[Many thanks to Philo for inviting me to be a contributor to The View- Beeb]
Alternative title: Why “Eeuw” is the Appropriate Response.
The instances of gender-bending fawning by the media over the president are too numerous to count at this point. During the campaign, we had to deal with thrills going up legs, Tim Geithner’s reportedly mutual presidential man-crush, and an erstwhile sports writer gushing about the First Pecs. Endless virtual ink spilled about “cool” has become paradoxically commonplace. Maureen Dowd, in what has to be a serious bout of chemical imbalance (too much Scotch is my diagnosis) blurs-blends-bends the professional-sexual lines further by conflating Obama’s relationship with his Secretary of State with her relationship with her husband. Ugh, a thousand times, ugh.
Finally, or unfortunately, not finally, today we read in NYT that Obama jokes “lovingly” about Peter Orszag, who seems to have enough problems with romantic entanglements and wayward sperm without adding the gooey, inappropriate affections of Ripped Chest-in-Chief to the mix.
All of this is creepy first and foremost because it is indicative of the MSM’s headlong swan-dive into unprofessional and nonobjective coverage of the president and politics. Yes, they are in the tank for Obama: that is not news. What is truly unnerving, however, is the normalization, the cool-ization of an inappropriate confluence of professional and personal affections, and the easy transference of language that would normally characterize romantic relationships to relationships that have to be professional.
To understand what is at work here is the under-publicized yearning of the Left to erase boundaries across the sexual spectrum. In Barack Obama they see someone who skirts the edge of metrosexuality, who can be the object of masculine fantasy, even among putative heterosexuals. Among those familiar with the sexual agenda of the Left, Obama sports some interesting bona fides: as an adolescent, his Marxist-Leninist mentor “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis, a prodigious sexual “experimenter” whose autobiography is described as “hard-core pornographic.” For normal people, exposing a youngster to such a man is a repulsive idea; to the agendized Left, steeped in the doctrine of Freud and Lenin, it is a service, if you’ll pardon the expression. In Obama’s case, the evidence of his autobiography suggests that the motivation of his grandfather, Stanley, to encourage a relationship (platonic, one assumes and hopes) was entirely naive and based on race. Nevertheless, among radicals, Marshall’s name carries considerable caché. Obama makes no bones about the political initiation he received from “Frank.”
Unfortunately, in this administration, one doesn’t have to dig deep to see this agenda at work. The ridiculous “man crush” vocabulary of the mainstream media would be a laughable parody if it weren’t at the service of an agenda to break down social norms and harm children. Ultimately, of course, the whole reason for “sexual liberation” isn’t to rid us of neuroses and usher in a world of obedience to unfettered urges, it’s to erode our strongest interpersonal bonds and the family, the relationship that more than any other, reduces dependency on the state and ensures personal freedom.
More immediately, it should be disturbing if indeed various relationships between the president and his advisors are tinged with emotions more appropriate to hormone-addled teenaged girls. That the press and “insiders” thinks it’s cute or appropriate or attractive to paint this picture is yet another sign of misplaced and unserious priorities.