The Sword and the Olive Branch

Iran now has enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb.  Let’s hope President Obama’s fellow Democrats are correct when they claim that he’s as opposed to a nuclear Tehran as George W. Bush is. 

…the more things stay the same.  Activists are protesting the New York Post over this Sean Delonas cartoon:

I’m not a big fan of the cartoon’s woefully tone-deaf attempt to equate the current government (which is being lead by an African-American) with an out-of-control celebrity chimpanzee.  But the more I read the consciously offended protestors’ sermonizing statements (“How dare you violate the President of the United States?”) the easier it is to look past the drawing’s dull humor. 

Other than that, I think I speak for most Americans when I say, “yawn.”  

Continuing the theme of President Obama’s post-racial America, Attorney General Eric Holder somberly lectured Justice Department employees yesterday about how the United States is “essentially a nation a nation of cowards” when it comes to race.  Apparently concerned that Americans don’t mingle more outside their ethnic enclaves, he told the employees that they have a special responsibility to advance racial understanding.

Holder’s remarks have been compared to one of Obama’s speeches about race, which is accurate in that some of Holder’s soft-spoken oration is appealing.  He emphasized that Americans must be more frank about racial matters, which at least implies that he’s not afraid of strong, vocal opposition to left-wing notions of racial justice.  His talk about honest dialogue and accepting criticism where it is “justified” are likely mere platitudes, but they at least make me feel hopeful about the relationship between African-Americans and the rest of the country.  He even acknowledged that Black History month is an “artificial device” used to promote discussion about racial matters. 

Yet Holder erred when he claimed that Americans “simply do not talk enough” about race.  Really?  Rare are the neophytes who won’t bloviate about race until they pass out from a lack of oxygen.  If there exists one political discussion every American has participated in, it’s the one about slavery, affirmative action, and reparations.  Perhaps Holder is worried that Americans are sick of racial conflict, especially when both sides are segregated by large, semantic spaces (see above). 

Besides, why is the Attorney General concerned with turning law enforcement’s attention to the common sociology professor’s pet peeves, especially when property crime is almost certain to rise as the economy falls, giving certain people an excuse to steal?  It’s not the Justice Department’s job to advance a specific brand of racial harmony; it’s their responsibility to maintain peace, so Americans of all races can prosper under rule of law.  More Americans arguing about proportional representation from a standpoint they haven’t budged from since high school won’t achieve that. 

As always seems to be the case in Obama’s young government, there’s a left-wing subtext underlying Holder’s words about the importance of racial dialogue.  About three-quarters of the way through his sermon, Holder states that if the social problems affecting the poorest parts of the country aren’t addressed, they’ll affect the entire nation.  This is simply a version of the left-wing argument that crime is perpetuated by socioeconomic means, as opposed to moral deficiency.  So how come Mr. Holder can’t just spit that out?  Why does he need to smuggle it into a ceremonial speech like pork in the controversial stimulus law?  It appears as if the Attorney General needs to think more deeply about his own invertebrate insincerity. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: AG Holder, Iran, Obama, race, Sean Delonas, Stimulus cartoon
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

On Wednesday, an alleged reporter was escorted out of the White House after he jumped the rope separating reporters and private guests.  He was trying to obtain President Obama’s autograph, but the Secret Service quickly stopped him.  Apparently the President’s biggest threat really is being patronized to death. 

While some of President Obama’s fans will break the law to get his autograph, others are starting to freak out over his subdued performance.  Never mind that he’s been in office for less than three weeks.  New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is bothered that it took Tom Daschle’s resignation to get Obama to stop mimicking the elitist attitude he lectured Americans about for two years.  Dowd also complains that Obama screwed up by not editing out the parts of the stimulus bill that have the appearance (Just the appearance, ma’am?) of “Democratic drunken-sailor spending.”  Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh thinks the new President’s No. 1 problem is that he’s ceded too much ground to Republicans.  Joan Walsh, Slate’s editor in chief, imagines that Obama is losing the stimulus debate because Republicans have been lying about the economy for thirty years, and the Commander in Chief isn’t being assertive enough to overcome that. 

