| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obama: is America ready for this dangerous leftwinger? |
| 2008-02-24 |
| Listen to the rhetoric of Barack Obama ... by Gerard Baker For most ordinary Americans, those not encumbered with an expensive education or infected by prolonged exposure to cosmopolitan heterodoxy, patriotism is a consequence of birth. Their chests swell with pride every time they hear the national anthem at sporting events. They fill up with understandable emotion whenever they see a report on television about the tragic heroics of some soldier or Marine who gave his life in Iraq or Afghanistan. Foreigners don't have to like America - and they've certainly exercised that freedom in the past few years. But most Americans can distinguish between the transience of policy failure and the permanence of the national ideal. And surely even critics of the US could scarcely deny that there have been real causes for American pride in the past 25 years: the fall of the Berlin Wall; the victory in the first Gulf War in 1991; the nation's unity in grief and resolve after September 11. Heck, I suspect most Americans got a small buzz of patriotic pride this week when they heard that one of their multimillion-dollar missiles had shot a dead but dangerous satellite travelling at 17,000 miles per hour out of the sky so that it fell harmlessly to Earth. But not, apparently, Michelle Obama, wife of the man who is now the putative Democratic candidate for US president, and at this point favourite to succeed to that job. In what might be the most revealing statement made by any political figure so far in this campaign season, Mrs Obama caused a stir this week. She said that the success of her husband Barack's campaign had marked the first time in her adult life that she had felt pride in her country. This, even by the astonishingly self-absorbed standards of politicians and their families, is a remarkably narrow view of what makes a country great. And though she later half-heartedly tried to retract the remark it was a statement pregnant with meaning for the presidential election campaign. Now, to be fair to Mrs Obama, she would surely have a point if she had said that it was a source of incomparable pride to her and all African-Americans that in a country with a long and baleful history of racial discrimination, one of their own was within serious range of becoming president. All but the most irredeemably racist Americans would surely agree with that. But that was not what she said. She said this was the only time in her adult life that she had felt pride in America. It was instructive for two reasons. First, it reinforced the growing sense of unease that even some Obama supporters have felt about the increasingly messianic nature of the candidate's campaign. There's always been a Second Coming quality about Mr Obama's rhetoric. The claim that his electoral successes in places like Nebraska and Wisconsin might transcend all that America has achieved in its history can only add to that worry. Secondly, and more importantly, I suspect it reveals much about what the Obama family really thinks about the kind of nation that America is. Mrs Obama is surely not alone in thinking not very much about what America has been or done in the past quarter century or more. In fact, it is a trope of the left wing of the Democratic party that America has been a pretty wretched sort of place. There is a caste of left-wing Americans who wish essentially and in all honesty that their country was much more like France. They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it did not have such a “militaristic” approach to foreign policy. Above all, that its national goals were dictated, not by the dreadful halfwits who inhabit godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the counsels of the United Nations. Though Mr Obama has done a good job, as all recent serious Democrats have done, of emphasising his belief in American virtues, his record and his programme suggest he is firmly in line with this wing of his party. This, I think, not his inexperience in public office, is the principal threat to Mr Obama's campaign. His increasingly desperate opponent, Hillary Clinton, keeps hammering away that his message is all talk and no substance - and she was joined this week by Mr Obama's likely Republican opponent in the November general election, John McCain. But if you listen to Mr Obama's speeches, it is not the lack of