It’s Time for Conservatives to Stop their Silly and Counterproductive Attacks on the Obama Administration
A day or so ago a conservative website called SayAnythingBlog.com set off a firestorm with a blog post. It was posted by a conservative talk radio host named Rob Port, who with a group from the C-PAC convention took a tour of the White House. The original heading on the post screamed out: “Photo Evidence: Michelle Obama Keeps Socialist Books In The White House Library.”
Much to his consternation, what Port found when they stopped at the small room containing the White House Library were two books that he assumed were chosen by First Lady Michelle Obama, and that proved to him that she and the President were indeed socialists. What Port spotted on the bookshelf, and which he took pictures of, were two books, The American Socialist Movement:1897-1912, written by Ira Kipnis, and what he thought was an even more telling volume, The Social Basis of American Communism, by Nathan Glazer.
“Lookie what I found,” he wrote on the posted blog. Shocking! Two books which by themselves, he admitted, “wouldn’t be a big deal,” but in “the context of Anita Dunn saying Chairman Mao is her favorite political philosopher? In the context of the Mao ornament on the White House Christmas tree? In the context of Obama’s economic policies? Well, I’ll let you make your own call.” Among the over 300 comments was this rather typical one: “I wonder if the liberals who mock conservatives who refer to Obama as a socialist still find it funny?”
Almost immediately, the press went to town. The British Guardian promptly investigated, and quickly found that the two books had been picked by the First Lady — not the current one, but by Jackie Kennedy, during her husband’s presidency. In 1963 a Yale University Committee had chosen the books to represent different aspects of the American past.
Port quickly backed down, posting a blog update in which he wrote: “According to the Washington Post it was First Lady Jackie Kennedy who oversaw the placing of the books in the White House library, and they’ve been there since 1963. Apparently no administration since has changed the contents of the library. So the guide I was with didn’t give me the whole story. Either that, or we misunderstood one another.”
But he also added that this misunderstanding did not invalidate the fact that “the Chairman Mao Christmas ornament, the Obama adviser who idolizes Mao and the nationalizations of the banks, car companies and attempted nationalizations of student loans and health care are all, unfortunately, still very true.”
What Port’s comment reveals, however, is the rather simplistic view that his spotting of the books provided further proof of the White House’s secret socialist agenda. It also raises yet another point. These two volumes are considered early classics in the attempt of scholars to explain the growth in America at certain times of both vibrant socialist and communist movements and to understand why they ultimately failed.
“It is time, I suggest, for conservatives to make criticism of policy when they find it lacking in substance or just plain wrong, and stop this rather silly game of gotcha based on a fallacious reading of history.”
Indeed. It undermines the idea that there’s substantive criticisms of the administration.
Because if there were (and personally I feel there are), Rob Port would have been reporting on that, instead of bad books.
It’s poor politics, tactics, and intellectual honesty.
Keep in mind that DDT was banned because of a book Jackie read, and then muttered to hot pants Johnny that something had to be done about it.
Like it, or not, as long as those who treat those with less power as sweepings, especially when they cannot resist playing God; they will snicker at those who have been right all along, when those snickered at accuse those who cannot resist playing God, as being under the draconian tyranny of their appetites.
I have Mein Kampf in my library. I don’t prominently display it, but I don’t hide it either. Does that make me a Nazi? I don’t think so…
As is typical in the arena, these days, we can expect the liberal reaction to something like this to be that conservatives are anti-intellectual. Their mock quote of their strawman conservative will be: “Oh no, the evil socialists have brought *BOOKS* into the White House! We hate books, and everyone who reads them! Burn them, burn the books, burn the White House!”
People should pay more attention to what’s going on, and frankly not be quite so hostile to ideas. *Books* don’t make policy. They can influence it, but by themselves they’re merely repositories for ideas. Most are more or less valid, with emphasis on *more or less*. Criticizing the presence of books in the absence of knowledge about how they got there, or even what they actually are, is foolish in the extreme.
Who is Rob Port? I have never heard of this intellectual lightweight. He would be appalled if he saw my some 2,500-volume library. Although I do not own either of the books that upset him so much—I do own countless works by numerous left-wingers. Port would indeed do a total freak-out looking at my bookshelves. Currently, I am reading socialist historian A.J.P. Taylor’s, A Personal History.
