Barack Obama, the most far-left major party candidate to ever run for the presidency, is now attempting to reposition himself towards the center. However, his words occasionally betray him and reveal to voters his not-so-hidden nature. Just recently, at a campaign stop in Georgia, he shared with his audience yet another method by which they could better themselves. Previously, he called for citizens to devote more time to public service, but on July 8 he offered linguistic counsel:
I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about “we need to have English only.” They want to pass a law “we want just, we want English only.” Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that, but, but, understand this, instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language. You know, it’s embarrassing, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here. They all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say is “Merci beaucoup.”
The would-be uniter’s venture into self-improvement offends at a multitude of levels. To begin with, it reveals him to be completely ignorant of history because Europe is doomed economically and France in particular: “[their] fiscal freedom and government size scores are extraordinarily weak. As in many other European social democracies, government spending and tax rates are exceptionally high to support an extensive welfare state.”
What embarrasses mightily is that Barack Obama can get this close to becoming president without comprehending that, in the twenty-first century, the French and their language are completely irrelevant. The Gauls ceased being significant in June 1940 and their culture should be the last thing our children study. Most of us — aside from a few recalcitrant pseudo-intellectuals in our major cities who bitterly cling to affected moral superiority, berets, cloves, and defeatism — realize that true humiliation is not to be found here but in the land of those who collapsed at Sedan, constructed Vichy France, gave birth to post-modernism, and support a powerful political party that advances socialist principles.
Furthermore, the argument Obama put forth at the rally was a non-sequitur. His conclusion is devoid of logic and estranged from rational premise. His instructions produce questions rather than answers. Why should immigrants bother to learn English if every American will eventually learn Spanish? Conversely, since he agrees that immigrants should master English, why then should indigènes master Spanish? Also, is not his focus on Europe a bit provincial? In lieu of current events and population trends, would it not be more advantageous for pupils to become fluent in Chinese, Hindi, or Arabic? Comprehending those languages is what will matter in the years to come.
Moreover, English rather than Spanish is the predominant language of the internet. If the Democratic nominee wants to assist students he should recommend their becoming excellent practitioners of English as opposed to memorizing verb conjugations which will offer them little assistance in the global marketplace.
Should Obama wish to benefit immigrants, he might initiate yet another flip-flop and encourage new arrivals to become fluent in America’s official tongue, as “for our nation’s newest residents, if you learn English — and the sooner the better — you’re statistically much more likely to have a more prosperous life. In fact, immigrants can raise their earnings by well over 20% if their ability to speak English is raised from ‘not well’ to ‘very well.’ Meanwhile, improving English language skills dramatically narrows the wage gap between recent immigrants and native-born Americans — by 16-18% for males and 6-10% for females.”
Most Hispanic parents understand this and want what is best for their kids. They are not La Raza activists and rightly intuit that acquiring English enhances their children’s prospects. Of course, in reality their needs have nothing to do with Senator Obama’s pontifications. The purpose of his lecture was not to empower, but to place guilt upon the shoulders of his countrymen.
As with many leftists, Senator Obama deems our nation deficient in a myriad of ways. He gazes out at his fellow citizens and what he sees fills him with shame. In his mind, it is our duty to mirror the behavior of others and work to reconfigure ourselves so that we become worthy of his leadership and person — despite his not being bilingual. The candidate’s rebuke illustrates the man’s true feelings for his country and does so more accurately than anything he baritoned out in a canned speech on “patriotism.”
Reproofs like Obama’s are ubiquitous among pseudo-liberals, and are but a slight variation on the guilt-based reasoning which forever mars their political speech. Regardless of situation, Americans are always in the wrong and inherently responsible when tragedy occurs. It is we, via our greed and ostentatious wealth, who brought about climate change. It is we who now destroy the earth with our very breath. The United States brings about third-world suffering whenever its citizens acquire products, as doing so deprives others from having them. The United States is the fount from which the world’s sexism, racism, and homophobia spring … etc, etc.
Thus, when a person migrates to these shores and initially finds it a challenge to communicate, it is not his problem but our own. The immigrant’s travails are never his fault. It is we who must adapt to him rather than the other way around. Believing that we have the right to carry on as we once did is a crime against diversity and community. Citizens must labor to celebrate the traditions and habits of newcomers even if some immigrants are only too happy to be rid of their old countries. In America, everyone must be cuddled and accommodated except members of the indigenous population — as we are the ones who have sinned.
The last thing our leaders should do is privilege their own. They identify with strangers rather than kin – advancing our needs violates their conception of social justice. It is no longer a rational assumption that citizens should determine with whom they want to share their country and by what manner they interact. In 2008, common sense is deemed as arcane as a powdered wig. Maudlin pity and fake compassion are society’s new trump cards. Politics has become the art of therapism rather than “the art of the possible.”
At this point, the extent to which Senator Obama understands the world along with his fellow human beings is uncertain. His dearth of perception is making it increasingly difficult to fathom how he can continue to be so highly esteemed by the electorate. Many of his non-scripted utterances are about as lucid as those mumbled by the characters in the film Dude, Where’s My Car?
In the final analysis, it is a pity that France’s election was held last year. Should it have coincided with our own then perhaps Senator Obama could have run and won the allegiance of a nation more in keeping with his tastes.
A victory overseas would have solved two problems. It would have allayed his personal discomfort while also freeing us of his presence.