Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
James Taranto has an interesting piece on James Kloppenberg, whom he calls the Left’s Dinesh D’Souza. Kloppenberg was featured in the New York Times on Wednesday regarding his new book, Reading Obama: Dreams, Hopes, and the American Political Tradition, in which he describes Obama as a philosophical pragmatist.
Taranto contrasts D’Souza and Kloppenberg because he feels that they both miss the simplest possible explanation of Obama’s views. According to Taranto: “He is the ideal product of the homogeneous world of contemporary academia.” I side with Taranto, and wonder why analysts left and right seem to think Obama is such a mystery. His thinking does not appear to be that different from your average liberal Democrat, which is why his governing agenda has turned independents and moderates against him. Searching for some mysterious origin tale about him is unlikely to be fruitful.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
I don't think "average liberal Democrat" identifies as much as Obama seems to do with blacks and with Muslims. It's as if he sees the US from their perspective: as the bullying, exploiting, polluting, greedy overlord of the world that has to be cut down to size.
Oct '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
You are right, Obama is a product of today's liberal University. I'm a grad student, my life revolves around the "homogeneous world of contemporary academia." I have no problem getting Obama because his views are the views of contemporary academia. Understand one and you understand the other.
Its not even just the philosophies and opinion that he espouses, its also the attitude. That somewhat detached superiority is the same detached superiority that is the standard professorial personality. And the irritated condescension to an American public that just doesn't "get it" is the same as expressed by liberal professors when the "uneducated" just don't get it.
Aug '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
One thing is for sure. He wasn't saving lives as a young lifeguard in Dixon , Illinois.
I notice that DInesh, judging from his earlier writings, was nice enough not to call Obama the Head of the Party of Death.
His description is sufficiently controversial to sell the soap. Kloppenberg's sufficiently cloying to incite the use of the soap. I just feel so unwashed !
Edited on Oct 29, 2010 at 3:15pmJul '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
[This portion of the comment has been removed by an editor] I realize the question is no longer relevant, but is neither slavery for which we have abjectly apologized as a people even though the great majority of us had nothing to do with it nor did our antecedents, who were most often people suffering at the time under the heel of other oppressors in distant lands.
Edited on Oct 30, 2010 at 10:00amAug '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
I don't give a damn how Obama arrived at his views, nor where he was born, nor whether he's a Christian, Muslim, atheist, or worshiper of artichokes-- all that matters to me is the irreparable damage he's doing to this country and how quickly he can be stopped. The rest is nothing more than irrelevant distraction.
Jul '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
Yep, you and James are right, Tevi. I work in a college town and Obama's views are pretty typical. He is ideal in the sense that he's better looking, more cautious, and more personable than most campus conformists. Thus, he does a better job of concealing the toxicity of those views.
That said, both Dinesh and Kloppenberg describe the man accurately, even if they're stretching for causes. Barry is wrapped up in anticolonialist third-worldism, and he is a philosophical pragmatist. Just like nearly everyone else on campus.
Oct '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
President Obama is an orthodox campus leftist. I'm not sure it really matters how he arrived at that point, but we've seen more than enough evidence to validate that. It was obvious during the last campaign cycle for anyone who wanted to learn and it's certainly undeniable now.
He is America's first post-American president and I suspect that is one of the reasons why he's increasingly unpopular and has advanced an ineffective and increasingly dangerous foreign policy.
Edited on Oct 29, 2010 at 4:10pmJul '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
flownover: One thing is for sure. He wasn't saving lives as a young lifeguard in Dixon , Illinois.
I notice that DInesh, judging from his earlier writings, was nice enough not to call Obama the Head of the Party of Death.
His description is sufficiently controversial to sell the soap. Kloppenberg's sufficiently cloying to incite the use of the soap. I just feel so unwashed ! · Oct 29 at 3:11pm
Edited on Oct 29 at 03:15 pm
Ramesh Ponnuru wrote Party of Death.
May '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
Barack Obama: Garden-variety American lefty. It really isn't that hard, people.
Edited on Oct 29, 2010 at 4:41pmMay '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
Amen, sister!
Jul '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
There is something profoundly alien about Obama. He lacks understanding of what it means to be American, both fundamentally and symbolically.
Think, for instance of his failure to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. I don't think that was Left posturing; he just does not connect with our traditions.
And think of how he sounds when he's reading a speech that references America's founding principles. It's like he's speaking a foreign language.
Perhaps this is the result of growing up with an anti-American mother, an absent African father and a critical portion of his childhood spent in the Muslim world.
Whatever the origins of his alienation, it's clear that he just doesn't "get" what it means to be American - which is an alarming thing in a President.