Barack Obama is a socialist. He openly advocates wealth redistribution. This is a fact, and not wild speculation. Unfortunately, we live in an unfair world. Many Americans feel uncomfortable hearing the charge of socialism—especially in regards to the president of the United States. It is therefore often better not to be explicit. One might instead criticize Obama’s specific statements and policies, and let people reach the implied conclusion on their own. Am I a mealy mouth hypocrite? No, I simply realize that the leftist establishment has successfully portrayed anti-socialist critics as Joe McCarthy slime jobbers. In other words, many Americans have been somewhat brainwashed. It’s going to take awhile longer to educate them. A Republican politician would be foolish to publicly describe Obama as a socialist. A nobody like me must start the ball rolling. Give it maybe another year.
I don’t think ownership of books determines anything about you. After all, I’m pretty sure some of us here have read “The Communist Manifesto” and also have a copy of it in our homes (I don’t have one nor read it, but will need to get it so I can deepen my understanding of this insane philosophy), but that does not make you a communist. Also, some of our most prescient authors, including George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, are avowed Socialists. However, I would think that “Animal Farm”, “1984, and “Brave New World” are attacks on their philosophy, not an endorsement of it. So, not all Socialists are bad, nor is owning books about Socialism bad either.
The blogger on that site was wrong, but I also think that Mr. Radosh is wrong in saying that pointing out that Obama is a Socialist is a silly talking point. When someone says, “If we spread the wealth around, I think it’s good for everybody” that does not make you a capitalist. However, let Obama’s words and actions lead you to determine that he is a Socialist, not what he and his wife has in their library.
While I’m not sure I agree that conservatives need to stop bashing the current administration, I will wholeheartedly agree that someone’s library is not a reflection of who they are or what they believe.
My library has treatises on all sorts of religions (inluding Islam) right alongside the family Bible. Would that tell you anything about my religious leanings? Nope. What it tells me is that I prefer to know more about a variety of subjects, even if I disagree with them.
Ditto for things like political tomes. I, too, have Mein Kampf, alongside Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” and Marx’ ramblings. Then again, I have quite a few volumes by Churchill and numerous American presidents. Does that make me a democrat, republican, communist, marxist, leninist or nazi?
This type of attack is, as you said, just silly.
I’m happy to attack Obama for what he does – and there’s lots of fodder there – I just don’t need to look at his library shelf, kitchen cabinets or underwear drawer to do it. Oh, and the charge that Barry is a socialist is real, accurate and meaningful.
Ron Radosh personally experiences the bizarre phenomenon of people charging him with McCarthyism because he accuses Alger Hiss of having been a Communist. The fact that he can provide overwhelming proof is essentially meaningless. They have been programmed to perceive all charges of Communism as examples of right-wing slime jobbing. The same holds true with accusations of socialism. Barack Obama adamantly insists that he is not a socialist. This is crazy talk—but I am sure he is sincere! We live in a postmodernist society where evidence is often not highly valued. One supposedly has a right to their “narrative” even though it doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Socialism is something of a nebulous term. Still, I have no problem whatsoever in describing anyone as a socialist who advocates government control of American’s medical health care. It is not logically my problem if they object to this label. The Democratic Party is existentially committed to western European style socialism. We must consistently point this out—even though it’s not popular to tell the truth. The leftist propagandists ultimately cannot be allowed to get away with their corruption of language.
I agree that nit-picking over trivial things is both petty and counter productive.
When opposition to Obama’s agenda takes on a life of its own and becomes opposition to everything the man or his underlings say or do, then things have gone off the rails.
Principles, not personalities. If Obama does something good and right then I’m going to be glad that he did and hope that he’ll do it some more. I won’t sulk because he failed to make himself look bad.
There are those who jump to a conclusion, and then there are those who don’t have to jump because that conclusion was their starting point. If you want to know and live with the truth then you’ll avoid being either type.
Having socialistic or communistic books in your library does not mean you are socialist or communist, but moving those books thousands of miles into a home you know you’ll only occupy for four years for work means that you are very keen on keeping socialistic / communistic ideology close by; if this isn’t a clear indication of your dedication for that ideology and your wish to utilize it in your life / work in these four years.
Correction (clicked too soon)
if this isn’t a clear indication of your dedication for that ideology and your wish to utilize it in your life / work in these four years, what is?
