The Three Faces of Obama
Dinesh D’Souza’s recent cover piece for Forbes has generated some buzz. In it he posits that Barack Obama’s worldview – and thus many of his actions and policies – can only be understood by recognizing his deep emotional and intellectual connection to his father, a Kenyan socialist economist deeply immersed in the anti-Western, quasi-Marxist “anti-colonialism” of the 1950s and 60s. In Dinesh’s view, Obama is propelled by an obsolete and fringe ideology – he is “the last anticolonial.”
Newt Gingrich, among others, lauded the article almost immediately, praising its “profound insight.” Other conservatives demurred, suggesting it is misleading to paint Obama in such a strange, alien light – that he is really just a conventional modern liberal. And of course the usual assortment of Lefties chimed in, suggesting that the whole thing was akin to “birther” wing-nut-ism.
I’ve followed this back-and-forth with some interest, in large part because I’ve known Dinesh since his undergraduate days, have always esteemed his intellect and perception, and have almost always agreed with him. In this case, though, I think he comes in at about one-third right.
The best way to understand Obama, I believe, is to think of him as a sort of braid, intertwining the three dominant strands of modern liberalism. The first of these is “interest group” liberalism. Liberals are for unions, minorities, the poor, gays, trial lawyers, and so on. Liberals are against what they usually call “the rich,” but what in practice means anyone not primarily self-identifying as a member of one of their pet interest groups. This has been the dominant strand of liberalism in people like Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy – and is the dominant strand in most congressional Democrats today.
The second strand is “technocratic elitism” – the belief that “experts” and “the best and the brightest” should run things. This is the dominant strand in people like Bill Bradley, Al Gore, and probably Bill Clinton. It is not confined to liberals – some conservatives share it in a mild degree – but it has been far more warmly embraced on the Left than on the Right.
The third strand is the one Dinesh has honed in on – a kind of “multi-cultural progressivism” that derives in large part from the earlier “anti-colonialism” and shares many of its beliefs – no culture or system is better than any other; the Caucasian West has only attained its wealth and position in the world by oppressing and exploiting other races; America is the pre-eminent “neo-colonialist” power and the major impediment to worldwide social justice; capitalism is morally unjust because it leads to inequalities; blah, blah, blah. These views have become dominant on university campuses and in academic enclaves, but remain either un-embraced or deeply submerged among the vast majority of workaday politicians for the simple reason that they find virtually no support anywhere else in the nation.
Consider how these strands have come together in the record of the Obama administration to date. The pork-laden “stimulus” bill? Obviously a product of the first strand – as have been the auto bailout, the states bailout, the extensions of unemployment benefits, the Sotomayor appointment, the push to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and virtually all the hyper-partisan demagoguery directed against conservatives, Republicans, millionaires, and so on. This is the part of Obama that is most at home with, and that works most comfortably with, the Democratic Congress, and when this strand dominates he is not markedly different from any mainstream liberal from the 1960s, 70s or 80s.
The second, technocratic, strand has produced cap-and-trade, all the “green” gobbledygook, the financial reform bill (which would have been far more “populist” had it been the product of the first strand), and, I would argue, the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the “pragmatist” Obama that was most prominently on display during the 2008 campaign. In this mode, Obama is fairly indistinguishable from Clinton, Gore, or even Jimmy Carter (as President).
The third strand – the multi-culti progressive, or, if you prefer, the anti-colonialist, in him—is what sets Obama apart. This is the strand that relishes “taking from the rich” even more than “giving to the poor.” It explains the bulk of Obama’s foreign policy – the “apology tours,” the coolness toward traditional (European) allies, the refusal to deal effectively with or even adequately condemn Ahmadinejad, and the participation in and tacit endorsement of all those goofy, nutty United Nations commissions. It even explains one of the earliest actions of his administration, which puzzled me (and may others) at the time – the removal of the Churchill bust. To the multi-culti progressive in Obama, not only was Britain the leading colonialist power, but Churchill himself was one of the last die-hard defenders of the British Empire. Of course Obama wouldn’t want that bust in his house. It is impossible to imagine an Adlai Stevenson, an LBJ, a Humphrey, or even a John Kerry booting Churchill out of the White House – but the multi-culti progressive in Obama dismisses him as just another racist, imperialist oppressor.
As noted, it is the strength and persistence of this third strand in his worldview that makes Obama unique among leading liberal politicians. But it derives, I think, not so much from the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan socialist anti-colonialist as from the fact that, compared with almost any other leading political figure, he has lived so much of his adult life in those academic enclaves which are the only places in America where this sort of thinking thrives. Far more than any other leading Democrat, Obama has been steeped in this multi-culti bilge – at Columbia, at Harvard, and all those years in Hyde Park among kindred spirits like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.
