCain must – must – distance himself as much as possible from Bush in order to garner the moderate and independents. And Obama must – must – anchor Bush around McCain’s ankles.
Obama (probably) cannot defeat McCain. He can – and will – defeat McBush.
A footnote: For left-liberals, there is arguably no political crime — none — worse than McCarthyism. Anything that can remotely be spun as within six degrees of separation from McCarthyism — impugning an opponent’s ability to defend America — is, for that part of the Dems’ constituency, what “appeasement” itself been for generations of non-isolationist Republicans and the dwindling band of FDR/Truman/JFK/Scoop Jackson/Lieberman Democrats. So what we have here is matter meeting anti-matter. Not to mention a failure to communicate.
Another view is that “The Speech” put Obama and the Democrats into a box of their own making, one from which they cannot escape without fracturing their base. To be correctly described as accommodative, weak, even appeasers, requires a fiery defense of the the indefensible, unless the charges are true, which they are, and irrational lashing out at the winners in this debate.
Throwing the Code Pink crowd under the bus is delightful to watch as they assert their alleged manhood and faux strength. They are, after all, hypocrites and cowards, as we know.
The Democrats, Obama, and the Left have exposed themselves as weak. They jumped into the proffered shoes, and the shoes fit. They don’t like the obvious and true facts of the matter.
Keeping up the attack along these lines is good tactics, a political winner.
The biggest problem for Obama is that he created a debate about an issue that wasn’t referencing him, despite the Dem media’s attempts to portray it as so. Outside of voters that are hardwired for Obama, he’s not doing himself any favors. He comes across as a foriegn policy rookie, a political crank, and completely in the throes of the echo chamber to everyone not beholden to his campaign.
It also gives McCain the chance to remind Obama (and everyone else) that he IS the best candidate on foriegn policy. Kerry couldn’t beat Bush on this in 2004; it’ll be even less likely that Obama will beat McCain on this in 2008.
As to the “shoes fitting” I’m afraid we’ll find Obama supporters insisting those particular shoes fit no better than O.J. Simpson’s gloves, which will leave us with much the same societal disconnect of opinion.
I keep coming back to the fact that what President Bush said is something the likes of which American Presidents have been saying for generations — Democrat or Republican. President Reagan’s naming the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and President Kennedy’s call for us to “bear any burden” to defeat Communism spring immediately to mind. Surely the rot in our moral fiber has not spread so far that the average American will be unable to interpret Senator Obama’s response (calculated though it be) for what it was: an explicit acknowledgment that the shoe in question fits perfectly.
Bush was attacking Obama, and his history was profoundly wong.
Bush was not attacking Obama. His history was not profoundly wrong.
See how that works, GMO?
Let’s see…. What are the FACTS again? I’m inclined to agree with Stephen if memory serves me correctly.
Grumpy: You’ve asserted here and on one other post that Bush’s speech was about Obama. What is your evidence? As surely you must know, “talking to dictators” is a bi-partisan thing. One has only to look at James Baker, Brent Scrowcroft, Madeline Albright, as well as host of others (and I’m not even going to mention Europe) to see that Bush’s shoe might fit thousands of feet.
What’s of more than passing interest here, either for the reasons outlined by JPod or some other set of reasons, was Obama’s extreme sensitivity.
I’m of the school that this gambit was meant to impress fellow Democratic Superdelegates with the notion that Obama will not allow himself to be Swiftboated. But like so many of his primary-gambits, Obama wins Democratic votes at the expense of moderates and independents. Here, by stoking an issue where he has innate vulnerability, he has kept it alive. Perhaps its wise for nomination but it’s stupid for the general.
I think the key point is getting lost here: Obama responded aggressively because Bush, wittingly or not, uncovered his soft underbelly–he’s a modern day Neville Chamberlain. Obama’s response was like that of a mother croc protecting her nest: she knows that’s where the goods are, so she must deter predetors with intimidating ferocity, so they don’t dare approach the nest again. So, the only logical response to Obama’s response is for McCain to constantly attack Obama on this very point, again and again, ruthlessless. This is Obama’s soft spot, and McCain absolutely must go after it or we will lose.
#5: Obama needs to secure as much of the Clinton support as possible. That ~25% of Hillary supporters who said they wouldn’t vote for Obama (inflated though it is by the roughness of the campaign) isn’t, let us say, displeased with him taking on the evil dunce Bush.