Having socialistic or communistic books in your library does not mean you are socialist or communist, but moving those books thousands of miles into a home you know you’ll only occupy for four years for work means that you are very keen on keeping socialistic / communistic ideology close by; if this isn’t a clear indication of your dedication for that ideology and your wish to utilize it in your life / work in these four years, what is?
I don’t much care what the Republicans do–it is likely to be wrong anyway.
But we conservatives and little “r” republicans have got to run our battles past the “Is this a ditch worth dying in?” test.
The villainization of McCarthy has gotten old and stale given that all the countervailing classified records are now made public. There was no “book burning” tour of Europe. McCarthy had no interest in legitimate libraries of either private or public funding. What he WAS concerned with were U.S. anti-communist reading rooms which had been funded by a bill sponsored by Sen Mundt with the explicit purpose of providing counter-propaganda to Europe. The concern was not so much the books themselves, but rather the government employees who had intentionally selected pro-communist works by a 30 to 1 margin over anti-communist literature. At the time, there was no REAL dispute over how antagonistic this was to the bill’s scope. For example, included were the early works of Langston Hughes and his paeons to a mythical “USSA”. Those works were far too pro-communist to be used in those reading rooms, according to LANGSTON HUGHES.
Keep trying to tell us Obama is just some innocent victim that conservatives are trying to slander like Annie Lee Moss of 72 R st… Except it turned out McCarthy was right about her too.
And getting our facts right would be a good thing.
Some blogger makes a mistake.
They correct themselves.
And…this is a reason to label them as anti-intellectual and broad-brush the Right?!
What cr*p, Mr. Radosh.
Over and out.
Speaking about silly and counter-productive attacks – I seem to recall Ron Radosh himself glefully indulged in such an attack against Glenn Beck merely a couple of weeks ago.
I’ve responded to his silliness on my blog here:
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2010/02/another-castrated-conservative-strikes.html
By the way, Mr. Radosh,
…don’t you think that, in the era/atmosphere of swine/guerilla tactics of the Left,
perhaps, just perhaps the Right should do a bit less self-attacking?
(Oh yes, I can already hear the “we’re better, so we must stay purer” cr*p in 3…2…1…)
You do not need to have any specific books on your shelves to let people know who and what you are and believe in. All people have to do is listen carefully and make sure their definition of words matches the speaker’s. Nuff said on that score…now more along…
Oh please, do not condemn anyone for what books one has in his or her library.
In my library I have, “Mao Tse Tung on Guerilla Warfare”, “Malcolm X Speaks”, “The Federalist Papers”, “On War”, by von Clausewitz, biographies of Jefferson, Adams, “The Art of War”, by Sun Tzu, “Plato’s Dialogues”, “About Face”, by Col. David Hackworth, “Loyalty is My Honor”,re”: the Waffen SS, “Up Front, by Bill Mauldin, et.al..
How can one form an objective opinion on a given issue without reading both the pro and con opinions concerning said issue? Most certainly one cannot.
Should one only research and discuss one side of an issue, one can only be a party to, for lack of a better term, propaganda.
As Voltaire said, “Though I disagree with what you say, I defend to the death your right to say it.”
I think that quote is pretty well accurate. If we of different opinions cease to exchange ideas, we will reduce ourselves to fundamentalists, and that is not something I look forward to seeing.
C’mon people, read and think before we act. Thank you, Hod Coburn, Free Man.
if this were a game of “Clue” my guess would be Mr. Radish kills Glenn Beck in the palor with the “Communist Manifesto”
good lord i’m tired of the Establishment GOP-types whining and moaning about Beck, the rank and file love him so just get over it.
and yes, i’m aware the article isn’t about Beck directly but having read other pieces by the Raving Radish I think we all know it really is…
The scummy slime occupying the current White House doesn’t need any ‘eye opener’ tell-alls via a brief scan of a book-shelf.
The shame for our country is the blatant and purposeful ‘blind-as-a-bat’ voters who didn’t give a frick less about who B.O. really was/is. NOW that the sheep have stopped counting themselves, the open eyes are witnessing their own livers being consumed with a fine bottle of Chianti and a side of Fava beans.
“PFfffffftttttttttttt!”
