When Conservative Titans Clash
There's a very interesting back-and-forth going on between Norman Podhoretz, the legendary former editor of Commentary magazine, and Rush Limbaugh, the just plain legendary. And though the disagreement is entirely friendly, I can't help thinking of one of those old Japanese monster films like Gorgo versus Godzilla with these two titans battling it out over the philosophical equivalent of Tokyo... whatever that would be. Anyway, Podhoretz wrote what I thought was a terrific op-ed in last weekend's Wall Street Journal called "What Happened to Obama? Absolutely Nothing:"
I disagree with those of my fellow conservatives who maintain that Mr. Obama is indifferent to "the best interests of the United States" (Thomas Sowell) and is "purposely" out to harm America (Rush Limbaugh). In my opinion, he imagines that he is helping America to repent of its many sins and to become a different and better country.
But I emphatically agree with Messrs. Limbaugh and Sowell about this president's attitude toward America as it exists and as the Founding Fathers intended it. That is why my 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.
El Rushbo's on-air response: "It's a distinction without a difference."
The end result is the same. I guess it's a distinction of differences with the motives applied, but there is no disagreement over what's happening. And that is a purposeful transformation of a capitalist, market-based economy, rooted in liberty, private property rights and all that, to a centralized command-and-control authority running as much of human life in the country as possible on the basis that individuals are not capable of living life themselves in ways that would please arrogant elitists too stupid to make the right decision. So it's gotta be done for them.
In all - even knowing that Rush has been scientifically proven to be correct %99.5 of the time - I think I side with Podhoretz here. Obama is an inexperienced narcissist in the grip of a bad philosophy - an insanely dangerous combination - but I think, like most leftists, he's utterly baffled by the destructiveness of his good intentions. He keeps blaming everyone else because he just can't believe he and his cherished lifelong beliefs are the ones doing the damage!
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
People with personality disorders never say they are sorry or they made a mistake. this flaw is just part of their mental illness,
I side with your reasoning that he is not intentionally destructive but is an inexperienced ideologue with narcissistic tendencies and carrying the emotional scars of an unwanted child growing up in a hostile ethnic society in oahu. While his upbringing garned him chameleon like skills, it also strengthened his ego that everyone else had a problem but him.
In the end, if a psychopath murders your loved ones is it practically any different from a schizophrenic who thought they were aliens and committed the same atrocity? Either way, the man needs his walking papers.
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
On Judgement Day, when Barack Obama's motives will be subjected to the strictest scrutiny--and the person on the throne will not be Barbara Streisand--the distinction will make a difference. Until then, it's all high taxes, more regulation, nationalized health care, and people losing their jobs.
Norman, Rush, Drew--all agree that the utter imperative of our time is removing this guy from office.
Mar '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
Andrew, I'm inclined to agree with you and Norman Podhoretz; I cite as evidence the fact that Obama wrote 2 memoirs before age 45. Who but an unrepentant narcissist would do such a thing?
Nov '10
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
I tend to lean more towrds Dunning Kruger for an explanation of the Left in general, and Obama in particular.
Mar '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
Yes, I was listening to El Rushbo today on this (I am a day behind, in England). Of the two, I agree more with Mr Podhoretz - it's a masterful piece - but I also agree with Rush that it's a small difference - the end result is the same.
Actually, I think the writer who gets Mr Obama best is Stanley Kurtz.
No doubt historians will be discussing this for years - the sooner it is all history, the better.
Jul '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
A con man might.
Peter, if I have to explain my actions on judgment day to Ms Streisand, I suspect I'll been needing some burn cream for where I'm headed.
May '10
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
First, Obama does not love America. He loves his own vision of what America could be. The Constitution is emblematic of American culture. Obama would shred it in a heartbeat if he could.
Second, Obama is trans-nationalist. He is a "citizen of the world" considering global interests before America's own. Remember how he tried to coordinate economic policies with foreign leaders? It seems clear he would rather be rubbing elbows with foreign leaders than presiding over American interests.
Obama has changed in one important way since assuming the Presidency. He is bitter and tired. If given a second term, he will act with less patience and less reserve. That means bolder executive orders and more blatant dismissals of the rights of his political and cultural opponents.