Obama’s got the nomination. He needs to convince the Clinton supporters to switch to him (without having to give up too much to get Hillary’s endorsement as well).
Taking on Bush at this point is always a smart move.
I’m with Steve McG on this. To me, the brilliant political ploy (and I’m inclined to think it was on purpose and it was cynically brilliant) was that Obama is put in opposition to McCain/Bush. No way John McCain was going to let this appeasement go by (and he shouldn’t), but nevertheless, it IS a notable similarity of policy and world view of Bush and McCain (even if there are differences in execution) and a difference with Obama. So, the argument links Bush and McCain. For voters obsessed with “change” and not paying that much attention, all that will be reinforced is “McCain continues Bush failed policies.”
Again, McCain had to respond and had to hit hard and I’m glad he did – but among a certain group of voters I think Obama won the round.
Yes, it was aimed first at the Democratic home team, second at committed Democrat voters, with a calculation that the familiar combination of reflexive Obama-love in the media and reflexive Bush-animosity in the general public would compensate for short-term losses among those paying close attention. The sheer absurdity of his position and repugnant dishonesty of his statements allowed for a familiar political ritual: The apparatchiks competing for most demonstrative obeisance as their supreme leader asserts that we have always been at war with Oceania, and further commands that henceforth underwear will always be worn on the outside. It was interesting, if not exactly surprising, to see Hillary Clinton echoing el Supremo’s inanities, with little more than a nostalgic wave to her strongly held beliefs of two weeks ago.
# 13 Richard F.
I think this is correct–BHO is trying to shed his metrosexual, academic image, and fire a shot against the GOP bow.
On the merits, as to W’s intent, of course no one can read the minds of W’s speechwriters, but the “talk to dictators” issue has been most salient recently with BHO. They can’t be oblivious to this. if they were responding to the Bakers and Scowcrofts, wouldnt’ they have done so by now. In other circumstances, and ‘It’s all about me” reaction from BHO would be a bit self-centered, but the guy is the prospective nominee of the opposition.
As for the rest of the quote, I offer the following propositions:
but the “talk to dictators” issue has been most salient recently with BHO.
Bush has been making the Munich historical analogy (in so many words) for seven years and in dozens of speeches. This is not a new argument he’s positing.
Had Obama not sprung fullborne from JFK’s head to save us with his wisdom, Bush still would have included it.
(that metaphor is a little risky, I admit)
Oops, Premature post.
The following propositions:
1, Negotiation is not always equal to appeasement.
2. Negotiation does not equal moral approval.
3. Appeasement is a tactic, which like any tactic, sometimes is appropriate and clever, and sometimes not.
4. Iran is not Nazi Germany: it’s not nearly so strong technologically or militarily, it has not expanded anywhere, although it has spread its influence. It is no more racist than the average nation-state. The régime can be nasty, but it’s neither totalitarian nor a one-man dictatorship. It does not threaten to dominate Eurasia. Etc., etc. NB: I’m not defending the Iranian mullahcracy, which has much to answer for, but one can oppose them without invoking the inexact analogy of Demon Adolf.
5. Whether Chamberlain, given Britain and France’s military weakness and political mood, could or should have offered to fight Hitler at the time of Munich, is not so easy a question as conventional political rhetoric suggests. The 1939 declaration of war over Poland didn’t work out so well, either. The image of a prissy toff with an umbrella returning with a piece of paper in hand right before Germany knocked of the Czechs is easy to mock, but what cards Chamberlain really had is a matter of dispute. That said, his optimistic waving of a piece of paper and proclaiming “peace in our time” certainly looks bad by 20-20 hindsight.
6. Talking to nasties requires a case-by-case analysis. It’s foolish to exclude it in all cases, as it is foolish to endorse it in all cases.
7. Making concessions to nasties is also a matter for case-by-case analysis. Sometimes it works.
8. We are already talking to Iran, apparently, as we are to No. Korea, which we are offering to bribe. Hence W’s pronouncement is hypocritical, if nothing else.
9. Hillary’s off-the-cuff threat to obliterate Iran (i.e., to kill 70 million men, women and children) gives me more pause than the prospect that BHO might offer to meet Ahmadinejad.
10. Keeping one’s powder dry and not overextending oneself is usually good advice.
BHO has only begun to set forth his strategic vision. Whether it differs from perpetual war for perpetual peace remains to be seen.
