I have been watching an interesting phenomenon on the Right, which is beginning to cause me concern. I am referring to the over-the-top hysteria in response to the first months in office of our new president, which distinctly reminds me of the “Bush Is Hitler” crowd on the Left.
Speaking of this crowd, have you seen any “I am so sorry” postings from that quarter as Obama continues and even escalates the former president's war policy in Afghanistan and attempts to consolidate his military occupation of Iraq?
Conservatives, please. Let's not duplicate the manias of the Left as we figure out how to deal with Mr. Obama. He is not exactly the anti-Christ, although a disturbing number of people on the Right are convinced he is.
I have recently received commentaries that claim that "Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history" and "never has a politician in this land had such a quasi-religious impact on so many people" and "Obama is a narcissist," which leads the author to then compare Obama to David Koresh, Charles Manson, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. Excuse me while I blow my nose.
This fellow has failed to notice that all politicians are narcissists – and that a recent American president was a world-class exponent of the imperial me. So what? Political egos are one of the reasons the Founders put checks and balances on executive power. As for serial lying, is there a politician that cannot be accused of that? And once, the same recent president set a pretty a high bar in this category, and we survived it. As for Obama's speeches, they are hardly in the Huey Long, Louie Farrakhan, Fidel Castro vein. They are in fact eloquently and cleverly centrist and sober.So what's the panic? It is true that Obama has shown surprising ineptitude in his first months in office, but he's not a zero with no accomplishments as many conservatives seem to think – unless you regard beating the Clinton machine and winning the presidency as nothing. But in doing this you fall into the “Bush-is-an-idiot” bag of liberal miasmas.
It is also true Obama has ceded his domestic economic agenda to the House Democrats and spent a lot of money in the process. But what’s the surprise in this? After all, Bush and McCain both proposed (and in Bush's case pushed through) massive government giveaways (which amount to government takeovers as well). This is bad, but it doesn't make Obama a closet Mussolini, however deplorable the conservatives among us may regard it. Moreover, he's already run into political resistance even within his own party. Charlie Rangel has made it clear that the itemized deduction tax hike is not going through his committee – and that should tell you that the American system, the one the Founders created, is still in place.
Even as astute a conservative thinker as Mark Steyn has been swept up in the tide that thinks Obama is a “transformative” radical. But look again at his approach to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, as noted, he is carrying out the Bush policies – the same that he once joined his fellow Democrats in condemning. And that should be reassuring to anyone concerned about where he is heading as commander-in-chief.
In other words, while it's reasonable to be unhappy with a Democratic administration and even concerned because the Democrats are now a socialist party in the European sense, we are not witnessing the coming of the anti-Christ. A good strategy for political conflicts is to understand your opponent first – not to underestimate him, but not to overestimate him either.
Once conservatives do that, they will find some silver linings in the first moves of the Obama administration. Through a combination of ineptitude and zeal, Obama has in two short months locked down the conservative and Republican base. On fetal stem-cell research, on borders (e-verification), on spending, on unions, on shutting down talk radio, Obama has flexed the leftist muscle so nakedly and unmistakably that there isn’t a conservative left who will vote Democratic in the next election (and there were many who did so in the last).
As we move forward, Obama faces increasingly tough choices in the wars against Islamic fascism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza and Iran. Hopefully, he will make the right choices, and should he do so conservatives will need to be there to support him. If he makes the wrong choices, conservatives will need to be there to oppose him. But neither our support nor our opposition should be based on hysterical responses to policies that we just don't like. Let’s leave that kind of behavior to the liberals who invented it.
All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Obama Derangement Syndrome
From David Horowitz at Front Page Magazine:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I agree that we needn't be rude to the office or panic. But the man has done a lot of damage. Lets hope that he can learn from the mistakes of his overtures to the Muslim world. Lets hope that his spending habit gets under control.
He has, unfortunately, given us reason to distrust him. His lying about the causes of the economic meltdown and backing ACORN do not inspire confidence. But, though I did not expect him to build the fence, but was more concerned and confused by his offer to increase border patrol than perhaps I should have been.
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE!!! ESPECIALLY WITH "The BIG O."
Also, I have been worried about the strife that would occur were there an assassination attempt. And the hysterical rhetoric on the right could increase that likelihood. So, I cautiously agree with your point.
www.culturism.us
um, I think I saw this here already
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-derangement-syndrome.html
:)
It is your blog. If you think ODS is that much of a problem, why don't you have registrations and then you can ban repeat offenders?
That seems to be a fairly common practice - but I am not that familiar with the "ethos" of bloggerdom, so if I offended, I am sorry.
Pastorius,
This is a good argument for keeping a level head. Lets not act like the Radical left did during the Bush administration and carry around signs that say "Obama Hitler." Most of the bad things obama has down, probably have more to do with wishful thinking and ignorance than malevolence.
Pastorius,
Speaking of bad decisions made by Obama, Mosquewatch has a recent Fox News Interview of Nonie Darwish talking about Harold Koh posted. You might be interested in what she had to say.
HUH? Are you supporting Horowitz on this one? Here is what I wrote on this piece in an email "Obama is a radical look at his associates and his political philosophy. He is much worse then Carter ever was. Saying the truth is not derangement. Thinking Obama is the anti-chirst, statin, or Stalin is a bit too much for for me. Maybe that is derangement but pointing out what he wants and saying he probably shares too many ideas with a jihadi and a marxist is not MHO. What do you think? I am with Mark Styen instead of Horwitz and Charles on this one. I have yet to see a think Mark Syten has said that I did not agree with him. He is one of the best minds out there IMHO. Trying to start a war with Syten is not the best thing to do. "
BO does follow the historical political pattern in some of his behaviors. The problem lies not in how he is the same, but in how he is different. And yes, he is much different, in the most important areas.
