Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
In the Wall Street Journal today, Norman Podhoretz provides a succinct and compelling account of Barack Obama's intellect and intentions.
Podhoretz himself is well worth taking a moment to consider.
A brilliant student and writer--he studied with Lionel Trilling at Columbia and with F. R. Leavis at Cambridge--he grew up in the leftist intellectual milieu of New York in the thirties and forties, a time when Marxism remained a respectable intellectual option and the brightest people were all genuinely convinced that socialism represented the best way forward. As the longtime editor of Commentary, Podhoretz first championed New York's leftist intellectuals, then turned against them, becoming one of the first, and most eloquent, of the neo-conservatives, and he has remained one of the most cogent and important conservative thinkers ever since.
Now in his early eighties, Podhoretz represents a kind of conservative Moses--our patriarch, a man who grew up in the world of the left, then made a long intellectual journey, discovering that the Promised Land was this land, the United States. (One of his most marvelous books: My Love Affair With America: The Cautionary Tale of a Cheerful Conservative.)
When Norman Podhoretz discusses Barack Obama and the American Left, he knows what he's talking about.
Like their communist ancestors of the 1930s, the leftist radicals of the '60s were convinced that the United States was so rotten that only a revolution could save it....Yet once they had pulled off the incredible feat of taking over the Democratic Party behind the presidential candidacy of George McGovern in 1972, they dropped the vain hope of a revolution, and in the social-democratic system most fully developed in Sweden they found an alternative to American capitalism that had a realistic possibility of being achieved through gradual political reform.
Despite Mr. McGovern's defeat by Richard Nixon in a landslide, the leftists remained a powerful force within the Democratic Party, but for the next three decades the electoral exigencies within which they had chosen to operate prevented them from getting their own man nominated. Thus, not one of the six Democratic presidential candidates who followed Mr. McGovern came out of the party's left wing, and when Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (the only two of the six who won) tried each in his own way to govern in its spirit, their policies were rejected by the American immune system. It was only with the advent of Barack Obama that the leftists at long last succeeded in nominating one of their own....
And so it came about that a faithful scion of the political culture of the '60s left is now sitting in the White House and doing everything in his power to effect the fundamental transformation of America to which that culture was dedicated and to which he has pledged his own personal allegiance....
[M]y own answer to the question, "What Happened to Obama?" is that nothing happened to him. He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president, and it is this rather than inexperience or incompetence or weakness or stupidity that accounts for the richly deserved failure both at home and abroad of the policies stemming from that reprehensible cast of mind.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
I do want to point out that Obama is still personally popular (if less so) and we should be careful not to attack him too directly. But I do completely agree; the man's an urban lefty academic of the worst kind: law professors. Remember when he made fun of people with large families?
May '10
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
I'm glad you called attention to Podhoretz and his column, Peter. I thought it was a remarkable analysis when I read it this morning-- and it's more so with your background information on Podhoretz. Many thanks! And yet, I simply don't have a higher "Obama Alarm" setting level to rise to, even after this wonderful read. We've got to neutralize all Obama attempts to further damage our country and defeat him next year, come hell or high water.
Jun '10
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
It's so weird that we have had to fight this idea that one shouldn't call Obama anti-American or a Marxist. I am so grateful to hear that Podhoretz agrees with this characterization.
I haven't been reading Podhoretz so I don't know how he has been thinking up to this article but either way this helps to truly sets the stage for the big intellectual battle that has been long in coming (since 1948 election). Now if we can just get the ground of our choosing to destroy the Left this time (or at least in the next few years). The debates we have all the time are never the real debates -- Obama and his ilk are so cagey about what they say and how they say it. They don't dare tell the truth about what they are thinking and what they want to do here. Only their actions prove the point that they don't have our best interests in mind.
Feb '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Mr. Podhoretz certainly knows of which he speaks. But will the 40% who still support Obama care that he's destroying this country? Are they all on the dole or raking in money from their interactions with Democratic governments? Can 40% of the American public want the future that surfaced in the streets of London and Manchester this week because folks feel "entitled"?
Edited on Aug 13, 2011 at 2:37pmMar '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Does anyone really believe Obama has the approval of 40% of Americans? I would bet it is more like 30% and the majority of them are are hard-bitten leftists.
