Obama seems to be a man who invites analogy. I suppose during the election it was because he refused to say anything of substance, so, since he lacked a record of any kind, we were left drawing analogies to try to figure out how he would rule. Since then, I suppose it is Obama's habit of describing himself in analogies which keeps this habit alive. We now know quite clearly what matters to him and what does not, yet I find myself still making analogies, and so do others.  Then again, sometimes analogies can be quite informative, giving us insights we would not otherwise have.

For example, recently, in discussing my analogy of Obama to Allende, as well as another writer's analogy to Saddam Hussein, I realized that Obama actually fit quite well the generic template of charismatic third-world strong man, the sort of dictator who rose to power through mass appeal rather than military junta (though many supplemented charisma with "popular" insurrections to some degree). And it is a model that fits quite well. From his need to cut deals to appease the legislature, to his sense of urgency in pushing through his whole populist agenda at once, he seems to fit the model of leaders such as Castro, Allende, Ortega, maybe Mussolini, and others, at least early in their careers, before they developed the more authoritarian regimes for which they are better known. Granted, our history of respecting individual rights makes it harder for him to enact his agenda, or to silence critics, but it is easy to imagine Castro or Allende placed in Obama's position acting in ways very similar to him.

However, I think there is an even better analogy, at leas tin terms of understanding Obama's motivations, and predicting his general course of action.

Obama is a spoiled teenager.

It sounds like a simple insult, but it really is much more than that, it describes so well much of what we see in his behavior. For example, his constant recourse to analogy is easily explained by this perspective. Just as teens will often idolize heroes and compare their every action to those of their idols, Obama tends to compare his deeds to JFK, FDR and Lincoln. And, even if it is not a case of hero worship, it still shows something of a teenage understanding of "worth". An adult will explain his actions by describing the benefits expected, maybe, if he is more sophisticated, comparing those benefits tot he costs involved. A teen, on the other hand, not yet sophisticated enough to assess his own actions, will instead model his actions after those he sees as successful. So, when asked why he did something, he will point to an exemplar of success and show how his acts fit that pattern, much the same way Obama uses his triad of presidents.

Of course, that is not the only way in which Obama resembles a teen. He also resembles a youth in his setting of priorities. Though the economy is clearly the top priority of every voter, though it is the issue which got him elected, it si also a boring topic, one which does not excite Obama. So, rather than take the time to resolve this issue, he has let this issue languish, handing to congress the task of writing the economic portions of the supposed stimulus bill, and turned his attention to the "big issues" that interest him, health care, the environment, and education. And even there, it is clear Obama is thinking like a teen. As his speech about lowering the oceans reveals, Obama sees himself as taking on issues where he can "save the world", the usual melodramatic teenage goal, rather than struggling with the dull, prosaic tasks of good government. His messianic role is quite characteristic of the unreal self-image many teens have.

And in his interaction with others, Obama also behaves like a teen. He obviously is quite a charming fellow when he wants to be, and he knows it. And, like most teens, his first instinct is to appease. He may not really want to listen to others, he may intend to follow his own beliefs, but he will, initially, offer to listen to anyone, eager, like all teens, to try to show his sophistication by winning over those around him. However, he has little real interest in their opinions, and though he offers the appearance of interest in their opinions and promises compromise, he has no real intention of doing anything other than what he initially planned. (Though should they disagree, or otherwise threaten his self-image by not playing along with his conciliatory image, he will develop a vindictiveness also quite characteristic of thwarted teenagers.)

I would also throw in a mention of his habit of wanting to enjoy all the benefits in the present while putting off the costs as far as possible into the future, but, though quite characteristic of teens, it is also characteristic of politicians in general. In fact, as our society grows ever more juvenile, and models itself more and more on the values of teens, I am afraid it is becoming characteristic of us all.

And that, in truth, is what we have in the White House, the perfect president for our youth-obsessed culture. A man convinced it is his messianic goal to lower the oceans and bring health insurance to everyone, with no time to waste on the boring tasks of actual governance. A man who thinks he can talk his way through four years without ever having to actually deliver any of those benefits people traditionally associate with governance. A man who dismissed the Dow as "like a tracking poll", but who lives and dies by actual tracking polls, living in a constant state of campaigning. A man who thinks promising "change" and "hope" and "bipartisanship" is the same as delivering.

In other words, we have put an over-aged, precocious teen into the highest office in the land.

POSTSCRIPT

I do need to clarify two things.

First, preferring to enjoy things now while putting off payment is human nature, and part of time preference. What I call juvenile is the inability to understand that that future payment must eventually be made. Teens tend to think what is put off will never come due, and that is the immature part of deferred payment.

Second, the habit of politicians to want benefits now with payment later is actually enforced by the incentives built into the system If they can pay benefits now, it helps them get reelected. If they can defer payment until after they leave office, then they get those benefits for free. Even if they can't defer it that long, if they can have benefits close to an election with harm between elections, it still works to their benefit. So, political evaluation of the cost and benefit of deferred payment does not follow the same rules as it would for normal individuals, given those political pressures.