This swift backlash opens up the possibility that the President may be more of a mascot than a leader.  After all, he was elected for being a charismatic, minority embodiment of liberal clichés.  For example, he echoed the penultimate liberal neophyte’s talking point when he mocked John McCain for supporting “trickle-down” economics.  The liberals who voted for Obama were really voting for themselves, but now that their new toy isn’t performing like it did on the commercials, they’re getting fussy.  This isn’t the first sign that “hope” is fleeting.  Remember how gay activists felt “betrayed” leading up to Obama’s inauguration?

The shine is rubbing off of Barack Obama.  He’s starting to look tentative and dare I say inexperienced.  While he’ll almost certainly navigate his way out of his current slump, perhaps conservatives should feel lucky we’re squaring off against Obama now as opposed to 2016, where he would have potentially had five times the executive seasoning he does now.   

The dire stimulus bill is saturated with billions of dollars which have nothing to do with jump-starting the economy.  The National Review broke it down, and the vast majority of problems with the bill involve programs which simply don’t address the economic crises, and clearly should be debated in a separate bill.  These include $50 million dollars for the NEA, $1 billion for the Census Bureau, and $650 million for digital-TV coupons.  Republicans oppose the stimulus package because it truly is a Democratic wish-list.  How come Maureen Dowd seems to be the only Obama supporter who understands this? 

The abundance of wasteful spending at a time the United States should be watching its wallet is less aggravating that the impression that Democrats don’t care.  They aren’t even pretending to be the party of fiscal discipline anymore.  The aforementioned Michael Hirsh glibly excuses the stimulus bill’s manifest flaws by writing: “There’s no way anyone can spend $800 to $900 billion quickly without waste and boondoggles.”  Why isn’t he concerned about abuse?  What about cynical attempts to package pork in an “emergency bill?”  Asking Americans to pay $6 billion on building projects in the guise of emergency legislation is like ordering a pizza after dispatch takes your 911 call.  It’s selfish and immature and should be exposed as such.  

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: Obama, obama supporters, stimulus
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

Congratulations, Barack Obama has been elected President.  I mean that whole-heartedly.  If our representative democracy placed Mr. Obama in power, I respect that decision.  “President Obama” isn’t a pleasant thing to say, but I’ll have at least four years to get used to it. 

Now I hear it’s time for America to heal and become united.  There’s no more room for partisanship; the world’s become much too dangerous for politics as usual to be anything but destructive, right?  Now we should all open the door and collectively begin a new era of American politics, equipped with fresh ideas.  As Obama’s inauguration speech implies, this country should let go of the ”stale” right-wing/left-wing dichotomy, and unite in laying the foundation for a prosperous American future.

Do you agree with that?  Of course you do.  Now that your guy is in charge, the polarity strategy is a threat to your power, not a path to it.  But where were your calls for unity under George W. Bush?  Sure, there was a week right after 9-11 where his opponents bit their tongues and put partisan bickering aside, but now you’re even complaining that gave him a free pass to push his “war agenda” through. 

It would be easier to believe your affection for unity is sincere if you would have acted a bit differently at the turn of the millennium.  With all due respect I take offense to your cynical appeals to our better nature.  You see, the biggest reason America was a polarized nation after George W. Bush was elected is because Democrats threw an eight-year temper tantrum during his term.  George Bush didn’t divide America, you did.  Please don’t shut me out; let me explain. 

George Bush isn’t the polarizing figure you think he is.  He’s an open, self-depreciating, and dare I say likeable fellow.  Even reliably left-wing sources such as Ted Kennedy and PBS concede that he’s personable.   Sure, he wears his religion on his sleeve, but Christians aren’t inherently mean-spirited.  Remember that Bush didn’t win two elections by promising to be strident.  He ran on a platform of big government, “compassionate conservatism,” and he pretty much ran the country that way, spending like an Obama voter who just got paid by ACORN to register in 13 different counties.  He dramatically increased not only defense spending, but threw barrels of money at education and even an expensive prescription drug plan.  