substance but the quality of it that ought to worry Americans. His victory speech after his latest primary win in Wisconsin this week was a case in point. There was no shortage of proposals. He plans large increases in government spending on health and education. He wants to tax the rich more to pay for it. He is against companies using the opportunities of free markets to restructure their operations in the US. He is vehemently protectionist. He continues to insist, despite the growing evidence that this left-wing nostrum would be lunacy, that the US must pull its troops out of Iraq with the utmost dispatch. While he speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship (“We are not blue states or red states, but the United States” is a campaign meme), when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party. If you think about it for a second, it's not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson. Though he talks with great eloquence about the future, he sounds for all the world like one of the long line of Democrats from George McGovern to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis, who became history by espousing policies and striking a rhetorical pose that was well out of the mainstream of American politics. America is certainly moving left in the post-George Bush era. The long period of conservative ascendancy is clearly over, buried by a Republican Party of recent years that has preached intolerance and practised incompetence. That a new era in American politics is beginning is not in doubt. But are Americans really ready to leap all the way across in one go to embrace a European-style Left? |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #12 And in our continuing series of a novel in 6 words. Obama POTUS, but not for US. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-02-24 22:47 |
| #11 Count me as one who is also terrified of an Obama presidency. I've become a "one-issue" voter since I don't believe healthcare or taxes are going to matter much if I'm not around to see them happen. I think we all know what will happen with our military and security policies if Obama gets elected. I voted early this past Friday (Vote Aqui!) in Texas. I had a strategy going in, so there I stood - the Republican table on the right and the Democratic one on the left (just as it should be, heh) - trying to decide if I really wanted to do it. Finally walked up to the Democrat's table and signed-in. (Some good-natured banter with the poll volunteers - much laughing on their part). I have never, ever voted for a Democrat before, but I did it, I voted for Hillary. Call it intuition, or a gut feeling, but I think McCain can beat her. Moreover, I think a primary win by her will so tick off a segment of the Obamatron Nation that they'll either stay home or pull the lever for McCain (or now maybe Nader where he can get on the ballot). It's only been a couple of days, but I'm still a little shocked that I not only voted for a Dem, but I voted for THAT Dem. Whoodathunk. I think I'll go make some magaritas. |
| Posted by: Clem Sheck9754 2008-02-24 18:24 |
| #10 GUAM MCDONALD's OLDER MALE PATRON yesterday AM [Sunday] > believes HILLARY cannot and should not be POTUS ["no way"] becuz as a woman her gender will NOT be able to handle the dynamic pressures of national leadership = the Presidency. GUAM FEMALE PATRON > while glad to see a woman running for POTUS, believes America + Guam are still at high risk for [dangerous]terror strikes and that ergo A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE POTUS IN TIME OF WAR/NATIONAL CRISES. FOX NEWS PANEL > KRAUTHAMMER - SO-CALLED "OBAMA-MANIA" is representative of the CURR DESIRE IN MAINSTREAM AMER = COMMON CITIZENRY FOR ANY KIND OF CHANGE FROM WAR + BILL CLINTON-ERA PDENIABLE GOVT FRAUD-DECEPTIONS. OBAMA represents an ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT, ANTI-GOOD OLE BOY "NEW/FRESH FACE" = NEW IDEALISM in Amer politics and national affairs. FOX BELTWAY BOYS [paraph] > the possibility exists that Barack Obama amy usher in a NEW BUT POTENS DANGEROUS/RISQUE' AMER-LED ANTI-AMER/US GLOBAL APPEASEMENT as based on OBAMA's OWN PAST RECORD IN SUPPOR OR AGZ VARI POL CAUSES [CARTER-ESQUE???]