Since WWII perhaps the most potent strain of anti-capitalist, anti-Western ideology has been powered by the conceptions of Hobson and Lenin as much as by those of Marx and the Webbs. On this view, capitalism and its need for markets and profits drives the violent and unjust economic exploitation of non-Western nations and peoples.
Through this ideological filter the dream of socialism became fused to the moral causes of anti-colonialism, and — ironically — both ethnic nationalism and anti-Western internationalism.
When I originally exposed the socialism of Obama’s father — and proposed this revelation as the “Rosebud” which made sense of the puzzle at the heart of Obama’s Dreams From My Father — I mostly ignored the potent legacy of Kenyan anti-colonialism, a central life experience of Obama’s Kenyan father and grandfather.
Well, where angels fear to tread, Dinesh D’Souza has rushed in to fill the void, taking my “Rosebud” thesis and research into Barack Obama, Sr.’s socialism (without acknowledgment), and running with it as far as one could possible go in the anti-colonialist, anti-Western direction — and beyond.
I haven’t read D’Souza’s book or his Forbes article. But I have watched his discussion with Glenn Beck on Fox.
As far as it goes, as a basic presentation of the facts about Obama’s father and upbringing, and what Obama has written in his own memoir, I think it is an essentially factual and useful recounting of important truths about the biography of the President which most of the popular media have willfully withheld from their customers.
As an interpretation of what motivates the President today — family history and university training in left wing anti-colonial theory may well explain why President Obama returned the White House bust of Winston Churchill to the British. But I’m not a fan of connect-the-dots speculative explanation that are far more complicated and far less direct than is the simple and fundamental fact of Obama’s very general, well documented, and life-long interest in the dream and ideology of “social justice”, race-based Marxism, and the post-60s American left.
Of course, one does have to wonder what the alternative history of Barack Obama, Jr. might have turned out to be if Barack Obama, Sr. had studied Mises and Rothbard on imperialism and colonialism while studying economics at Harvard and the U. of Hawaii, rather than “scientific Marxism”, mainstream 1960′s development economics, and other such things.
{ 40 comments }
As a libertarian, I am appalled that you would take this nonsense seriously. Obama is a run-of-the-mill Democrat, nothing more. Still bad, but we don’t need to peddle in lies and libel.
Explanation please? Simply calling it lies and “libel” does not make it so.
I’m with slim on this one. As a libertarian myself, I don’t see anything here that hasn’t been substantiated a hundred times over.
Wake up and get out of the house, Tristan.
For a large current of the academia / union / cultural / activist elite of the Democrat party, the dream and ideology of “social justice”, race-based Marxism, and the post-60s American left is fairly run-of-the-mill stuff — and this stuff has been mainstreamed to generations of students and media consumers.
Let’s not fantasize that things are different than in fact they are.
“I am appalled that you would take this nonsense seriously.”
Let’s also take the time to read what someone has written. Among other things, I write:
“I’m not a fan of connect-the-dots speculative explanation [that is] complicated and [indirect]”
Yet you suggest exactly the opposite.
What’s up with that willful misreading …
The bottom line, Tristan, is that the background facts here are the background facts. You can interpret them any way you wish. Obama’s life story and what is has made him are anything but “run of the mill”.
This isn’t Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis.
And those of us who want to understand the man — and his enigmatic but suggestive book “Dreams From My Father” — have every right to learn more about the man and his background.
His background is his background — and a man’s background is a big part of who he is.
We have every right to take a look at who this man is and what has made him what he is.
The only nonsense I see is the bizarre claim that Obama is Walter Mondale.
Check out Steve Sailer on Obama:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/10/introduction-to-my-book-americas-half.html
As I read this I thought, “Isn’t this why there was a constitutional requirement for the President to be native born?”
Nutjobs can be homegrown, too. There isn’t a solid reason why the President has to be a native born American.
Jimmy Carter was american–that didn’t help any, as well as all the other presidents that have lead this country to the sorry state we are in now. I believe the constitutional requirement was to ensure that british people did not become president.