Aug '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Tocqueville said when considering whether those who professed the Christian faith in American politics were genuine, "for who can see into the bottoms of men's hearts?" He meant by this that there is no way to know for certain. Machiavelli put it somewhat more optimistically, "It is given to the many to see with their eyes but to the few to feel with their hands."
The truth is that the question about what has happened to Obama the man is another way of framing the question of what has happened to him as a political phenomenon. I don't consider it helpful because it forces the author to make personal attributions based on comments that do not necessarily hang together, something like confirmation bias.
For instance, Podheretz looks to Obama's description of the transformation of America as meant to engage in soft revolution. What this reflects is as much Podheretz's suspicions as it does what Obama has said--not that Podheretz is necessarily wrong. I think he's right, but I also think there's a more honest way of reaching that point--one that doesn't require making personal attacks, like Eager warned against.
Aug '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Barone points out in the most recent Hinderaker & Ward Experience podcast (8/6/11) that African Americans keep Obama over 40% by being 90% or above in favor of him while making up 12% of most survey samples. He seemed to imply that this boost from African Americans was a little artificial, saying that Obama's number without African Americans would be more like 34%.
But that's a mistake. Their support is real, and their intensity to keep him in office remains high. Take the number seriously. To take them out to make Obama seems as unpopular generally as he is among us at Ricochet is just silly. We still have to keep our heads screwed on straight!
Mar '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
I am not suggesting that we don't take this man seriously but I just think as Barone points out, that the 40% number is suspect. You have the Raspberry Effect and the normal skewing of political polling that goes on that keep his numbers artificially high. If blacks, and others, feel an attack on Obama is personal, and therefore unfair, they will be come out to support him on the the grounds that it is a just thing. However, Obama needs to be tied politically to his failed policies and his misleading rhetoric, and people will see him as just an another slick politician telling grandiose lies. No one will show up to enthusiastically support that, not even for color.
Sep '10
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
King Barack of Taxalot got a well deserved spanking in that column.
Sep '10
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Calling EJ Hill.
Mar '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Mr Podhoretz's piece is remarkable, not so much because it says anything that we extreme right-wingers didn't already know, but because it makes it OK for us to simply call Mr Obama what he is - a Marxist (previously, I have worried that I might be violating a Ricochet CoC).
To those who worry that this is a personal attack, I would say that it is not, really - it only seems so because Mr Obama conceals his Marxism in the manner so well described by Stanley Kurtz. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we are not insulting the duck by calling it a duck, even if he denies that he is a duck.
I read Mr Podhoretz's piece shortly after listening to Mr Perry's speech - and we are now also free to call Mr Obama anti-American, not as an insult, but as a statement of fact - what a weight off our shoulders. Mr Perry is so pro-American that the contrast couldn't be more obvious.
If Mr Ryan is not gonna step up to the plate, I am happy with either Mr Perry or Mrs Bachmann - may the best person win.
Edited on Aug 13, 2011 at 4:06pmJun '10
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
How can an accurate description be called a personal attack?
Aug '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Quite right. I didn't mean to imply that one could not conceptually distinguish between political failure and personal disapproval; however, I do dispute that African Americans are willing to make this distinction except in extreme circumstances.
I work at a university, and I see a number of the African American staff around here who decorate their walls and doors with Obama quotations and defenses. His election is primarily about achieving something historic for all African Americans. His political achievement is a personal achievement, which leaves no room between personal and political for these kinds of voters.
This is how many ethnic Roman Catholics felt about JFK. For instance, my mother (then a Protestant) wrote an essay at Catholic school in favor of Nixon. She was the only who one did and, not coincidentally, the only one who failed.
Edited on Aug 13, 2011 at 4:23pmAug '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Just to clarify, I don't consider calling Obama a Marxist a personal attack. I'm familiar with Kurtz's book, although I struggle to find associations a sufficient basis for stamping the word "RED" across Obama's face. However, this accusation is easily defended as a) paranoid or b) a lie.
