The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Obama Around the Web

June 26th, 2009 by Myrhaf · 5 Comments · Link Cavalcade

There are some interesting pieces on Obama around the web. 

Commentary has two good ones. Decoding Obama by Peter Wehner looks at Obama’s lies. The man has no shame and will say anything. As we have learned from the 20th century totalitarian regimes, the truth is always their first victim — and those who destroy the truth as a matter of policy (as opposed to the occasional hypocrisy or moment of weakness) are capable of any enormity.

The Abandonment of Democracy by Joshua Muravchik argues persuasively that Obama does not value human rights and democracy. By democracy I take Muravchik to mean fair elections, one of the pillars of a free society.

The most surprising thing about the first half-year of Barack Obama’s presidency, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been its indifference to the issues of human rights and democracy. No administration has ever made these its primary, much less its exclusive, goals overseas. But ever since Jimmy Carter spoke about human rights in his 1977 inaugural address and created a new infrastructure to give bureaucratic meaning to his words, the advancement of human rights has been one of the consistent objectives of America’s diplomats and an occasional one of its soldiers.

This tradition has been ruptured by the Obama administration. The new president signaled his intent on the eve of his inauguration, when he told editors of the Washington Post that democracy was less important than “freedom from want and freedom from fear. If people aren’t secure, if people are starving, then elections may or may not address those issues, but they are not a perfect overlay.”

Obama is ideologically consistent. He believes in altruism, collectivism and statism. The state must control the individual’s life to “free” him from want and fear. All this can be done with excessive concern over human rights and free elections. Moreover, if the choice is state control or freedom, Obama chooses the former. (Better yet, he chooses dictatorship and calls it freedom.)

People have been writing about how Obama is learning from events in Iran. Fouad Ajami calls it Obama’s Persian Tutorial. I think he understood the nature of the Iranian regime; he just didn’t care. His evolving statements about the unrest in Iran, each a bit tougher than the first, do not represent learning, but Obama saying what he must say to stop criticism and falling poll numbers.

Is Obama at all moved by the violent repression of the protesters? I hear no particular emotion or empathy in voice. He saves his anger for big businessmen in America. The Iranian state is killing rebellious individuals for the good of the collective. Why would this bother Obama? It’s the way of the world in his eyes.

Commentators like Ajami assume that Obama has traditional American values; they don’t understand how radically leftist Obama’s values are. They should have been tipped off by the fact that Obama started his political career in the living room of former Weatherground terrorist William Ayers, an unrepentant anti-American who has been photographed standing on the American flag. (Jack Cashill argues that Dreams Of My Father might have been ghost written by Ayers.)

Today Rush Limbaugh read Obama, the African Colonial by L.E. Ikenga. The problem with the piece is that you could make every point substituting leftist for African Colonial. Obama is the complete leftist, and Ikenga shows how that ideology manifests itself in Africa. It’s wrong to make “African Colonial” fundamental to explaining Obama.

Not Much Ado About Nothing by Nancy Coppock looks at the philosophical decline of our culture in general, with some mention of how that applies to Obama. Aside from the author’s Christian mysticism, she makes some interesting observations. Freedom cannot be maintained by a people that cannot think logically, with a primary orientation to facts rather than feelings. Unfortunately, her argument is undercut by a belief in a supernatural power that cannot be defended by the facts of reality; in the end, she believes because she feels like it.

Ed Cline over at Rule of Reason is always good on Obama. His latest, The New Sons of Liberty, focuses on the fight against our growing fascism, comparing it to the American Revolutionaries. Nice to get the positive point of view once in awhile!

5 Comments so far ↓

  • TW

    What Wehner’s article really brings home for me is the extent to which Obama’s and the Democrats’ lying is enabled by the media. Some people debate whether we have a “liberal” media or not. I don’t think we have so much a liberal media as a Democratic Party media.

    In the past I have read some Objectivists saying that we should vote for Democrats because there’s really very little danger that they could actually bring about the destruction of property rights and capitalism (oh how wrong that view looks now), while the Republicans very well could impose a theocracy.

    The fact that Republicans will always have their lies and other shenanigans ruthlessly exposed by the Democrat media, while the Democrats will always get a pass, is another excellent reason why those Democrat-voting Objectivists are wrong.

  • Joseph Kellard

    While I did not vote in this election, I think it’s important to keep this mind when evaluating Obama’s actions: What would McCain have done? Or what would Bush have done, if given another four years? And, remember, we’re in these domestic and foreign mess in large part because of the likes Bush, as well as McCain, who has been a Republican leader in the senate for years.

    Bush went a whole 8 years doing nothing about Iran-North Korea. McCain talked tough, too, just like Bush did (“You’re either with us or against us”)—but do you think McCain would say anything different on Iran than Obama? Maybe so, since Republicans talk tough, but when in office and faced with the reality of the situation (NK nuking Hawaii), they’re yesterday’s leftists, at best. They wilt. Moreover, McCain was/is a committed anti-capitalist, and I have no doubt he would be taking over the banks and auto industry, too. It all started with Bush! And, don’t forget, McCain was a champion of mandatory volunteerism!

  • Myrhaf

    Republicans do appease, but there’s always something furtive and half-assed compromising about their appeasement. They appease from pragmatism, but not proudly, because they can sense, however dimly, a contradiction between appeasement and a strong defense of America.

    Obama appeases proudly and militantly because he is sure it’s the right thing to do. If it means a weaker America, that’s fine with him . To the left America is the main source of evil in the world. It is time for America to be humiliated and brought down a few notches.

    Same thing in domestic affairs. Republicans expand the state because they think they have to. Democrats do it as a moral crusade.

    The one good thing about a leftist president is: clarity. No more nonsense from a Republican president about freedom and standing tall while he goes about destroying freedom and appeasing our enemies. Now we know what direction we’re heading, and that’s good. Five months into his presidency, Obama’s poll numbers are already weakening and Democrats are getting nervous.

  • Joseph Kellard

    Let’s just not jump to conclusions that since Obama’s policies are so obviously terrible, that Republicans (McCain, Bush, etc.) would me *much* better — that voting for them would have represented anything considerably — or even marginally – better.

    This is particularly true when considering the only other choice instead of Obama. That was McCain, who is as anti-capitalist a Republican as I can recall, and being one he will typically talk tough about Iran, but I never bought into it. Bush did the same thing with regard to Iran and did nothing — nothing! Actions speak louder than words.

    Let the country hit rock bottom with Obama, but the Republicans better have someone considerably better than McCain in 3 ½ years. I’m not holing my breath, but I and other Objectivists are working to try to pass along the better ideas that will make it at least possible.

  • Andrew Dalton

    Yes, I consider McCain to be uniquely dangerous because of his crusading altruism wrapped in patriotic, pro-American language. (He criticized George W. Bush for failing to use 9/11 as a opportunity to call Americans to sacrifice.) Among the crop of 2008 Republicans, perhaps only Huckabee was worse.