So I agree with Dinesh that this way of thinking is a large part of who Obama is. This strand in the braid has always been there, and remains. But I do think that he has added the other strands along the way –probably during his tenure in the Illinois legislature, where he had to practice retail politics and learn to work with others practicing their own retail politics, and, once he became more of a national figure, through increased exposure to other leading “technocrat” liberals. The multi-culti strand alone just doesn’t explain, for me, such things as his (relatively) pragmatic management of Iraq/Afghanistan or his comfort with traditional “pork” politics. But I do think Dinesh has performed a valuable service in focusing a spotlight on that “multicultural progressive” strand in Obama, because it does inform a good deal of his thinking, despite the best efforts of his handlers and campaign pros to hide or submerge it, and the more the American public comes to see that this is an integral part of who he is, the further the tide of his support will recede back toward the fringes of the electorate from whence he came.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
Barack Obama as a three-strand braid. You know what? That's the best, most accurate brief formulation I've heard in the six or so years since Mr. Obama appeared on the scene. A gorgeous piece of analysis, Steve. Just gorgeous.
Jun '10
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
Dinesh's experience growing up, seeing and hearing the colonial resentments that lingered on, long after independence, is much fresher. We have a hard time understanding it. The anger, sometimes well-founded, runs deep. I don't know that Obama would've had much first-hand exposure to those resentments, but he was predisposed to drink it in. One of Dinesh's examples was the Indian water and sewer systems. Decades after the British left, Indians were still blaming the British every time a pipe broke. Finally, they figured out that it was their sewer system, but it took a long time to stop cursing the British.
Jun '10
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
To the degree that you are right, I suppose the main conclusion I draw from your article is "Three strikes and you're out!"
May '10
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
As Peter said a first rate and very thought-provoking analysis.
Both the Democrats and Republicans have had their ebb and flow between what you identify as the first two braids. One more populist and the other more elite. My grandfather, an Illinois Republican, used to talk about "Wall Street Republicans vs. Main Street Republicans". It was "Barry vs Rocky" in the '60's, or in the 1980 election, Reagan vs. Bush.
But this "third braid" is new and very destabilizing. Perhaps what is happening, at least outside of Obama's mind, is not a "braid" but a three-way tug-of-war. Impulses get into conflict or combine in new ways. I do think that Obama's anti-colonial background colors his take on your first two-braids, and makes them harsher. His actions seem not only to benefit his client interests, but almost punitive.
Lots to ponder...
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
This is really excellent, Steve. Finally, I can articulate what's so unnerving about this president. It's clear to all of us -- and it should be to him -- that a successful president (conservative or liberal; LBJ or Ronald Reagan) needs to bob and weave a bit, needs to hop among the strands, to use your metaphor. Conservatives have their own special braid, too. That's sort of what politics is all about.
But this guy seems to have absorbed all of the narcissism and self-centeredness of the academy. The reason he's been practical about Afghanistan is that he really doesn't care about Afghanistan. He cares about remaking American society. He cares about implementing every nutty left wing notion that's been floated since 1972. The world isn't the world: it's a mirror for America's shortcomings. If he can perfect American society, with wealth redistribution and socialized medicine, the world will somehow magically get better, because, of course, every single one of the world's ills can be traced directly back to us.
May '10
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
It certainly would explain why his foreign policy consists of insulting our allies and sucking up to our enemies. Can't think of many politicians that display this trait, though it is prevalent in academia and Hollywood. In any conflict, support the swarthier side.
Must be difficult being a diplomat these days. I wonder how many of our ambassadors are telling our traditional allies "don't worry, he won't be president forever, and then we'll get back on track."
Jul '10
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
someone else referred to Obama as "our Cuckoo in Chief." He is a man who invites psychoanalysis. He has little or no self-discipline, of the old time sort that says if you're hurting, keep on walking, keep your dignity. He can't. He is a child of the 70s psychotherapy movement too. I wonder if he'll just throw up his hands and say he just can't handle 'the stress' and resign?
Jul '10
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
What about the lazy-as-a crocodile-in-a-cold-snap strand?
Obama is the laziest, most self-indulgent, adolescent President ever.
Jul '10
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
Well, he's made me pull out my last strand.
May '10
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
Kenneth: What about the lazy-as-a crocodile-in-a-cold-snap strand?
Obama is the laziest, most self-indulgent, adolescent President ever. · Sep 16 at 6:37pm
Clinton was certainly self-indulgent and adolescent but I'll grant you -- never lazy.
May '10
Re: The Three Faces of Obama
Astute and thoughtful analysis, SM. Interesting to consider the implications. As heathermc says, will BHO "just throw up his hands and say he just can't handle 'the stress' and resign?" I'm doubtful because that third strand is too pronounced for him to relinquish the opportunity to remake our country and its standing in the world according to his Ivory Tower notions. Lord, grant us a Congress that will slam on the brakes!