It has always seemed a plausible idea that Gough Whitlam sought his own dismissal in 1975. Overseeing a government that by then in virtually every respect was making economic conditions an absolute shambles – rapidly rising unemployment combined with rapidly rising inflation – while being caught up in the preposterous Khemlani Loans Affair, Whitlam’s was a government that was certain to enter history as amongst the worst if not the worst in Australian history. But having been dismissed by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr, and then gone before the press to declare, “Well may we say ‘God Save the Queen’ – because nothing will save the Governor-General”, he then went home and had a hearty lunch, reportedly in the best possible spirits.

Who now thinks of the Whitlam Government in the way it needs to be, as a massive failure, and a failure specifically because of the various aspects of socialist ideology that were the causes of the economic havoc that occurred? Whitlam’s name has been redeemed as a great martyr, rather than as a major political catastrophe.

I now think Obama wishes to take the same approach as Whitlam, to replace his reputation in history as an incompetent fool and see in its place his role as a martyr to impeachment and the forces of the right. That he deserves to be flung from office is obvious. If competence and results were the only issues then he would be. But since the issues would shift from competence to defying democracy, with major discussions of racism as the cause, he won’t be impeached, even though this may be his own dearest wish.

Here is an article that sees Obama in the same light as Whitlam: Obama wants to be impeached. I think myself this is true, not just because even if impeached he would never be removed from office, but because it would raise his standing in the polls. The Democrats could only wish the other side was stupid enough to do it. Although on this occasion no Congressional leader would go near any such action, it may be enough for others merely to raise the possibility for this to achieve its aim. And it does seem to be his aim.

President Obama insists on flirting with impeachment even as House Republican leaders insist there’s no such possibility.

Obama uses a passive-aggressive strategy that can be judged as a political maneuver, a personality disorder, or both.

Secure in the knowledge that impeachment is not the same as removal from office, Mr. Obama brings up the topic on his own and with bold defiance. Martyrdom goes well with a Messiah complex and Mr. Obama’s speeches are a non-stop litany of depicting himself as a victim of Republicans.

This for him would be political gold. Since the process would go on endlessly and divert attention from the more significant issues, it would be an act of political suicide. The article however delves into the psychological underpinnings of Obama’s character to explain his motives in daring others to impeach him:

His behavior matches the American Psychiatric Association’s definition of passive-aggressive behavior, “a habitual pattern of passive resistance to expected work requirements, opposition, stubbornness, and negativistic attitudes in response to requirements for normal performance levels expected of others.” Often, such persons see themselves as blameless victims, projecting fault onto others. Commonly, they follow erratic paths and cause constant conflicts.

Be that as it may, the politics of impeachment are clear. Any such move would help only Obama and the Democrats. Best to leave him where he is, a human wrecking-ball though he is. If after eight years of such governance the American constituency seeks to elect an Obama-clone of some kind, well them’s the facts. In the meantime we out here in the rest of the world will have to work out what to do when America has rolled itself up into an ungovernable socialist ball with little desire to assist its fellow democracies dealing with the various forms of tyranny we see at every turn.