Regimes driven by ideology and not national interest can’t, actually won’t, be changed using the usual foreign policy instruments and tools. They are a different species of nation.
This is where the Munich analogy holds for those who view Iran as driven by national interest and not ideology.
Obama apparently is one of those.
Grumpy, the Czechs were ready to fight Hitler, just as the Finns later fought Stalin. Had Chamberlain and Daladier made a token effort to help them, they might still have lost, like the Finns, but at least the die would have been cast. Then it’s possible Stalin himself would have hesitated before presuming Anglo-French duplicity and collaborating with Hitler to vivisect Poland.
Iran isn’t the Fourth Reich (not yet anyway) and talking doesn’t equal surrender, but the people who brag about wanting to talk haven’t convinced me that they wouldn’t behave like Chamberlain, and their body language will encourage everyone else to crawl in the same direction.
GOM needs to study a little more history. Neville Chamberlain naively thought that his efforts would succeed with the Nazi dictator. They were not some sort of cynical or desperate ploy. Chamberlain later admitted his earlier foolishness. The same holds true with Stanley Baldwin. Great Britain’s appeasers underestimated the vileness of Adolph Hitler. A large number were also motivated by anti-Semitism. They didn’t want to get involved in war “brought about by the Jews.”
GOM: “8. We are already talking to Iran, apparently, as we are to No. Korea, which we are offering to bribe. Hence W’s pronouncement is hypocritical, if nothing else.
9. Hillary’s off-the-cuff threat to obliterate Iran (i.e., to kill 70 million men, women and children) gives me more pause than the prospect that BHO might offer to meet Ahmadinejad.”
These two propositions strike me as dubious at best. GWB’s actions have been consistently outstripped by his rhetoric, though calling it “hypocritical if nothing else” is a bit of a stretch. You ought to look up La Rochefoucauld’s definition of “hypocrisy.” Lapses in judgment, loyalty to incompetents, and misguided bipartisanship don’t equal “vice.”
Hillary’s obliteration threat (recall it wasn’t issued in a vacuum: it referred to a nuclear attack on Israel) seems to me less “naive and irresponsible”–the new touchstones for a dumbed down diplomacy–than no pre-conditions on meeting with Ahmadinejad. Aside from fighting like a terrier to shift the discussion to his pre-conditions for dealing with Hamas, BHO has offered not a shred of information about what, exactly, he’d say to convince Ahmadinejad that calling our allies “stinking corpses” is…what? impolite?
GMO,
See a small portion of Pres. Bush’s speech to the Knesset:
…And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. … end quote from Bush
Is it not possible that the analog “Nazi Tanks” of Iran are the fighters of Iranian Quds Force, Hezbollah, Hamas, Special Groups/Mahdi Junhdi having already crossed or now crossing the borders of Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and even in a number of instances, Israel?
As to Iran not being “…nearly so strong technologically…” as Nazi Germany, doesn’t Iran have ballistic missiles that far outstrip the Germans V-2 (not fielded until late in the war), a flowering biotech industry unknown to the Germans, numerous robust systems of mass communication only dreamed of in 1939, powered by digital computers cheap and available on a world market? Did 1939 Germany have nuclear power plants? Breeder reactors? Cascades of gaseous centrifuges numbering in the thousands if not tens of thousands? And the scientists and technicians to build and operate them?
Who speaks of perpetual war? Who of perpetual peace?
Very similar to the short blurb I posted last night on this very topic, but definitely more thorough in its treatment of the cynical possibilities at play in the Obama campaign. Common sense tells me that the simpler explanation (excessively thin skin on the part of the Dem candidate) is probably more likely. But if even paranoids have enemies, it’s at least possible that this was all contrived to accomplish what JPod indicates.
In his Knesset speech, GWB spoke about negotiating with terrorists and radicals of the Hitler ilk. Thus, he was referring to Eric Hoffer’s ‘True Believers’ — the fixated fanatics focused and blindered on the truth and justice of their own demonic ideology’s murder cult (ideology whether religious or secular). Hamas and Hezbolah and their psychotic sympathizers are GWB’s subject.
If BHO feels that description unfairly refers to him, among others, let him present his case logically, evidence-based, and with a minimum of bombast and dissimulation but with all necessary clarity.
I agree wholeheartedly with Los Angeleno: Senator McCain must pound Senator Obama into the ground on this “soft underbelly” issue. Senator Obama is a 100% pure, certified appeaser, as established by the record of his own comments. Senator McCain should pound this gopher on the head no matter what hole he emerges from in the future.
