Dan Riehl links to a leftwing blogger who ironically dubs his writing, “A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics” — If so, the hard left tone of his post is doing a remarkable job of keeping any sort of traditional definition of a bourgeois perspective in check.
Dan writes:
Here’s all the misguided and weak liberal rationalization you’ll need for the entire weekend. They’re beginning to panic because the American people are rejecting their new messiah. As if that wasn’t going to happen if he tried to convert America into some quasi-Marxist state. Somehow they believed Obama was going to be able to hide who he was during the election, but everything would be good if he could only win.
AdvertisementAs if America wouldn’t catch on to him. That’s so foolish. These people are unrealistic to the max. The real clincher in this is that Obama would be the first guy to negotiate with genuine terrorists if he could. One of his best friends was one – Bill Ayers.
When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?
Too often, this White House has sent the signal that it seeks common ground and conciliation with parties interested in its total destruction. From my point of view, negotiating with ignorance, fear, hate and irrationality is insane.
But hey, Ayers was just some guy in the neighborhood. And it’s a good thing our moderate, centrist president himself never studied a political philosophy that would cause him to believe he was actually at war with a vast swatch of the American people…
Speaking of which, Ann Althouse notices a similar tone emanating from Timothy Rutten in the L.A. Times, who writes:
[Q]uite a number of people … seem to believe that Obama intends to induct their children into — well, it’s not quite clear what they’re afraid of. The Web and talk radio are abuzz with various attempts to organize a boycott of Tuesday’s speech….
[There is a] process at work in the healthcare hysteria and, increasingly, elsewhere where the GOP thinks it can shove the Obama administration into a ditch. Republican officials … are playing a dangerous game with an unhinged segment of public opinion that regards Obama not as an elected official with whom they disagree, but as an illegitimate usurper of the presidency.
That paranoid fantasy is what’s really behind the ‘birther’ movement and the allegations that the president is — take your pick — a secret Marxist or a secret Muslim.
As Ann responds:
Come on! This is absurd. You’re stringing one thing after another and claiming it’s all part of a big scheme. That itself is paranoid ideation.
And this is the kind of fanciful anxiety that produces columns like this….
Good lord, somebody posted a comment on a website somewhere and in Rutten’s fevered brain it’s all: yes, yes, this is exactly the way it is…. this, this is the problem!!!11!!!11!!!
Get a grip, man.
These are the people who are stockpiling ammunition and keeping their children at home next Tuesday.
What people?! The people! The people! You know: THE PEOPLE!!!! The PEOPLE WITH GUNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS………
Back in January of 2005, after a couple of months of listening to the media drone on about the horrid culture that would re-elect the eeeevil Bushitlerhalibutonreich to another four years, James Lileks wrote:
Once upon a time the major media at least pretended that the heart & soul of the country was a porch in Kansas with an American flag. Now it’s the outlands, the Strange Beyond. They vote for Bush, they believe in God, they’d have to drive 2 hours for decent Thai. Who are these people?
That the MSM continues this tone almost five years later, and then wonders why more people aren’t more concerned about their demise would make for a remarkable case study in cognitive dissonance.
I could think of an excellent title for such a report’s findings, but it’s already been taken.
Timothy Rutten is quoted [edited]: “That paranoid fantasy is behind the allegations that the president is a secret Marxist or a secret Muslim.”
Obama is an open Marxist. He told Joe the Plumber that it was good to “spread the wealth around”, and his tax policies intend to do just that. Obama was not talking about a safety net for poverty. He wants to take money from people with more money and give money to people with less money. This seems to be based on the idea that anyone with more money must have stolen it from people with less money, so it is only fair to balance things. That is Marxist, regardless that Obama has not declared himself to be “a Marxist”.
I could be wrong, as a non-expert in economic philosophy. So, is there another economic philosophy that calls for this rebalancing of wealth? If Obama is not a Marxist, then what philosophy is he following? Certainly not John Stuart Mill. It would be quite interesting to know what philosophy Obama self-identifies with. He must know, as an intellectual trained at Harvard.
Two insights into Obama on the record.
Richard Epstein discusses Barack Obama
Richard Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1972. He was a colleague of Barack Obama when Obama taught as an instructor. Epstein had mutual friends with Obama, and talked to Obama about some issues. His main description is that Obama is under complete self-control
“Obama worked as a community organizer and was in many cases very constructive. He organized public/private partnerships to help the homeless and downtrodden.”
“But, the difficulty you get, for someone who has only worked in that situation, is that he believes the creation of private wealth is something the government cannot influence or destroy. He has many fancy redistribution schemes, in addition to his health plan and new labor laws, which are all wealth killers.”
Obama and God
When God talks to you through your inner voice, it is even better than prayer. Obama experiences this every day, in his own words, revealed in a March 2004 interview with a reporter on religious issues. It may be good when a person declares their submision to God. It may be bad when he claims to have a daily conversation.