Commentary Magazine


Obama’s Hubris is His Undoing

Historians will have the rest of the century to unravel the mess that is the Barack Obama presidency. While they can explore these years of foreign policy disaster and domestic malaise at leisure, the rest of us have 29 more months to see just how awful things can get before he slides off to a lucrative retirement. But those who want to start the post-mortem on this historic presidency would do well to read Jackson Diehl’s most recent Washington Post column in which he identifies Obama’s hubris as the key element in his undoing.

As our Pete Wehner wrote earlier today, the president’s reactions to what even Chuck Hagel, his less-than-brilliant secretary of defense, has rightly called a world that is “exploding all over” by blaming it all on forces that he is powerless to control. As Pete correctly pointed out, no one is arguing that the president of the United States is all-powerful and has the capacity to fix everything in the world that is out of order. But the problem is not so much the steep odds against which the administration is currently struggling, as its utter incapacity to look honestly at the mistakes it has made in the past five and half years and to come to the conclusion that sometimes you’ve got to change course in order to avoid catastrophes.

As has been pointed out several times here at COMMENTARY in the last month and is again highlighted by Diehl in his column, Obama’s efforts to absolve himself of all responsibility for the collapse in Iraq is completely disingenuous. The man who spent the last few years bragging about how he “ended the war in Iraq” now professes to have no responsibility for the fact that the U.S. pulled out all of its troops from the conflict.

Nor is he willing to second guess his dithering over intervention in Syria. The administration spent the last week pushing back hard against Hillary Clinton’s correct, if transparently insincere, criticisms of the administration in which she served, for having stood by and watched helplessly there instead of taking the limited actions that might well have prevented much of that country — and much of Iraq — from falling into the hands of ISIS terrorists.

The same lack of honesty characterizes the administration’s approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the nuclear negotiations with Iran, two topics that Diehl chose not to highlight in his piece.

Obama wasted much of his first term pointlessly quarreling with Israel’s government and then resumed that feud this year after an intermission for a re-election year Jewish charm offensive. This distancing from Israel and the reckless pursuit of an agreement when none was possible helped set up this summer’s fighting. The result is not only an alliance that is at its low point since the presidency of the elder George Bush but a situation in which the U.S. now finds itself pushing the Israelis to make concessions to Hamas as well as the Palestinian Authority, a state of affairs that guarantees more fighting in the future and a further diminishment of U.S. interests in the region.

On Iran, Obama wasted years on feckless engagement efforts before finally accepting the need for tough sanctions on that nation to stop its nuclear threat. But the president tossed the advantage he worked so hard to build by foolishly pursuing détente with Tehran and loosening sanctions just at the moment when the Iranians looked to be in trouble.

On both the Palestinian and the Iranian front, an improvement in the current grim prospects for U.S. strategy is not impossible. But, as with the situation in Iraq, it will require the kind of grim soul-searching that, as Diehl points out, George W. Bush underwent in 2006 before changing both strategy and personnel in order to pursue the surge that changed the course of the Iraq War. Sadly, Obama threw away the victory he inherited from Bush. If he is to recover in this final two years in office the way Bush did, it will require the same sort of honesty and introspection.

But, unfortunately, that seems to be exactly the qualities that are absent from this otherwise brilliant politician. Obama is a great campaigner — a talent that is still on display every time he takes to the road to blame Republicans for the problems he created — and is still personally liked by much of the electorate (even if his charms are largely lost on conservative critics such as myself). But he seems incapable of ever admitting error, especially on big issues. At the heart of this problem is a self-regard and a contempt for critics that is so great that it renders him incapable of focusing his otherwise formidable intellect on the shortcomings in his own thinking or challenging the premises on which he has based his policies.

Saying you’re wrong is not easy for any of us and has to be especially hard for a man who has been celebrated as a groundbreaking transformational figure in our history. But that is exactly what is required if the exploding world that Obama has helped set in motion is to be kept from careening even further out of control before his presidency ends. The president may think he’s just having an unlucky streak that he can’t do a thing about. While it is true that America’s options are now limited (largely due to his mistakes) in Syria and Iraq, there is plenty he can do to prevent things from getting worse there. It is also largely up to him whether Iran gets a nuclear weapon or Hamas is able to launch yet another war in the near future rather than being isolated. But in order to do the right things on these fronts, he will have to first admit that his previous decisions were wrong. Until he shed the hubris that prevents him from doing so, it will be impossible.

Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »

5 Responses to “Obama’s Hubris is His Undoing”

  1. JOHN MCINTYRE says:

    It boggles the mind that analysts like Mr. Tobin — who really does have a formidable intellect — can write that President Obama has a “formidable intellect.”

    Where’s the evidence? Unlike the dullard George W. Bush, Obama isn’t able to analyze error and make changes. Obama has insulated himself with yes-men and yes-women so as never to be challenged. And, if he is so bright why has Obama taken on “less-than-brilliant” advisers like Chuck Hagel and John Kerry? It certainly can’t be for intellectual stimulation. Or can it?

    It appears that the best that can be said about Obama’s intellect is that it’s narrowly focused on campaigning. On that score, Tobin’s right: O is brilliant.


    Perhaps hubris, but I think mixed with some spite. I think our President is a product of the extreme partisanship that has gripped this nation. You see it in how he treats the house, the speeches he makes disingenuously lambasting Republicans, the types of executive actions he takes, the people he brings into his administration, and, yes, some of the folks he hung around with before and during his Presidency. He just cannot change course or re-think positions if it would bring him closer to the Republican/Conservative way of thinking, because to him, they are the enemy.


    Obama is a charismatic rock star capable of performing brilliantly in front of an adoring audience. When private decisions are necessary, he prefers to find an audience and to go fund raising. He can listen to the ideas of people who adore him: His mother and grandmother and now Jarrett and Rice, but he seems incapable of concentrating on abstract ideas or of planning something out logically from beginning to end. Perhaps he’s only offering temporary help to Iraq because that’s as far as he can see. There is something bright about him, but also a very serious disconnect. I don’t think he lies awake nights worrying about failure. Perhaps that is his failure.

  4. PHILIP SAWYER says:

    President Obama reminds me of every idealogue I’ve ever met, but particularly those of the Left, for whom their ideas of how the world ought to be trump any actual reality on the ground. Unlike the aphorism about insanity being doing the same thing and expecting a different result, their understanding of reality is not that their ideas might ever have been incorrect, but that somehow they just weren’t carried out correctly. Hence, their belief in their own brilliance and the rank idiocy of the world around them is only ever reinforced. And they are never themselves responsible for whatever happens.

  5. JOHN BEATTY says:

    The hopelessly brilliant narcissists that people the political world have two things in common: they know everything better than everyone else, and they are absolutely fearless when showing and telling the world just how brilliant they are. Some become politicians, other pundits, still others political journalists and columnists who tell everyone just how narcissistic those other people are.

    We tire of all of them. They make nothing, help no one, and only consume resources that makers of things need.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
for full access to
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
Don't have a log in?
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.