The question shouldn’t be about the nativity of a president, but whether one is needed in the first place.
There’s no such requirement. More precisely, that’s only one of two categories of people who can be US presidents (subject to yet other things, like age requirements and criminal record – I don’t think they actually have to have one). Sure, the other category – people born before the adoption of the US constitution who were citizens at adoption – is an empty set these days, but there’s nothing stopping it being used as a loophole, e.g. with a law stating that persons born in Austria shall be deemed to have been citizens born two centuries earlier than they actually were – which would let Mr. Schwarzenegger in. And even without strained construction, it probably doesn’t mean the earliest adoption of the US constitution but its adoption area by area, e.g. allowing someone born in Utah in 1845 to run in 1895 (reading it as barring them would be the more strained construction); the category isn’t defunct or exhausted, just not currently material. Just imagine if Israel became a US state…
I see Obama guy just as another marketing trick of the power elite for the semi-dumb american masses.
Check this: http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-barack-obama-conclusively-outed-as-cia-creation/
Not sure if there is any need or reason for discussing Obama’s views or speeches, they can change anytime .. Look on lewrockwell.com for more info about Obama’s past.
I read the jacket cover on the dsouza book last night. I thought he might be on to something, but I dont’ generally see where obama is deviating from mainstream marxist views. His direction seems un-unique.
Maybe leave these kind of posts to sites like townhall.com where they belong.
There’s a huge portion of the population who want to know who this guy is we’ve put in the Presidency — and they still don’t know.
I’ve directed a small but motivated segment to further background literature by Mises and Rothbard on one of the central historical / theoretical threads of our world over the last 100 years.
Not something that happens everyday on Townhall.
Thomas Sowell was a Marxist before he became pro- Free Market.Is there a need to psychoanalyse his parents,his family background and any other irrelevant thing? I’ll bet even some Austrian economists, prior to their economic education,also had a socialist mentality.
All American presidents since FDR have been pro socialists/pro-marxists in their policies,despite their rhetoric. Why single out Obama? Oh yeah,so that Republicans can win elections.Don’t fall for this claptrap.
You’re argument is that more ignorance is better than less ignorance.
Try to convince someone else of that argument.
I understand Sowell better knowing his background — one reason I read his autobiography.
Please read Dinesh’s book before you talk about Dinesh’s ‘thesis’. Since not doing so would make you guilty of being more ignorant rather than less ignorant.
p.s:What you are doing IS psychoanalysis.Nobody claimed that your methods are Freudian.So don’t get your knickers in a twist.
“Is there a need to psychoanalyse his parents,his family background and any other irrelevant thing?”
Yes there is. Look what our last president with daddy issues did.
Note well that biographical research and analysis has nothing to do with “psychoanalysis” — how old are you people and why are you still reading Freud?
“Why single out Obama?”
Because he is in a position of great power and influence, unlike, say, Thomas Sowell. Therefore, I think people should understand where he comes from, and why they are getting the policies that they are getting from him. He’s not just another run-of-the-mill Democrat (although the Democratic party has been going so far left recently I can see why somebody could think that).
Actually, yes. Mises before he read Menger’s Principles.
After 8 years of being ruled by a true ideologue, I guess its natural for Americans to assume that Obama is one too. While I don’t care much for Obama, I don’t see him as a socialist or ideologue by any stretch of the imagination. He is instead a political opportunist or populist, more then anything else. He is after power and the social justice platform is simply a means for getting power. Like most politicians he will do and say what ever is necessary to get and retain power. The progressive movement and the liberal elite are his convient tools right now for getting and keeping power, so naturally he has to at least appear interested in their ideas. However, if the trend in America starts leading away from these groups, he’ll abandon them like a rat on a sinking ship. He is in many ways no different then Bill Clinton, who was nothing more then a political animal that happened to be a Democrat. If Republicans take control of one of the houses of Congress and moderates appear to becoming turned off by progressive ideas, he will be become a centrist too.
Obama’s background understanding of the world is what it is — and he spent a life time soaking in the various and many splendored world views of the socialist and ideological left.