. Taken together, it apears that MAINSTREAM ANYTOWN AMER > "WANTS TO BELIEVE" AGAIN IN PEACE AND TRUTH/HONESTY-IN-GOVT. The same are roughly NOT against any US-centric/led OWG-NWO, BUT ARE AGAINST THE US MOVING TOWARDS OWG-NWO FOR CORRUPT, MALICIOUS, OR IMMORAL REASONS??? NEW IDEALISM/THE NEW GUY versus JIMMY CARTER II, and at a time when Amer is still engaged in a WW2-style, REGIONAL GLOBAL WAR TO THE DEATH + NATIONAL SURVIVAL agz Radical Islam, A WAR WID HIGH POTENTIAL FOR TRADITIONAL "GREAT POWER" MILPOL CONFRONTATION. Post-PEARL HARBOR ATTACK = AMER HIROSHIMA(S), will FDR ask the Congress to DECLARE WAR, or instead SEND A "STRONGLY WORDED LETTER" PROTESTING THE ATTACK AND ON-GOING REGIONAL MIL CONQUESTS??? *FREEREPUBLIC > IRAN MAY NUKES [bombs] WITHIN MONTHS. WITHIN A YEAR? Read - ISRAEL MAY UNILATER ATTACK IRAN IN MONTHS OR LESS THAN A YEAR. *STARS-N-STRIPES > US MIL COMMANDERS BEMOAN LACK OF INTEREST IN TERROR THREAT BY AMERICANS. Amers are more interested in the LIVES/PROBS OF HOLLYWOOD CELEBS - PARIS, LINDSAY, BRITNEY, etc. - THAN THE VALID + REALISTIC THREAT OF NEW TERROR ATTACK(S) AGZ AMERICA OR WINNING THE WOT, THAT AMER IS IN A REAL WAR FOR ITS VERY SURVIVAL AND WAY OF LIFE??? IFF A POTUS OBAMA DOES INDEED PROVE TO BE CARTER REDUX > DON'T BE SURPRISED IFF A NEW POTUS ELEX HAS TO BE HELD BEFORE 2010, NOT 2012, AS PER AMER HIROSHIMA. The ideal time frame for Radical Islam + HIROSHIMA is NOW thru 2010. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-02-24 17:50 |
| #9 "In fact, it is a trope of the left wing of the Democratic party that America has been a pretty wretched sort of place." Much worse than Haiti, Somalia, Iran, North Korea, China, Venezuela, etc. in the view of donks. Jeez; Beaucoup crapola. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-02-24 17:07 |
| #8 Hillary would have been easier to defeat in the general election. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-02-24 16:17 |
| #7 I want him to succed just long enough to thoroughly sink Hildabeast, then flop in the general elections to Mc Cain. (Poor choice, but all we've got. the alternative Dems are worse by a light year.) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-02-24 15:29 |
| #6 I've always laughed and said it was Carter's total ineptness that led to the over-extension of the Soviets that allowed Reagan to win the cold war so Carter deserved a little credit. Now I'm looking at the political landscape and seeing a possible Democratic sweep which would allow Obama to actually change things and really do some damage and I'm starting to worry about Bush's legacy. Yeah it will ignite another 12 years of Republican dominance but the price... |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-02-24 15:24 |
| #5 Dangerous leftwinger? Sheesh, he is pretty much your average Democrat. Oh, wait... |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-02-24 13:10 |
| #4 Yah. What he said. This is why Obama scares me, really. I mean, when Bill Clinton came along, I pretty much resigned myself to it. I even kind of rooted for Hillary to pass the healthcare thing, because I was poor at the time. When Bobdole came along, I was quite unenthusiastic about him, party hack, same way I feel about McCain. But Obama is a hardcore leftist who is going to do some serious dismantling when he gets into office. His supporters are going to be out for blood when they receive their patronage jobs, and any sort of fraud or bad faith is going to be acceptable in their book. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-02-24 12:52 |
| #3 I think Obama's resume is exceedingly light and that will start to show when he goes against someone with a resume packed full of crunchy goodness. Interesting how historically Senators have not become President's without a stop as Vice President first (at least during living memory). In the last fifty or so years we've prefered Governors yet we have three Senators right now. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-02-24 12:31 |
| #2 As purely an acedemic exercise, try replacing the word "Black" with the word "white" in this lovely manifesto. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-02-24 12:29 |
| #1 Interesting Church he goes to, Trinity United Church of Christ. Follows is entiteled "About US" from their web site: We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community. The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision: A congregation committed to ADORATION. A congregation preaching SALVATION. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA. A congregation committed to LIBERATION. A congregation committed to RESTORATION. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-02-24 12:06 |