Liberal professor identifies the problem

Anyone who doesn't understand how we have arrived at the state we are in and why we have the political leadership we now have, has only to read this mea culpa of a liberal psychology professor from Emory University.  This garden variety liberal lays all the blame for our current "predicament" on all the usual left wing demons: Wall Street, greed, lack of regulations, tax breaks for the wealthy, Republicans.   And yet, in retrospect, the professor now realizes that Obama had a resume that didn't demonstrate many leadership qualities.   But nowhere in this rant does the professor explain the world view that led him and his friends to elect Barack Obama in the first place.  Had he been minimally introspective,  he just might have questioned why he and his friends bought into the hopey-dopey mantra of an obvious (at least to many of us) fraud in the first place.  Had he done so it might have come down to this:  The professor and his like-minded friends have a view of human nature that doesn't comport with reality.  They are looking for the chimera of the perfectibility of man.  All it takes in this world is the single perfect leader who understands -- like they do -- how to correct the flaws in the system and human nature, that once corrected will result in the perfect society.  The vague, unspecific and dreamy solutions of a messiah -- The One -- were enough for these dreamers to elect an Obama.  Herein lies the reason dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong II, rise to power.  They are enabled by dreamers looking for the perfect world.

ADDED:  This article catalogues the case for arguing Obama is an out and out Marxist who is carefully orchestrating the demise of the US in order to create a new world order out of the rubble.  It often seems that what he does is so demonstrably counterproductive that there must be some nefarious reason for it.  If one thinks about the Obama constituencies in the context of some nefarious master plan, that plan becomes a plausibility.  O's primary constituency is the SEIU and sister unions (AFL-CIO, et al) and the blacks.  Does anyone doubt that this constituency would not prefer a reordering of society in which what the rich and productive people have is spread among them?