Ironically Mister Multicultural doesn't understand stand that not all cultures share his "universal values." So, his premise is faulty and unsurprisingly his conclusion is invalid. His narcissistic arrogance and sanctimony prevents him self aware enough to see grasp this and reevaluate his premise.

He came into office with little experience and few accomplishments. He is lazy, has surrounded himself with sycophants, does not attend the daily intelligence briefings or read them, refuses to listen to, belittles and punishes advisors or political leaders who say things he disagrees with, and has a lapdog press which uncritically repeats his talking points, fauns over him, and pursues investigations of corruption and incompetence with the aggressiveness of teacup poodles.

Exactly what is difficult to understand about the reasons for the PINO's policy failures?

The econ 'person' in economics is an interesting fiction. Most economists say that individual people don't act like rational creatures (and they are right) but instead that in large numbers group behavior becomes rational (here they are obviously wrong). The universe is rational. So when you have large numbers of faceless people those who happen to be acting rationally tend to do better over the long term. Which doesn't mean that they were rational. Just that their behavior was. While this is good for very long term trends it doesn't apply to the short term. Or as Keynes put it 'The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.'

It is funny when you build an entire field of education based on a known fiction.

This is new thinking, the thinking that we are cognitively biased.

Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at November 26, 2015 7:41 AM

Not really. It was discussed in detail in both my psychology courses, and historical method courses in college.

In Obama's defense, He is giving his constituents *exactly* the foreign policy that they voted for.

The fact that it doesn't actually work makes it really immaterial whose policy it is.

It wouldn't work if Rand Paul was president either because what a president says isn't worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit.

It is what they do, that makes all the difference.

Obama's attempt to run out the clock on his eight years of idiocy and malfeasance looked like it might work in 2012.

Now, we could easily be in World War III before he leaves office.

Of course the Smartest Man in the World will think this.

Sorry, Deer Leader, but not everyone has the same values as you. Not everyone gives the same weight to the variables involved. They're all rational actors from their point of view, and they see you as the irrational one.

Try taking a look from where Putin sits. He's taken chunks of Georgia and Ukraine with relatively little blood and treasure, and relatively little blow back from the West. He's got you back on your heels, and is able to act freely. He'll keep pushing his advantage until someone is able to punch him in the nose and make him stop.

And no, that's not Turkey. They're playing a dangerous game, and I don't see Obama riding to war to rescue them, if it comes to that. The man wants to ride out his last 14 months on the job playing as much golf as he can.

And I for one hope that comes to pass. Less damage that way.

One doesn't need behavioral economics to understand the silliness of what Obama said here. One can pursue an utterly rational strategy in support of evil objectives, or just extremely selfish objectives.

If you were a member of the railway section of the German High Command in 1944...and your overriding objective was to keep your job and stay out of trouble...it was rational for you to allocate scarce transportation capacity to the shipment of Jews to concentration camps, even though this interfered with any prospect of winning the war.

Obama hypothesized that if he were "an advisor to ISIS," he would have released rather than killed hostages like Foley, with notes pinned to their chests no less, saying "stay out of here."

That's because he doesn't understand what the killing of the hostages was intended to accomplish and the thinking of the people sending the message.

The biggest flaw in Obama's foreign policy is he sees the world as he wants it to be, not as it is. And he resolutely sticks to his way of thinking, even when it's proven wrong, preferring to blame his domestic political opponents for his failures and setbacks than to change his worldview.

And his enablers tell him he's right. At no time in history have we ever been more in need of someone to tell the emperor he has no clothes than we are now. The stakes are too high and the tempers too raw for him to sit on the sidelines and delude himself that he's "leading from behind." But he no longer commands enough respect in the world to get people to follow his lead. Putin blows him off. Netanyahu insults him.

Most world leaders ignore him. He commands the world's leading military and sits at the head of the world's most important economy, yet he is inconsequential in world affairs.

Exactly what is difficult to understand about the reasons for the PINO's
right on! this isn't naivete nor ignorance, it is malevolence; I was gonna write "evil", but I don't think it's there yet: ISIS is evil, not Oba Mao

I'm old enough to state this from my own personal experiences (not from history books):

Obama's years in office make Jimmy Carter's look like a marvelous presidency.

Good Lord, I never thought I'd be giving any praise to Carter. Now, I just hope that I never live to say that someone else's presidency makes Obama look good!

Good Lord, I never thought I'd be giving any praise to Carter. Now, I just hope that I never live to say that someone else's presidency makes Obama look good! ~ Posted by: charles at November 28, 2015 8:46 PM

You might. The lack of realism with which the electorate is these days approaching presidential elections is staggering - and dangerous.

Outrageous promises are scoring higher than realism. Candidates must appease a hyper-partisan base (in both parties) and candidates who seem likely to compromise with the other side once in office are dismissed as DINOs or RINOs. Anti-Washington credentials are valued by an angry electorate more highly than experience running an enterprise or a demonstrated ability to govern.

We're going to get more and more hardline candidates who espouse a hyper-partisan approach and are incapable of working with the opposition party; and an opposition party that will value obstruction over governing (to appease its base).

Think the Ted Cruz led government shut down was bad, or the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid led outright obstruction of Bush's attempts to govern, were bad, just wait for the next partisan conflict. It's coming and it won't be pretty.

Obama's refusal to deal in good faith with his political opposition is responsible for most of his current problems with Congress - but he's only a symptom. The issues within him that are preventing him from governing are endemic to the electorate now. Voters don't want compromise and governing, they want absolute power over the political arena. We're seeing that in the student protests, the Planned Parenthood shooting, the refusal to submit a federal budget, the debt ceiling showdowns, the campaign rhetoric, etc.