17. Delia: “The scummy slime occupying the current White House….”
Your point is well taken, Ron.
“24. Delia:
The scummy slime occupying the current White House ”
I agree!
Yes, having Mein Kampf in ones library may not a nazi make, but all nazi’s have Mein Kampf in their library. Which is to say that the scum in the whitehouse now are marxist.
When they tell you who they are.. believe them.
What the hell is SayAnythingBlog.com and who the hell is Rob Port? And why the hell would anyone try to make them representative of all conservatives when no one has ever heard of them??
The only one trumpting what books Obama’s got at the White House is YOU.
The incident is rather a silly one and Mr. Port needed to be embarrassed by his actions and comments. However, it does not mean that many contemporary conservatives are anti-intellectual. Mr. Radosh is doing the same thing he condemns Mr. Port for doing. He is taking an isolated fact / incident and generalizing from it.
Modern conservatives are much more intellectual than their liberal opponents who often dress up their own prejudices with psuedo-intellectualism and appeals to conventional wisdom, which is often neither conventional or wise.
Conservatives do however tend to be more anti-elitist and the elites often interpret that as anti-intellectual because they see themselves as intellectual and not necessarily as elites. Harvard grads, based on what we know about grade inflation, are really more elitist than intellectual. Yet they will speak derisively to ag students who actually work for the grades they get. It is not anti-intellectualism if the people you criticize are not intellectual in the first place.
I actually think every american home should have a copy of the The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital to understand the deaths and despair they have caused in the past and continue to cause.While they are at it they can research Henry Clay and find you the start of socialism in this country.
This is the one thing that scares me about CPAC, some of the radio talkers, and some of the the tea party types. Open mouth, insert foot, study and think later. These are the same folks who vilify Bush, call Tim Pawlenty a RINO, beat up Scott Brown for not being Jim DeMint, see Pat Robertson as the leader of evangelicals, and select Ron Paul as their preferred candidate.
There are so many open-minded and brilliant people of sober, learned, and conservative persuasion- including Ron Radosh. But the guys who get quoted all the time are goofballs like Port.
“Harvard grads, based on what we know about grade inflation, are really more elitist than intellectual.”
One has every right to be suspicious concerning a softer science Harvard credential. The odds are decent that it leaves much to be desire. Harvey Mansfield candidly admits that he was finally compelled to give his students unearned grades. Barack Obama is obviously a shabbily ill educated man. The American public is increasingly starting to realize it.
Perhaps this is a bit of topic, pehaps it’s a useful thought..you decide. Years ago I was pondering the various “isms” and which was a best model for societal organization. A thought occurred to me which I almost dismissed out of hand as simplistic and obvious after the fact. The thought is this: communism is alive and well in the U. S. A., it’s everywhere, it always has been and further it’s never going to go away. It’s called the family, you know, Mom & Dad and kids….The family certainly operates on the principle of from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs. This realization threw me for a loop, i.e. how to reconcile this perhaps correct observation with the fact that said family may prefer to carry on their extrafamilial affairs in a capitalist environment. As I said earlier this is a simple observation and perhaps you would be tempted to discard it as was I. However, it seems somehow relevant to me, so I throw it out there not intended as sophistry but as a perhaps useful observation for your perusal and rumination. Perhaps someone wiser than me can do something useful with this observation.
Great points, Prof. Radosh.
So Chavez shouldnt have been criticized for waving a Chomskey book around at the UN General Assembly? He is just a well read leader, with broad intellectual interests.
25. Joseph,
HELLO? I thought pointing out the OBVIOUS that we ALL KNOW BY NOW (except for the hope-n-changers who still live under a rock/bridge) with a generically embarrassingly benign ‘gotchya’ was Ron’s point which I agree with?
Really, Chile. Pay attention to your betters.
I understand your point Ron, but what if someone had a cash of Neo Nazi, White Nationalism, and David Duke books.
Would you be making the same defense? Would the Left be taking the high road? Isnt there indeed merit to the charge?
Hillary and O were/are a big fan of Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals.
I don’t think I have to not criticize.
Criticism is a critical part of any political medium.
I’d disagree and think we need to STEP UP on the rhetoric and bog
down the administration in the same quagmire that the dem’s enjoyed
doing with the Republicans previously. Tit for tat, makes me happy.