Explaining Obama
Over at the Claremont Review of Books, Ramesh Ponnuru has a review of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, by Stanley Kurtz; and The Roots of Obama’s Rage, by Dinesh D’Souza.
Ponnuru agrees that there's a mysterious quality to President Barack Obama -- from the childhood in an Indonesian household to campaign slogans vague even by the standards of politics. Both books attempt to explain these mysteries. Kurtz takes the approach of emphasizing Obama's time spent in far left circles while D'Souza attempts to tie it, much less successfully, to anti-colonialism. Ponnuru has interesting things to say about both books, although he has problems with both. But it was the closing paragraphs I found interesting:
Perhaps the real solution to the mystery of Obama is that there is no mystery at all. Obama's political views are consequential because he is the president, but they show little sign of being especially interesting aside from that. Genus liberal, species academic, character type pragmatic: That classification seems adequate. His heart belongs to the Left, and his heart of hearts to Barack Obama.
His conventionality is a good thing for conservatism. One reason conservatism's political fortunes rebounded so quickly after the 2008 election is that liberalism made its critique of President Bush too personal-a matter of his own alleged stupidity and closed-mindedness rather than of the conservative creed. If Americans reach the verdict that President Obama is a failure, it would be better for conservatism if they attributed that failure to the liberalism he shares with most of his party rather than to his personal quirks. The evidence suggests, too, that this attribution would be just.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Explaining Obama
After Sunday, so much for calling Obama “Carter 2.0.”
And so much for the facile references to Obama’s so-called un-American disposition (D’Souza, Rabinowitz) or to his kowtowing to the proctors of John Kerry’s “global test.”
He said he'd pursue bin Laden into Pakistan without asking permission during the presidential campaign and he did just that.
Obama used to say that his claim to executive experience was running his campaign in 2008. After this months-long, focused and totally covert operation in Abbottabad he’s got a lot more to recommend him now.
We have to deal with that, not deny it.
Edited on May 4, 2011 at 6:36amJan '11
Re: Explaining Obama
Killing an enemy with whom we're at war is not an ideological pivot. This action neither affirms a liberal foreign policy nor does it disprove it; this wasn't an act driven by political philosophy. It's success doesn't mean that Obama's foreign policy is "working."
Jul '10
Re: Explaining Obama
As far as this being a political factor, Americans paying $5+/gallon of gasoline, assuming they have a job at all, will not be thinking about the snatch of bin Laden from a conflicted ally 552 days before.
Jun '10
Re: Explaining Obama
"Obama's political views are consequential because he is the president, but they show little sign of being especially interesting aside from that."
Sorry, but that's one of the most idiotic statements I've read from a conservative. To say this is to ignore Obama's record of appointing Marxist-inspired and espousing policy czars, the pushing of a healthcare bill that is the foundation for a more wholesale takeover of the health industry, his own comments about spreading the wealth and social justice, his preference for central control of as much of the economy as possible, his acceptance of Global Warming as proven science and Cap & Trade, his class warfare tirades against the "rich" who somehow haven't been paying their fair share...ad infinitum.
Is he pragmatic? Of course he is. Because he wants to get re-elected to push more of this socialist agenda. He is not liberal in the sense that John Kerry or Michael Dukakis are liberals; he is at heart a Marxist but a very smart Marxist who knows how to appear as a pragmatic problem solver. Kurtz gets it. Ponnuru doesn't.
Edited on May 4, 2011 at 7:39amMar '11
Re: Explaining Obama
Brian Watt: "Obama's political views are consequential because he is the president, but they show little sign of being especially interesting aside from that."
Sorry, but that's one of the most idiotic statements I've read from a conservative.
I think Ponnuru is right.
I believe Obama is a prisoner of stale ideas that were fairly comprehensively discredited before he was born. Despite his expensive schooling, ot perhaps because of it, no amount of evidence or argument can penetrate his skull.
Jun '10
Re: Explaining Obama
"One reason conservatism's political fortunes rebounded so quickly after the 2008 election is that liberalism made its critique of President Bush too personal-a matter of his own alleged stupidity and closed-mindedness rather than of the conservative creed."
Pardon me, but what planet has Ponnuru been living on? The resurgence of conservatism had virtually nothing to do with defending Bush. Many conservatives were quite profoundly upset with the growth of government and runaway spending under Bush, his equivocation on securing the border, and his Justice Dept's prosecution of and incarceration of two border patrol agents who were trying to do their jobs.
On the contrary, the conservative resurgence had everything to do with a Congress that wasn't listening to the electorate and was hell-bent on ramming Obamacare down Americans' throats, the collapse of the real estate market because of bad lending practices forced on banks by the federal gov't, the treatment of Arizona, Obama's Marxist czars, his aggressive anti-corporate agenda and more.
It's one thing for Ponnuru to say we shouldn't call Obama out on the Marxist he is. It's quite another to rewrite recent history.
Dec '10
Re: Explaining Obama
I'll split the baby. Obama's political views are consequential because they are normative Democrat views now. And they're Marxist. He reveals how far left the Democratic Party has drifted.
Mar '11
Re: Explaining Obama
Ron Muscio
Brian Watt: "Obama's political views are consequential because he is the president, but they show little sign of being especially interesting aside from that."
Sorry, but that's one of the most idiotic statements I've read from a conservative.
I think Ponnuru is right.
I'm more with Brian, although I can see Ponnuru's point. I haven't read either book, only the reviews and their interviews on C-Span. It seems to me that Kurtz's book has Obama nailed as a typical, but extreme, "progressive" - Marxist, actually. There are also most certainly some influences from Mr Obama I - but these are also basically Marxist.
As for Mr Obama II not being Carter 2.0 - the U.S. military has improved a lot since 1979, no thanks to the Democrats. Mr Obama II is using them before he winds them down to something like the UK military - the SAS could have done as well, but they would have had to hitch a ride to Mr Bin Laden's compound and climbed over the wall.
Update: Kurtz has responded, here.
Edited on May 4, 2011 at 12:16pm