Martin Gilbert’s The Roots of Appeasement should be on everybody’s must read list. It was written in 1966 and sadly is not a particularly well known work. The author provides ample evidence concerning the naiveté of those British politicians and intellectuals who constantly found excuses to rationalize away Adolph Hitler’s behavior.
John – Really! Sensationally effective? Obama a formidable candidate?? Do you really think Obama wants to challenge and debate McCain on the war, Hamas/Iran and USA security? Obama took a direct hit from McCain’s surprise counterattack (negotiating with terrorists) and fired back with a debate challenge to McCain. Republicans win this challenge as McCain fired up a few notches with the backing of his base on this issue. Team Obama – do not disturb a sleeping lion – the base of the Republican Party, of course. MY FRIEND, when fired on, fire back again, again and again. Obama does not have the stomach to debate one on one with McCain. His knowledge in foreign policy is so evidently shallow.
I’m amazed. Bush made a warm, friendly speech to the Knesset, the full text of which I have not found anywhere other than on the Commentary website. Said speech occaisioned histrionics from people who would do better to ignore it if they were vulnerable to accusations of appeasement or to at least argue the merits of their position as Grumpy has attempted above. I’m a liberal, but I’m embarassed by official liberal reactions. Bush only seems guilty of free speech here. And don’t the Israelis deserved reassurance under the circumstances?
“I’m a liberal, but I’m embarassed by official liberal reactions.”
Something about getting alot of flack when you’re over the target.
Amidut, apparently you missed the last Kool-Aid break at Liberaltown – like a few others.
When this story first broke, I went over to TalkLeft, home of many Hillary-leaning Obama-skeptics, and found one or two stragglers like yourself, including a woman scientist who was catching up late to the controversy. People would provide her with the “offending” quotes, and she’d reply, “Am I missing something? I don’t see where he mentions Obama. Was there another excerpt?” It went on for a while. She kept on apologizing for being dense and just not seeing what the upset was over. Most, however, were simply singing Hillary’s new tune, jumping on the bandwagon with Biden, Richardson, Daschle, and the other usual suspects, including those in the media. In short, it was taken as a given that Bush had engaged in a “smear” and an “attack on foreign soil.” What was most important to the other Hillaryites was that their gal was standing up for herself and fellow Democrats, including Obama now, against the evil criminal hypocrite President.
Unless you get with the program soon, you may be drummed out of the liberal army. Your only other hope will be that the ritual moves somewhere else before the zealots realize you’re not mouthing the right words.
Actually, I think Obama missed a huge opportunity to position himself as a Centrist and defang McCain.
Obama did what his instincts told him to do: Hit Back, Hard, and Deny the Charge. That was to impress his fellow Democrats that he was Not John Kerry and Not Michael Dukakis.
Yet what has Obama NOT done? He has NOT defanged the charge at all. Republicans, from McCain on down, now see Obama’s soft underbelly. The charges struck a nerve because they had the ring of truth.
A more careful and well-thought out reaction would have been catastrophic for McCain: that would be for Obama to ignore the Left Blogosphere’s urgings to hit back and to come out that evening with a very supportive follow-up speech in support of what the President was saying: against Appeasement! Had he simply held his fire and thought for a few moments, he would have divided the Republicans and sewn confusion into our ranks while solidifying Jewish voters behind him. A backchannel communication to the Israeli Embassy in support of the President’s remarks would have gone a long way.
Here’s the point I have discovered: Obama is all grand tactics, not grand strategy! He went for the short term result, not the long term win!
His had a chance to transform himself into a Faux Jacksonian overnight. He blew it.
The problem, is Obama, like Dukakis, Hart, Mondale, Carter before him; think in large measure, the military and the security services (CIA, FBI, Homeland Security at the national level, police at the local level)are the enemy. Consequently, anyone seen opposing them like
Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Chavez in Venezuela, even AQ’s affiliates in Iraq are justified in their
struggle. Even the subject is a besieged Westernized nation like Israel; the same rules apply.
Don’t think that would or could have worked, section9. The one thing Obama wants less than a short sharp confrontation is a sustained, responsible, respectful, detailed, and even-handed discussion of foreign policy within a strategic context.
The comparison to Britain in 1936 & Hitler is missing a big part.
