This is a Word Salad. Pass the dressing.

[no_hypocrisy]

Or more like Verbal Vomit.

Brendan O’Neill
Editor
Obama is not your ‘magical negro’
The Obama years confirmed the usurping of politics by therapy.

"The extraordinariness of Obama’s presidency lay in its replacement of politics with therapy. Its turning of the commander-in-chief into therapist-in-chief. Its confirmation that political leaders no longer really concern themselves with such earthly matters as wealth and liberty and tangibly improving people's lives, but rather see it as their role to boost self-esteem, soothe historical wounds, be a ‘catalyst for psychological change’, as one appraisal of Obama puts it, as if American adults were patients not citizens. The Obama era was striking for its decommissioning of the political citizen, and of politics itself, and its building of an empire of emotion in which leaders emote and the citizenry is expected merely to feel and not do much else. There were no jackboots or watchtowers but this is a species of tyranny nonetheless."

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/obama-is-not-your-magical-negro/19350#.WInqOIWcF9A

[raging moderate]

1. So, Cons, which is it?

First they accuse Obama of stealing money from hardworking white people to give it to Black people. Then, when that is shown to be false, they turn on a dime to accuse him of not really concerning himself with such earthly matters as wealth and liberty and tangibly improving people's lives.

I suspect the writer is simply spewing a highly sophisticated version of the bully's rage at being deprived of what he regards as his legitimate prey. Efforts to convince him of the reasons for this are interpreted only as an empire of emotion, and refusals to help him capture his prey are experienced as tyranny.

[Denzil_DC]

2. The author must have been sleeping through the last -

well, I was going to say few decades, but it's a political truth since time immemorial.

Politics as "therapy" is as old as the hills.

Let's take a fairly recent historical example, by no means a unique one.

Hitler sought to "boost self-esteem, soothe historical wounds, be a 'catalyst for psychological change'".

The difference between him and a leader like Obama is that he did it at the expense of others.

As for "an empire of emotion in which leaders emote and the citizenry is expected merely to feel and not do much else", he ignores Obama's constant appeals for social mobilization and action against as stubbornly resistant a bunch of lobbyist-owned politicians as I ever remember.

If that mobilization didn't happen on a significant enough scale during his time in office, maybe it's a change that's coming now.