His policies are moving us more in the direction of Europe. We are losing freedoms, one at a time and we see more following by the wayside as the future unfolds. As he stated, "Democrats are now a socialist party in the European sense". In addition, his relationships with Muslims and plans to incorporate Islam into our country. These points alone should garner more concern then David appears to give them.
But, we also have his foreign policies that make him stand out and put him outside the lines of the former president. His treatment of Israel and Britain. His willingness to bargain away the missile shield which dissed Poland. His apparent ignorance (if that is what it is) of the Taliban which makes him think they would just lay down their arms. His weak treatment of Iran and North Korea, which in the end could very well cause a catastrophe. And on and on and on.
These are areas that we must take very seriously. They are far outside the normal "politicians are just like that" pale.
No, we could very well not "survive" this presidency. Times have changed and Obama is playing with a loaded deck.
So although I agree we should not disintegrate down to BDS slogans, I do feel we have every reason this time to be up in arms.
I respect David Horowitz, but I feel he hasn't taken the serious aspects of Obama's presidency, serious enough.
Sometimes I see the line between valid criticism of BHO and BDS.
Other times, I don't.
I agree with the last line of Christine's comment above:
I respect David Horowitz, but I feel he hasn't taken the serious aspects of Obama's presidency, serious enough.
Anonymous at 6:24,
I think you have no reason to apologize. I think everyone should say what they have to say. I am concerned about Obama Derangement Syndrome, because recently I have posted two articles by bloggers I admire (American Thinker and Gateway Pundit), and whom I think of as moderate. They described H.R. 1188 as being a Mandatory Service Act, in other words conscription. And, both of these articles drew nefarious conclusions. I personally commented further on my disgust with this decision, and my bewilderment that such a thing could pass without the media ever discussing it.
Well, it turns out H.R. 1188 was NOT what American Thinker or Gateway said it was.
It took Epa and Midnight Rider to point this out to me. I so trust Gateway and American Thinker that I did not read the bill itself, but instead went by their description of the bill.
Now, why is it that Epa and MR could figure out what American Thinker and Gateway could not? Look, I'm not saying we are not a smart bunch here, but we have a rep for being the bozos of the blogosphere. Look at us, with our Infidel Babe and Hunk of the Week, and our proclamation that we are the "Parallel government of the entire world". This blog is supposed to be over-the-top and humorous to a large extent.
Do we try to be accurate? Yes. Do we carefully source our material? Yes. Do we attempt to clearly demarcate the line between opinion and fact? Yes.
But, we also pose as humorists to a large extent.
And now, I find that, suddenly, we're having to be the reasonable ones? For God's sake. I don't want the responsibility. But, I also don't want to be posting a bunch of bullshit here for which I will feel embarrassed and/or guilty down the road.
I think the common consensus here is that Horowitz is too trusting of Obama. I agree. I don't trust Obama much. However, one of the reasons Horowitz wrote this article is because Obama has followed through on the war plans of Bush. This is true. In fact, his plan now to do what amounts to a surge in Afgahnistan and to openly attack Pakistan would, if it were to have been pursued by Bush, been criticized by the Left as a needless escalation.
And yet, those of us on the right are giving Obama no credit for this.
Additionally, the other day, Israel attacked Sudan. Obama did not say a thing. He did not castigate Israel for the attack. He kept his mouth shut. This is tacit support of the attack, just as Bush gave tacit support to Israel's attack against Syria.
Do you see what I mean?
Now, on the other hand, I do not trust that Obama has Israel's best interest at heart. I think it is clear that Obama's friends are, for the most part, anti-Israel, and some of them are flat out anti-Semitic kooks. But, Rahm Emanuel is not. Rahm Emanuel is a jerk. He's an extreme lefty, but he is not anti-Israel.
Truth is, I can't figure Obama out. But, I want to acknowledge the facts.
Obama et al are simply a goop melange of leftist beliefs, and the apex of leftist organizations.
That does NOT mean he is Stalin, or that he is the captive of Soros, nor does it mean if you truly believe Israel must cede the west bank you are anti Israel.
But it does mean that you might very well ruin the joint if you are unhindered, and that you might end up killing a values ally because you are naive and or just plain wrong.
BDS was characterized by loons who thought Bush was going to suspend democracy .. Obama simply believes that democracy OUGHT to mean we all share equally as an OUTCOME of egalitarian activities, and that all nations and peoples probably really want the same same things.
Now around here we recognize (I think) that such utopian ideas INEVITABLY at the final moment are as destructive, and coercive as ethnic nationalism.
That's not ODS
Believing Obama wants the USSR is
Believing he begins with evil is
Believing BECAUSE he is evil he is not american, or must be muslim, yadda, yadda IS.
Obama is simply wrong.
Dangerously wrong.
Not worse than Nixon.
Maybe worse than Carter.
Bad territory any way you slice it up.
avideditor,
We can criticize Obama without any of the following, acting like lunatics, making wild baseless accusations and/or unreasonable comparisons. And when it all comes down to it, why shouldn't we? Making ourselves look like lunatic fringe won't help get him out of office. In fact it might help him stay in office by getting people not to take us seriously, and discouraging others from criticizing him.
Pastorius,
By the way, did you see that Nonie Darwish interview that linked to where she talked about Sharia and Harold Koh?
Pastorius: "Truth is, I can't figure Obama out. But, I want to acknowledge the facts."
Barack Hussein Onigma.
I agree. The guy is a real mixed bag - coffee grounds, orange peels, soiled diapers, and an occasional Rolex.
Post a Comment