Obama’s 60 Minutes Interview and that Odd, Inappropriate Laughter

This morning I watched the 60 Minutes interview with President Obama that aired last night. You can read the transcript here. Part of the interview took place at the White House, with Obama discussing his schedule and how his daughters are adjusting to their new surroundings. The other part was a sit-down interview in which Steve Kroft asked Obama some questions about the economic crisis. I’m posting the first part of the interview below, along with some segments from the transcript that I’d like to discuss.

Just a personal note–I think Steve Kroft comes across as quite biased toward the Wall Street point of view throughout the interview. He expresses compassion for the unfortunate people working for the banks and thinks it’s terribly unfair to ask them to work for *only* $250,000 per year.

STEVE KROFT:
Your Treasury Secretary’s plan… Geithner’s plan, and— your plan really— for solving the banking crisis— was met with very, very, very tepid response. And you had a lot of people criticize… a lot of people said they didn’t understand it. A lot of people said it didn’t have any— enough details to— to— to solve the problem. I know you’re coming out with something— next week on this. But these criticisms were coming from people like Warren Buffett, people who had supported you, and you had counted as being your—

PRESIDENT OBAMA:
And— and— and— and Warren still does support me. But I think that understand Warren’s also a big player in the financial markets who’s a major owner of Wells Fargo. And so he’s got a perspective from the perspective of somebody who— is part owner of a bank. You’ve got members of Congress who’ve got a different perspective. Which is, “We don’t want to spend any more taxpayer money.” You’ve got— a whole host of players, all of whom may have a completely different solution. (LAUGHS) Right?

And— you know, one of the challenges that Tim Geithner— has had— is the same challenge that anybody would have in this situation.

people want a lot of contradictory things. You know, the— the— the banks would love a lot of taxpayer money with no strings attached. Folks in Congress, as well as the American people, would love to fix the banks without spending any money. (LAUGHS) And so at a certain point, you know, you’ve got just a— a very difficult line— to— to walk.

It seems to me that Obama perceives himself as someone who is trying to meet the conflicting demands of many different people; and that is certainly something that is going to happen to the President of the United States. What is missing for me is any sense that Obama sees himself as an advocate for a particular point of view. This is the thing that has bothered me about Obama from the very beginning. I just don’t get a sense of there being a real flesh-and-blood person in there beneath the polished exterior. I don’t get the feeling that he really cares about anyone or anything–except himself, of course.

In this next section, Obama says some things I can agree with–he sounds like a moderate, business-oriented Democrat–but when Kroft takes the point of view of the Wall Street crowd, Obama never really calls him on it. And although he presents arguments to counter some of what Kroft says, if you watch the tape Obama really doesn’t demonstrate any enthusiasm or passion.

STEVE KROFT:

Do you think that the people on Wall Street and the people in the financial community that you need trust you, believe— believe in you?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

Part of my job is to communicate to them, “Look, I believe in the market. I believe in financial innovation. And I believe in success.” I want them to do well.

But what I also know is that the financial sector was out of balance. You look at how finance used to operate just 20 years ago, or 25 years ago. People, if you went into— investment banking, you were making 20 times what a teacher made. You weren’t making 200 times what a teacher made.

STEVE KROFT:

There is a perception right now, at least in New York, which is where I live and work….That, um, people feel they thought that you were going to be supportive.

And now I think there are a lot of people say, “Look, we’re not going to be able to keep our best people. They’re not going to stay and work here for $250,000 a year when they can go work for a hedge fund, if they can find one that’s still (LAUGHTER) working—….and make a lot more.

BARACK OBAMA:

I’ve told them directly. ‘Cause I’ve heard some of this. they need to spend a little time outside of New York. Because— you know, if you go to North Dakota, or you go to Iowa, or you go to Arkansas, where folks would be thrilled to be making $75,000 a year— without a bonus, then I think they’d get a sense of why people are frustrated.

I think we have to understand the severity of the crisis that we’re in right now. The fact is that, because of bad bets made on Wall Street, there have been enormous losses.

I mean there were a whole bunch of folks who, on paper, if you looked at quarterly reports, were wildly successful, selling derivatives (CHUCKLE) that turned out to be….completely worthless.

STEVE KROFT:

And insuring them.