You hated him despite all this, but he didn’t hate you back.   Chances are you barely registered on his radar.  Yet somehow the bizarre way he says “nuclear” was supposed to justify undisguised disgust.  One of Bush’s best moments came in 2004 when at an annual Radio and Television Correspondents dinner, when he joked during his slideshow presentation, “…those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.”  This is remarkable because the man took one of his most embarrassing moments and not only drew attention to it, but made light of it (I aspire to be that good natured).  Obviously the opposing Democratic Party didn’t see it that way.  Being his political opponents, they ignored Bush’s good humor and instead said that he wasn’t taking the issue seriously enough, which is to say bland enough to be printed in a high school textbook. 

In stark contrast to an affable President who has enough charity and self-esteem to earnestly poke fun at his own self, you drove around for years with Kerry/Edwards ’04 stickers on your car, clearly communicating the message that you reject George Bush and everyone who supported him.  Eight years after the fact, you still complain about the outcome of the 2000 election.  You even set up a passive-aggressive website apologizing to the rest of the world for Bush’s re-election.  You compiled lists of “Bushisms” knowing full well that every public speaker, even President Obama, can be made to look like a doofus if you isolate their linguistic mishaps.  Out of your own accord, you did everything you could to disassociate yourself from Republicans, conservatives, and what is colloquially known as “red state America.” 

George Bush didn’t call you stupid every day for eight years, but you did it to him.  George Bush never protested in front of your home, harassed your children, and mocked you as someone’s puppet as you did to members of his administration.  The neocons didn’t experiment with what Michelle Malkin calls “Assassination chic,” an undoubtedly well-adjusted industry which deals in perverse fantasies of George Bush’s murder.  You can disagree with every single executive decision he made, but what kind of unresolved emotional trauma produces the kind of person who revels in the death of someone they merely disagree with?  

In the dawn of the new Obama administration, you have placed the responsibility for unifying the country exclusively on the shoulders of your opponents, just as you’ve done in the past.  You blamed George Bush for not conforming to your ideas about the Iraq war, without budging from your anti-war stance.  Likewise, you’re calling for the American right to fall in line behind a leader who promises to enact several policies which are likely to be completely antithetical to conservative values.  If America in fact unites under Barack Obama, it won’t be because he’s a “transformational figure,” but because you won’t be waging a cultural filibuster against every program he proposes.  Sure you want America to unify, but you conveniently leave out that you will only allow that to happen under the condition that your mandate is being driven.  Your calls for unity are a sham, designed to shame your opponents into silence. If by some miracle John McCain had become President, you would be perpetually agitating Republicans in abject rejection of an America united under a moderate conservative.  

To summarize:  You did everything you legally could to undermine the prospect of an America united behind George W. Bush.  Now that your guy’s in power, all of a sudden we’re living in a post-partisan era?  Sorry, dear.  The chickens will be coming home to roost this year.  But I will pay homage to your behavior under George W. Bush’s presidency (during a time of war, no less). 

Out of nothing but protest, I’m going to drive for four years with a McCain/Palin sticker on my car’s rear bumper.  I’m going to laugh unnaturally at Obama’s speech flubs, even though just like Bush’s, they’ll rarely be funny.  I’m going to proudly sport t-shirts that say “F*ck Obama.”  I’m going to frivolously accuse him and his administration of crimes against humanity.  If Barack Obama passes on bad information in good faith, like Bush did with WMDs, I’m going to insist that he was lying instead of misinformed, clinging to badly worded documents which “prove” my point. 

Actually, I’m probably only going to do the bumper sticker.  I’ve learned from watching you that stewing in hatred for eight years can make an opposing administration feel much more hellish than it truly is.  While you’re pleading for unity (lest someone undermine your political power) I’ll be calling for perspective.  Like most other conservatives, I’ll support President Obama when it makes sense because my country’s well-being is partly dependent on his performance.  But I will also be reminding Americans that he’s not a post-partisan pragmatist, but a charismatic leftist.  Barack Obama’s ideas aren’t new; they can be traced back to a long-standing philosophical heritage known as “liberalism.”  Pretending otherwise is patently anti-intellectual.  Whether you like it or not, the left/right dichotomy will be more relevant under Obama’s presidency, because it’s perfectly suited for shedding light on the nature of his ideals. 