The problem with a) is that Obama's defenders can make the accuser appear as a foaming-at-the-mouth, Red-baiter. The problem with b) is that Obama has denied that these affiliations amount to the conclusions those like Kurtz (who makes the best case; there are many who make bad cases) make.
It is best to avoid these two options altogether and opt for a third option, namely that it doesn't matter if Obama is or isn't a socialist. His policies are. Moreover, it's not that socialism is a bogeyman of evil but that it's just a failure. Pointing to Sweden as a model is a joke. Their corporate tax burden is, from what I understand, much lower than in America, despite high income taxes. Sweden is a great model when it comes to promoting industry, just not personal liberty.
Aug '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Just to clarify, I don't consider calling Obama a Marxist a personal attack. I'm familiar with Kurtz's book, although I struggle to find associations a sufficient basis for stamping the word "RED" across Obama's face. However, this accusation is easily defended as a) paranoid or b) a lie.
The problem with a) is that Obama's defenders can make the accuser appear as a foaming-at-the-mouth, Red-baiter. The problem with b) is that Obama has denied that these affiliations amount to the conclusions those like Kurtz (who makes the best case; there are many who make bad cases) make.
It is best to avoid these two options altogether and opt for a third option, namely that it doesn't matter if Obama is or isn't a socialist. His policies are. Moreover, it's not that socialism is a bogeyman of evil but that it's just a failure. Pointing to Sweden as a model is a joke. Their corporate tax burden is, from what I understand, much lower than in America, despite high income taxes. Sweden is a great model when it comes to promoting industry, just not personal liberty.
Oct '10
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Certainly, if anyone is qualified to identify a committed Leftist, it is Mr. Podhoretz. Stanley Kurtz’s Radical In Chief provides the detailed research to back this up. I don’t think the “Marxist” label is a personal attack, I just don’t think labels are an effective way to convince the voting public that his policies simply don’t work. They have never worked in any country where they have been tried. We have seen the disastrous effect of his policies for the last 2½ years. We must defeat him in 2012. I’m convinced that if we can force him to run on his record and we make a strong case for better policy alternatives, we will defeat him.
Dec '10
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
Didn't Rush Limbaugh essentially say all this in January 2009 when he said of Obama, "I hope he fails"?
Feb '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
I'm not surprised by the 40% approval rating.
Republicans simply seem unwilling to tell the truth about Obama personally. People have noticed his policies are disastrous but since he is always dodging responsibility and pointing fingers a lot of people fall for it. As someone once said you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Basically, the GOP needs to stop worrying that the left will call them crazy, stupid, or racist if they say mean things about Obama or his associates and/or ask questions about same. They will be called crazy, stupid, and racist just for breathing.
They should notice that, and get over it. Donald Trump, clown, was able to lever Obama into releasing his birth certificate just by being obnoxious. Mitt Romney or Rick Perry, supposedly serious politicians, should be able to lever Obama into answering some serious questions about his background, beliefs, and associations.
Those answers won't go well for Obama, and that's why the so-called mainstream media never asks those sort of questions.
Someone should.
May '11
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
On a similar theme, Mr, Podhoretz got some notoriety with this column. In it he explains why are Jews liberal but asks why in the world are they supporting Obama.
Dec '10
Re: Norman Podhoretz on Barack Obama's "Reprehensible Cast of Mind"
We can all have sympathy for a vicariously satisfying sense of solidarity with the symbol of a new dawn, the culminating personification of what the 1960s set out to achieve. May he be or not an imposter or subversive, which many, of course, doubt, it is this summer of bewilderment from his own side that now gives us license to criticize without delegitimization of our opinion from an insensitivity to race.
Under lesser circumstances, were he not POTUS, his reputation of a union-backed Chicago machine pol would suffice. Yet, wherever he may place his own sense of solidarity, and his efforts of simulacra notwithstanding, he is not always considered to be one of their own. Even fellow Chicagoan Jesse Jackson emphatically questioned his authenticity ("See, Barack's been talking down to black people ... I want to cut his nuts off."). If it can be said of any politician, it can be of him: His support is overwhelmingly predicated on the color of his skin.
How black he is on the outside and how red on the inside matter less than how green with envy he is all over—like an extortionist robbing the country to get pay-back.