He’s not a classic liberal — and there’s no evidence of any soaking in that world view.
The man is what he is. Being a leftist doesn’t imply being a 1930s style “ideologue” or socialist. Your categorical alternatives here are cartoonish and represent a poverty of alternatives.
In any case, these facts about Obama are not incompatible with the man being a political opportunist and populist — or interested in seeking his own power. There are a lot of powerful leftists with this profile.
“I don’t see him as a socialist or ideologue by any stretch of the imagination. He is instead a political opportunist or populist, more then anything else.”
And what he is, is a Kenyan socialist.
Just like his father.
Nobody who is just a political opportunist sits in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology “church” for 20 years. Granted, he “threw Wright under the bus”, which is to say that he publicly distanced himself from Wright, but that doesn’t mean that he philosophically distanced himself from Wright in his heart of hearts. Obama is a modern red-diaper baby, who has suckled at the teat of leftism all his life. There is no way that he’s anything other than a true believer.
My point, however poorly made, is that I don’t think it would matter as to the type of person he is today, whether he grew up reading Rothbard or Hobson. Maybe it would have changed the side he started politics on, but not his core character. His father’s politics certainly were useful in his pursuit of power, but not becuase of what they represented but by enabling him to sell himself to the left as a legitimate beleiver in their cause.
If you look at how he operates, you can see he is about form over substance. He didn’t care what was in the Health or Bank Reform bills when he signed them. He just wanted to sign legislation that had the right name assigned to its title. Take the BP oil spill. A hardened leftist would have exploited that disaster within the first few days of its occurrence. Instead, he sat on the sidelines either hoping it would be over with quickly or to find out how the public desired him to act. Another example is his reversal on Afghanistan, which is nothing more then an imperialist pursuit at this point. He is what my teens would call a poser.
None of this is to say he can’t be dangerous, but IMO, the real danger comes from the political favors he returns, by providing key cabinet positions to true leftest ideologues.
“He didn’t care what was in the Health or Bank Reform bills when he signed them.”
No, as long as the bill gave the government more control over the people, which he knew it would, he didn’t care. That doesn’t mean he’s not a true believer, though.
“Take the BP oil spill. A hardened leftist would have exploited that disaster within the first few days of its occurrence. Instead, he sat on the sidelines …”
No, again. He wanted to let BP embarrass themselves some more. Remember, a crisis is useful primarily for how it can be leveraged politically, and fixing it quickly would have made the crisis go away to early. He just “misunderestimated” how bad his waffling would make him look, because he thought he was still invulnerable.
Anyone who thinks that Obama is just another pragmatic power-hungry politician still has his head in the sand, IMO.
Here’s something that pretty much sums up what a shithole America has become:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100930/ap_on_en_ot/us_congress_loud_commercials
Heh, pretty firm characterization, but can’t say I blame ya.
I was wondering how long it would be before someone posted this beauty.
And worse, I suspect most Americans would think it a great idea, as I suspect they also do regarding bans on restaurant smoking.
Bad signs on a daily basis….
Surrounded by Keynesian advisors and with the aspirations of an ego-driven interventionist there is no reason to expect anything except socialism and fascism.
We could argue whether Obamas is socialist or facist or Marxist but I think most would agree he is definitely a statist.
Seriously, is there anybody who didn’t already understand the nature of Obama from the moment he came onto the political scene? The liberals knew he was for their hand outs, the conservatives knew he was for bigger government, and the libertarians already knew he was socialist. I file this under “confirming we all already knew”, or filling in the details of it rather than some new and stunning revelation.
Genetic fallacy.
Obama barely even knew his father. I highly doubt he took many of his economic theories from him. This is an irrelevant connection.
This is just evidence you haven’t read Obama’s book.
what is “race based marxism”??
This article is not worthy of being published on the Web. Not because of the confusing disfigured accusations of weird socialistic tones, but because it has a short end. BACK UP THE FACTS that you accuse in here and quit making things up!
As Winnie would have said “Poppycock”!
Comments on this entry are closed.