I harbor no illusions about the effect of this very personal letter.  After reading this, you will undoubtedly defend your blinding hatred of America’s 43rd President, while refusing to acknowledge the glaring contradiction manifest in your behavior under Republican rule and the cloying requests for unity which you employ now that a man who reflects your sensibilities is arguably the most powerful person in the world.  I reject your unity, because it doesn’t mean dialogue and bipartisan compromise; it means get out of your way so you can “remake” America without having to deal with your critics. With all due respect, I refuse to sacrifice my conscience on the altar of your vision, even if it makes me a “cynic.”

Tags: Bush, Obama, post-partisan, Unity
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

…may surprise you.

One of the reasons conservative commentators focused on Barack Obama’s associates during the 2008 election season is that they’re so obviously radical.  The Big Blue O’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, preaches flame-throwing liberation theology.  William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist whose violent past is such a casual part of his identity even conscientious citizens don’t raise an eyebrow to it, has hosted a fundraiser for Obama and donated to his campaign.  Like her husband, Michelle Obama is not particularly unpleasant, yet she’s vulnerable to the siren song of victim politics.  More than once she has claimed:  “Every woman I know, regardless of race, education, income, background, is struggling every day to keep her head above water.”  If I were foolish enough to take Mrs. Obama’s words to heart, I would be forced to conclude that Oprah Winfrey is a misstep away from some sort of breakdown.  

Yet President Obama isn’t guilty by association.  For all of his boring, conventional liberalism, Barack Obama won’t be the most terrible leader our country has endured (America’s future presidents would likely have to sabotage the economy to surpass the downward spiral of Jimmy Carter’s reign).  As much as an Obama presidency would lurch the country leftward, the most disturbing prospect of his rule is not his executive power, but the worst behavior of those who voted for him.  I’m afraid that a victory by Obama will legitimize the hatred, arrogance, and aggression of not Obama or his cabinet, but Obama’s most vocal supporters.  Now that a relatively young idealist has become the President of the United States, it could be seen by his constituents as a four-year mandate to act out. 

Once liberals see one of their own in the oval office again, what will become of American culture?  This isn’t an abstract question.  In between the economy, the Middle East, and the millennial generation’s corny communitarianism, the nation won’t be able to return to the tranquil 1990’s, so what kind of culture will Obama’s rule inspire?  Will those who think the government created AIDS to get rid of black people start to be taken seriously?  Will our educators be trained by more people like the aforementioned professor Ayers, who won’t concede that bombing the U.S. capital is terrorism?  Will it empower the immature activism of people who vandalize property in democracy’s name?  Barack Obama’s presidency will be a victory for the deepening politicization of American culture, which will please the “vote or die” crowd.  But as anyone can observe every time an election draws near, this isn’t a good thing, as it invariably leads to political strife and the further institutionalization of resentment. 

This was clearly demonstrated through the misbehavior of many Obama supporters during the 2008 Presidential election, particularly in their treatment of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin after John McCain announced her as his running mate.  Because she’s a conservative woman, one left-wing entertainer called her a traitor, and commented how Palin would be gang-raped in her neighborhood.  Another liberal actor condescendingly compared her achievement to a shallow family film.  Many uninformed citizens believe that Palin wanted to ban books from public libraries, even though many of the books on the supposed blacklist hadn’t even been published when she purportedly tried to censor them.  Even the twenty-year old son of a Democratic representative has been indicted for breaking into her e-mail account and attempting to distribute the contents for the entire world to see.  Most embarrassingly for her opponents, aging feminists complained that Palin isn’t authentically female because she isn’t liberal.  This is only the tip of an iceberg full of outlandish editorials, bad comedy skits, and weeks of internet message boards filling to the brim with anti-Palin talking points, all fed by the unrelenting production of shallow objections to a stunning range of topics spanning from tanning beds to her personal faith. 

