Roger L. Simon

Iran, Honduras: Is Obama "objectively pro-fascist"?

I don’t know much about Honduras, but I do know something about Iran.  And Obama’s bizarre behavior, taking days to come to the conclusion any decent person knew immediately, indeed other world leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy had demonstrated as much  – that there were very clear good and evil sides in the Iranian election, even though the good wasn’t perfect.  (Is it ever?)  So when I heard that our President had joined Chavez and Castro in condemnation of the supposed coup in Honduras, this time with immediacy, I felt a tightening in the gut.  Chavez particularly was on the side of Ahmadinejad in the recent  Iranian brutality.

This was a side I didn’t want to be on, didn’t want our country on.  I heard many suspicious things about  Zelaya, the booted Honduran president, including allegations of drug ties. Also, he was running for succor to the UN, the very organization just weeks ago I had personally seen embrace Ahmadinejad in Geneva. So when I read this message from a Honduran on The Corner, I wasn’t surprised.

Obama has strange friends.  He equivocates and equalizes in disturbing ways.  Is he “objectively pro-fascist” as George Orwell memorably wrote in his famous essay “Pacifism and the War“?

I give you Eric Arthur Blair.  Make of it what you will.  For me, the word “pacifism” could be replaced by some coinage (it’s too late here in LA for me to come up with one, if I could anyway) that encapsulates Obamaism in its supposedly even-handed international  policy: “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.”

UPDATE:  Eugene Volokh points out that Orwell changed his mind on this matter – something most of us do at one time or another.  The question is when were we right?