That is that influential sections of British SOCIETY including the abdicating King were impressed with Germany’s industrialization & cmmunism eradication. That Jewish person were associated with communism both from trotsky etc plus the homegrown Rosa Luxembourgs etc.
Communism being the dstribution of wealth & the monetary professions common to Jewish persons made them a double threat.
The best correlation would be Islamic sympathisers at home combined with the linking of such to the oil money/power controlled by Muslims. This needs a paranioa from the nation as a whole.
No one should expect the media to be other than flacks for Obama. To succeed, McCain will need an effective way to get his message out anyway. Unless he has a better idea, his job now is to (a) devise a message that hangs together, and (b) find a way to use the talk shows and to air some ads with real content.
I thank David Thomson for the reference to Martin Gilbert’s 1966 work. He’s a preeminent historian of this period and I look forward to reading it. I also recommend a peek at Herodotus.
#22. Seth Halpern Says:
“the Czechs were ready to fight Hitler, just as the Finns later fought Stalin. ”
But with infinitely better prospects!
The USSR, in 1940, had an overwhelming superiority
over Finland – in numbers, in arms, in ammunition, in military-industrial capacity.
For all their heroism, the Finns were doomed. By the end, they were rapidly running
out of supplies.
Germany (which had only recently started rearming)
had no overwhelming military superiority over Czechoslovakia in 1938.
They had approximately the same number of armed divisions
(between 30 and 40), but Czechoslovakia’s troops were standing behind a mountain fortification line, the best in Europe. Czechoslovakia had a decent air force, for 1938,
and a world-class armament industry: the Skoda Works.
The loss of it all to Germany drastically changed the balance of power in Europe.
Germany had to keep some of her divisions on
the French border; had France taken a threatening stance,
Germany would have had to keep more troops on that border – or risk losing
Saar and Ruhr, instead of gaining Czechoslovakia.
Had the allies helped Czechoslovakia, there was no way she could be defeated:
France alone had over 100 divisions. If an all-out European war started in 1938, then Germany would be crushed (Britain and France were unready, but Germany was far more unready). If not, then Germany would not have her hands free to conquer Czechoslovakia.
Some historians estimate that the consequences of Munich agreement, in terms of military balance, were equivalent to transferring 40 divisions from the Allied side to the
Axis side. That does not include the moral factor: demoralization of one side,
the encouragement of aggression in the other – which contributed first, to Hitler’s decision to invade Poland, and later to the implosion of France.
The act of betrayal and self-betrayal in Munich bears no rational justification. It was like passing a loaded gun to a thug who threatens you with a screwdriver. It was pure pusillanimity generating feverish delusions.
But politically it was extremely popular…
Excellent article! This is the absolute central battle of our next election. Obama shows very little political skill or experience. His shows poor judgment in choosing associates, and his “unofficial” advisers keep dropping out when they show their true colors.
However he has incredible media support, strategy, and advice. All of his major moves are through the media and one can not underestimate this power. The 1st Wright videos come out, and Obama gives his “historic” speech. He is the Messiah again.
He takes a loss in West Virginia, and magically, Edwards announces the endorsment. He is the Messiah again. Bush highlights the current thinking in the Left, and Obama pushes forward with his tie McCain to Bush strategy and changes the entire direction of the debate. He is the suffering servant.
This is a challenging patten that the McCain campaign will need to develop a response to. They need a greater, stronger, and faster media response that is both creative and direct to the message. Obama is a media man, who covers his radical tracks, by re-directing any attack to a different issue.
John Podhoretz has his finger on the pulse.
A cynical political play by Obama and his people? Are you kidding? Is it cocktail hour? Try a stupid, thin-skinned bout of whining, or a stupid, reactionary temper tantrum. McCain will continue to work his advantage. Obama is giving him the ammunition to do it. It was a stupid move, no matter how you look at it.
I think that’s your problem, John. You aren’t really looking at Obama. You cant be if you keep using starstuck adjectives like “formidable” and “inspiring” to describe such a mediocre human being. You’re looking at the image the media project for him. Turn the sound off the next time you see him on film and read the transcript instead of listening to him. Without his arrogant baritone to elevate him, he’s just a below average looking guy who says some of the stupidest things imaginable. The disdainful cast to his features turns to a sneer at the drop of a dime, and his body language radiates arrogance and contempt.
Don’t be seduced by his tent revival voice. Quite frankly, even his puffed up voice is irritating if you’ve been around men who really are formidable and inspiring. Get over your man crush. This guy is no Alpha male.