Jun '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
To cast Obama in the same mold as John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, George McGovern or other prominent liberals is to ignore the testimony from others who knew him at Occidental, like Dr. John C. Drew, also a Marxist at the time. Upon meeting and assessing Obama, Drew concluded that he was not simply a student engaged in an intellectual pursuit to understand the facets of Marxism and competing ideologies and philosophies but already a committed and ardent Marxist/Leninist who spoke, even back then, of transforming America into a Marxist state. I don't think that can be said of the other establishment liberals cited above. Obama made a conscious decision to consort with radicals and fellow Marxists who were and still are engaged in obscuring the affiliation to radical organizations and a Marxist agenda. He is politically pragmatic to the extent that he will use whatever skill he has to further his agenda but not necessarily to modify his positions. Foreign policy is not as important to him the fundamental transformation of the country to a Marxist state the has total control of the economy and eventual authoritarian control over America.
Jun '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
D'Souza and Stanley Kurtz thankfully are providing some much needed insight to what drives Obama and how he thinks. This can be very helpful in anticipating his behavior and preparing to deal with it effectively. In theory, it should be easier to confront Obama with a Republican-controlled House and possibly Senate. That said, with his czar appointments all of whom have no Congressional oversight and many of whom have not been vetted by the FBI, Obama will circumvent Congress whenever he can to push out extreme policies that will never come to a vote in either house.
Jul '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
Good grief, I had no idea you were on here, Tevi. It's been several years, since you were in Indy, but glad to see you're doing well. Refresher: I worked for Jeff Gedmin at AEI way back in '93 and we met up in Indy while you were with Hudson in the mansion. It's now a national fraternity headquarters (actually, my fraternity). Bests to you and your family!
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
There may be lots of overlap between Obama and Bill Clinton, but the latter did not go out of his way to insult our allies, and the Israelis regarded him as an ally. I think that Dinesh is on to something with his emphasis on anticolonialism, and I think that Stanley Kurtz is right to emphasize the man's socialism. He is not a standard campus left-liberal. He stands much farther to the left.
Oct '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
"Average Liberal Democrat?" Really???
How many ALDs seek the "fundamental transformation" of America? Why did it take more than a year for BHO to get his alleged fellow ALDs to ram Obamacare down our throats when he had 60 ALDs in the Senate and 257 ALDs in the House (plus a number of ALRs, aka RINOs)?
I know ALDs. ALDs are friends of mine. BHO is no ALD.
Oct '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
Man, that's not what I wanted to hear from someone like you given your experience with the campus left during your distinguished academic career.
Are we really sure on this? Everything that he's done is what you'd expect from a campus leftist at least as I remember the campus left. I was exposed to more than my fair share of campus leftism during my undergraduate and graduate studies and he's everything I've come to expect.
In your mind, Paul, what makes him even more to the left that what you can expect on the Ivy League institutions where he was trained?
I mean look at the left's reaction to Obama care. A lot of the left was upset with him because they wanted a Marxist program (single payer) and ended up with a fascist one (The government guarantees the big corporations their profits, protected them from meaningful competition so long as they support the party in power. That's classic fascist economics, I think) that will likely turn into a Marxist one in time.
Jun '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
Tevi, I am enjoying your contributions here on Richochet. Thanks!
I think the issue here is what we mean by 'average' and 'liberal democrat.' Mean, Median, or Mode? What percentage of democrats are "liberal," that BHO would be "average" among them?
My "average" liberal democrat friends are largely media driven - they believe (and parrot at the appropriate times) whatever they were last told by MSNBC, or the liberal "side" on CNN. They don't really have an understanding of the progressive agenda, or the political philosophy/realities that such agenda entails. They are reactive, not proactive liberal democrats.
My "leftist/progressive" liberal democrat friends are ideologically driven. They have a political philosophy and are willing to accept the back room deals and politics necessary to advance the progressive agenda. They are in the game long term, and understand that each step "forward" they "progress" is a win.
They are not "average" - they are the progressive liberal elite.
Obama might be pragmatic, but his core is clearly progressive liberal elite, not average.
May '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
Publius
Man, that's not what I wanted to hear from someone like you given your experience with the campus left during your distinguished academic career.
Oct 30 at 7:29am
I attend, and teach, at a public university well-known for its hyper liberalism. I'm with Professor Rahe on this one. While my colleagues (faculty and grad students) are all, as best as I can tell, on the left, the majority are not on the far left. Most make arguments that are at least empirically grounded, even if I often disagree with their interpretations.
The American higher ed system certainly has a dearth of conservatives, but that doesn't make everyone involved a radical loon.
For what it's worth, if I were to list all of those in my (history) department that are blatantly radical, just about all of them study the third world or European colonialism.
Oct '10
Re: Making Too Much Out of Obama's "Origins"
Okay, Kofola. You aren't warming my heart either. Help me out on this. What has Obama done that a orthodox campus liberal would consider to be too far to the left? That's what I'm having a hard time with on this one. The stimulus package(s) was classic campus Keynesian economics. Obamacare seems to have vexed the hard left because it wasn't pure single payer Marxism right out of the gate and his foreign policy seems like it was written up by the political science department at Harvard.
I'm just having a hard time seeing how this guy is anything other than an orthodox campus liberal. What has he done that is beyond the pale for a campus leftist professor?