Governor Palin was blackballed for being a normal, imperfect American woman living a normal, imperfect American life with a normal, imperfect American family.  Everything from her daughter’s pregnancy to her sister’s (all too common) ugly divorce became a distraction from genuine issues.  Republicans and Democrats alike rightly criticized Palin’s poor performances in her post-nomination interviews, but the malice directed at her by Obama voters would have been more appropriately reserved for pedophiles and slave owners.  This behavior wasn’t limited to anonymous internet trolls, but professors, generally likeable actors, and even the occasional figurehead of an entire movement (Gloria Steinem).  Given the Obama campaign’s ambivalence for free speech, the prospect of such intolerant citizens having a representative in the White House is understandably creepy.  Bald partisanship, not judicious compromise, will be the hallmark of Obama’s America. 

Case in point: When Barack Obama chose the moderately conservative Christian Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, a substantial part of his base lost their emotional bowels.  Gay activists felt “betrayed” by his selection, which only makes sense if fidelity means refusing to associate with social conservatives.  The gay community’s political fringe feels disrespected by Obama’s choice, which suggests they believe the world revolves around them—what else can one to make of their insistence that Obama stop talking to Rick Warren so they can feel more secure about his affection for them?  Predictably, some LGBT activists have angrily pleaded for Warren to step down.  Surely the Stonewall Reenactment Club will stage at least one small protest at today’s massive inauguration. 

It’s gotten to the point where entertainers have been forced to become more sane and even-tempered than the masses who worship them.  But Obama never promised to blacklist everyone to the right of him.  In fact, he campaigned as a pragmatic centrist and talked endlessly about reaching across the aisle.  Surely his supporters were aware of this.  Obama has pleasantly surprised me by living up to his word (Don’t jump to conclusions, it’s only his first day), but somehow this has disgusted much of his base.  Did they think he was lying?  Are they mad now that it appears he wasn’t cynically mouthing platitudes to the rubes just to get elected?

Yet President Obama is not completely innocent in this matter.  In his two-year tour for the Presidency, Obama implicitly encouraged the same self-righteous crusading he’s now bedeviled by.  In September, he told his followers “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors.  I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican.  I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”  No report on whether or not he expects them to dress in white shirts, black slacks, and black ties while traveling door to door, carrying copies of A People’s History of the United States.

If President Obama keeps living up to his word, he will only create more extremists on his side.  Consider the President’s roundabout plan for mandating 50 hours of community service for middle and high school students (100 for college students).  There’s nothing wrong with community service, but anyone familiar with the way activism works knows that non-profit organizations are vulnerable to politicization.  Non-profit groups such as Campaign for America’s Future are so plainly anti-conservative that the prospect of a student being compelled to serve time under one of their “community leaders” is essentially an engine for turning students into left-wing activists.  Obama’s plan risks mandating young Americans to participate in partisan politics before they’re mature enough to resist emotional appeals and other types of indoctrination. 

Obviously one must take into account the predictable counter-argument that conservatives aren’t all winners, either.  Certainly some small-minded nutballs on the right are fixated with Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name, or strangely insistent that he’s not an indigenous American, but they don’t set the tone for the right like the MSNBC crowd does for the left.  Part of this is because Republicans don’t generally call on their supporters to be more obnoxious.   

In the end, the most disturbing part of Obama’s rise is that it indirectly affirms a worldview shared by the left’s most extreme voices.  It gives credence to the idea that America is fundamentally unjust and needs to be remade, not merely reformed.  It confirms the thoughtless assumptions of young neophytes, who seem to imagine that all conservatives are irredeemable liars, hypocrites, and dopes.  It gives more seasoned liberal lawyers and judges a green light from the highest office in the land to contort the Constitution around the myth of modern American oppression.  It rewards the hateful mob who went out of their way to call Sarah Palin “stupid” in their collective attempt to sway the election.  Perhaps worst of all, Obama’s rise to power sends the message to aspiring community organizers that harassing complete strangers with unsolicited political commentary is something commendable, rather than juvenile.  Make no mistake; Obama’s America will never be as bad as Obama’s Americans.  Maybe he’ll learn that the more he contends with them. 

Parce parce precor.  

-Afghan Whig

Tags: ayers, inauguration, Obama, obama supporters, palin, wright
Posted in Current Events | 2 Comments »