In any case, Rush is right. Obama is not trying to steer this America toward his own vision of prosperity. He is trying to remake America into something wholly different... to fundamentally redefine our nation. Part of that vision involves shifting wealth from conservatives to liberals. Obama doesn't perceive himself as "harming" America because the only Americans he cares about are fellow liberals.
Mar '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
I want to agree with Podhoretz but I am afraid that Rush is probably right. Obama, like so many leftists, is seething with anger. Why else would he use the language he does about conservatives and the Tea Party, get in your neighbors face, throw elbows, bring a gun to a knife fight, and so on? I believe the guy has been steeped in hatred fostered by his own personal experiences in a dysfunctional family, and that he is on a mission of revenge against those his ideological beliefs describe as evil--corporate fat cats, the white middle-class, and Amerikkka in general.
May '10
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
Peter, the reason motives matter is because they are relevant to negotiation and manipulation. We can't rid the world of evil people. But we can sometimes use knowledge and leverage to derail their actions.
Misdirection, for example, is a strategy which requires knowing what your opponents are looking for. Know what they worry about, what they believe possible, and you can use such things to distract.
We can't win against liberals strategically if we refuse to acknowledge their wants and habits.
Mar '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
...as well as their motivations and ultimate goal.
Jul '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
Illiniguy
...as well as their motivations and ultimate goal. · Aug 18 at 11:29am
Can't a movie be made about this president that shows the full gamut of his flaws and incompetence? Cannot this movie also be mass distributed prior to the election. Chicago politics at their finest will once again be on display and need to be countered at every turn.
Oct '10
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
This Andrew disagrees with that Andrew.
When Obama spoke of his desire for a "fundamental transformation" of America he gave away the game.
Rush is right that Obama's motive is to harm America. You don't wish to "fundamentally transform" anything that you love and respect and admire. Tweak, maybe. But not FT.
Mar '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
Here's an idea for a plot line. This is the opening line of the movie:
"As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species."
Edited on Aug 18, 2011 at 12:08pmSep '10
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
Rush thinks Obama is doing this on purpose because, "He can't be that dumb!" Podhoretz's reply is, in effect, "Yes He Can!"
Dec '10
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
Ummm:
(Podhoretz) "... In my opinion, he imagines that he is helping America to repent of its many sins and to become a different and better country.
...That is why my 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 (emphasis mine) 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...."
(Klavan) "...I think I side with Podhoretz here. Obama is an inexperienced narcissist in the grip of a bad philosophy...."
(Me) I really didn't see a difference, so I side with Limbaugh and Podhoretz, that this is purposeful. Dr. Sowell's position has made me scratch my head a bit, unusual for him, but I can't find much of a distinction between the positions of the other two.
Mar '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
I, too, side with Podhoretz. Moreover, just generally, I find that "distinction without a difference" falls into the same category as all "slippery slope" arguments.
The category heading is "Bad Arguments".
Jul '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
Illiniguy
"As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species." ·
Edited on Aug 18 at 12:08 pm
But Brawndo's got electrolytes!
Idiocracy - Brawndo
Oct '10
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
In what way can you seek to fundamentally transform something that you love? Either America is something he loves and needs a tweak, of Amerika is something that he does not love and needs a FT.
Rush has a better read on Obama than Podhoretz, who is worthy of great respect, has. In the end, we must see the end of Obama!!
May '10
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
I have only two things to say:
Thank you.
Jan '11
Re: When Conservative Titans Clash
Podhoretz -
I think all 3 are saying very, very similar things: whether President Obama sees what he is doing as objectively good or bad, he is still doing it intentionally. So Podhoretz's formulation is that President Obama is intentionally doing what his doing to the economy, he just thinks that is a good thing - it helps us repent our sins and become a better country. Podhoretz is attempting to look at things from the President's perspective, Limbaugh and Sowell are looking at things from an outside perspective.
For me the takeaway from all 3 arguments is that President Obama is not going to change his policies if they hurt the economy. People who claim that if only the President could be persuaded that his policies negatively affect the economy, he would change them are misguided.