BARACK OBAMA:

And insuring them. Now— you know, gosh, I don’t think it’s me being anti-Wall Street just to point out that the best and the brightest— didn’t do too well on that front, and that— you know, maybe the incentive structures that have been set up— have not produced the kinds of long term growth that— that I think everybody’s looking for.

Obama sounds almost defensive there, as if he tried to point out a few things to Geithner, Summers, and the rest, and they brushed him off and told him he sounded “anti-Wall Street.” He’s very hesitant, “gosh,” “just to point out,” as if he were a college student who had tried to point out where one of his professors had made an error.

STEVE KROFT:

Were you surprised at the depth of this recession when you got here? Did you know it was this bad?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

I don’t think that we anticipated how steep the decline would be, particularly in employment. I mean if you look at just, you know, hundreds of thousands, now millions of jobs being shed over the course of two months— or three months, that slope is a lot steeper than anything that we’ve said— we’ve seen before.

The point I’m trying to make is that if you read the words you get a sense that there could be a little compassion for real people there; but if you listen to him talk, Obama comes off as cold and unfeeling. He just sounds like a bloodless technocrat. It’s as if he doesn’t really *get* that real people’s lives are being affected in extremely painful ways. When he talks about rising unemployment and the loss of millions of jobs, he is struck by the steepness of the slope on the charts he looked at. But where is the compassion for real people’s pain and loss? Why don’t I get any sense that he feels any responsibility for not taking swifter and more decisive action?

Why did Obama go on 60 Minutes in the first place? I thought he was making all these appearances in order to sell his budget. You’d think if he felt strongly that many Americans desperately need help because they are being turned out of their homes and losing their jobs, he would have been able to express that with a little enthusiasm. But he really can’t. He simply doesn’t have the ability to empathize with people he can’t see right in front of him–and maybe not even then. He just wants to talk about how hard it is for him and his “team,” especially Tim Geithner who doesn’t even have any deputy secretaries.

Think about it: how would Franklin Roosevelt sound if he were talking about this situation? How would John Kennedy sound? I think you’d be able to see some passion expressed in their body language and voices. They would sound excited, would lean forward to make points, would propose ways to help people who are struggling. But Obama discusses everything at the same slow, steady, relaxed pace–whether he’s talking about basketball or about people’s lives being torn apart.

The next segment is a little different. Kroft asks about Obama’s plans for the automotive industry. This is the section that people have been talking about, because of Obama’s seemingly inappropriate laughter. Even Kroft comments on it. This section begins around 13:10.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

I just want to say that– the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money (LAUGHS) into the auto industry. So–

STEVE KROFT:

18 percent are in favor.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

(LAUGHS) That’s–

STEVE KROFT:

Seventy-six percent against.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

It– it– it’s not a high number.

STEVE KROFT:

You’re sitting here. And you’re– you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, “I mean, he’s sitting there just making jokes about (LAUGHTER) money–” How do you deal with– I mean, wh– explain –

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

Well–

STEVE KROFT:

–the mood and your laughter.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

Yeah, I mean, there’s got to be–

STEVE KROFT:

Are you punch drunk?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

No, no. There’s gotta be a little gallows humor to (LAUGHS) get you through the day. You know, sometimes my team– talks about the fact that if– if you had said to us a year ago that– the least of my problems would be Iraq, which is still a pretty serious problem– I don’t think anybody would have believed it. But– but we’ve got a lot on our plate. And– a lot of difficult decisions that we’re going to have to make.

“Gallows humor to get you through the day”?? What is Obama going through that he needs gallows humor? And isn’t it the job of a leader to influence public opinion? He could change the perception of auto workers if he wanted to. All Obama has done since he became President is travel around the country making meaningless speeches, have parties on Wednesday nights, and then go to Chicago or Camp David on weekends. As far as I can tell, he isn’t even involved in what Tim Geithner is doing. How could he be? He’s so rarely at the White House. He refers to “my problems,” as if it’s all about him. And he isn’t laughing at a joke–it’s almost as if he just started giggling and couldn’t stop. What’s going on here? I’d like to get some opinions from my fellow Conflucians, and I’ll give you my reaction below.

As I have said before, I believe that Barack Obama could be diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, although of course I can only speculate based on my observations from a distance and on what I know of his childhood. Sam Vaknin, a writer who has spent many years studying NPD and narcissists, also argued in August 2008 that the President probably suffers from NPD. According to Vaknin,

Obama displays the following behaviors, which are among the hallmarks of pathological narcissism:

Subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions, views, opinions, and “ideals” (e.g., about campaign finance, re-districting). These flip-flops do not cause him overt distress and are ego-syntonic (he feels justified in acting this way). Alternatively, refuses to commit to a standpoint and, in the process, evidences a lack of empathy.

Ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, or with his inflated and grandiose self-image. This has to do with magical thinking. Obama already sees himself as president because he is firmly convinced that his dreams, thoughts, and wishes affect reality. Additionally, he denies the gap between his fantasies and his modest or limited real-life achievements (for instance, in 12 years of academic career, he hasn’t published a single scholarly paper or book).

Feels that he is above the law, incl. and especially his own laws.

Talks about himself in the 3rd person singluar or uses the regal “we” and craves to be the exclusive center of attention, even adulation.

Have [sic] a messianic-cosmic vision of himself and his life and his “mission.”

Sets ever more complex rules in a convoluted world of grandiose fantasies with its own language (jargon)

Displays false modesty and unctuous “folksiness” but unable to sustain these behaviors (the persona, or mask) for long. It slips and the true Obama is revealed: haughty, aloof, distant, and disdainful of simple folk and their lives.

Sublimates aggression and holds grudges.

Behaves as an eternal adolescent (e.g., his choice of language, youthful image he projects, demands indulgence and feels entitled to special treatment, even though his objective accomplishments do not justify it).

Vaknin says that

Narcissism is a defense mechanism whose role is to deflect hurt and trauma from the victim’s “True Self” into a “False Self” which is omnipotent, invulnerable, and omniscient. This False Self is then used by the narcissist to garner narcissistic supply from his human environment. Narcissistic supply is any form of attention, both positive and negative and it is instrumental in the regulation of the narcissist’s labile sense of self-worth.

Here’s my proposed explanation for Obama’s inappropriate laughter in the 60 Minutes interview. It comes from a powerful conflict. I think deep inside, Obama is very unsure of himself and very needy. More than anything in the world he wants to be loved and admired and looked up to. But no matter how much love and admiration he gets, it’s never enough to fill the hole inside him.

Although Obama loves the adulation he receives from the crowds at his appearances and speeches, what he needs even more is the approval of the wealthy ruling class types he is hanging around with now. Those huge crowds of people aren’t real to him once they’re not right in front of him anymore. What matters is what people like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers and Henry Paulson think of him–just like it used to matter what people like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohn thought of him when he was in Chicago.

It doesn’t matter what these people stand for, or what their political ideologies are. It just matters that they are rich and powerful people who can make Barack Obama even more rich and powerful. I don’t know exactly why this is so. Perhaps it is because his mother and stepfather worked in the worlds of big business and foundations. But clearly these are the kinds of people Obama wants to be loved by–leaving aside the fact that they are the source of his financial support.

At the same time, Obama knows on an intellectual (not emotional) level that people are suffering because of his policies; he may even be afraid that those great masses of people won’t like him anymore because of his pro-Wall Street policies. He knows that if the automotive companies go out of business it will hurt millions of ordinary Americans–assembly line workers, people who work in auto parts factories, car dealers, auto parts dealers, mechanics, and on and on. But he can’t really empathize with them–it’s just a surface, intellectual understanding.

So he has a conflict between what intellectually he knows would be the best thing to do–save jobs–and what his Wall Street supporters and advisors want him to do. He knows his actions are hurting people; and he knows in the end he could be hurting his chances for a successful presidency. I think that’s where the odd, inappropriate, somewhat ironic sounding laughter comes from–that conflict from wishing to be a hero to the masses and at the same time wanting to please the wealthy elites. These wealthy, powerful people–the advisors that someone told him to hire–don’t think ordinary working class Americans deserve a break. So he can’t give them a break. He knows intellectually that if just this once he stood up for the little guy he could be a hero, he won’t do it.

Even if deep in his gut, he knows he could be destroying his own presidency by listening to his Wall Street advisors, as David Michael Green recently wrote, Barack Obama will not stand up for any principle. The only principle he has is advancing himself. He can mouth the words that make him sound like a liberal or a conservative or a “New Democrat,” but he doesn’t feel any obligation to follow through on any of those words. The words are just a way of getting the attention and adulation and admiration he craves from the “right” people. They aren’t going to let him be a hero and get the adulation of the masses for saving the U.S. economy. Instead he’s going to save the bankers.