Monte Kuligowski
Are we getting closer to understanding what makes Obama tick?
By Monte Kuligowski
In retrospect, Barack Obama's afterthought in 2006 of tossing his hat into the 2008 presidential race was both bodacious and harebrained. Then-Senator Obama lacked the experience to be president — he admitted that himself. A few days after his election to the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama was asked by a reporter if he would run for the White House in 2008. He responded:
You know, I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people.
The damage being caused by the inexperience factor is out there for everyone to see (and feel, economically). But there is more than just inexperience.
Equally important is the Obama substance factor. If the revelations about Obama were ever to merit the attention of the "mainstream" media and become general knowledge, he would be finished in an instant. Mr. Obama and his people knew that. They nervously still know that.
With so much to hide and rewrite, Barry Soetoro's candidacy for president was perhaps the most reckless move in the history of American politics.
Today's dilemma is that the administration and its lapdog media must keep the fiction believable. But as time goes by, that's more than a difficult task — it's ultimately impossible. And Dinesh D'Souza isn't making the task any easier.
D'Souza proposes a comprehensive theory into which most of the formerly disconnected oddities of Obama fit. The Obama oddities happen to personify the ideological dreams from Obama's father — Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (see "How Obama Thinks" and The Roots of Obama's Rage). Below is a short list of the Obama oddities in question form:
Why would Obama be drawn to Saul Alinsky community organizing? Why would Obama be drawn to Rev. Wright's church of the Unjust America? Why would Obama enjoy membership in Wright's church for 20 plus years? Why would Obama be the first president to skip the Military Inaugural Ball? Why would Obama send back the bust of Winston Churchill (a priceless gift to America from the British)? Why would Obama choose an Arabic TV network for his first formal interview as president? Why would Obama snub the Israeli Prime Minister? Why would Obama snub the King of Norway after receiving the Nobel peace award? Why would Obama publicly speak out against America while abroad? Why would Obama say that one of his "responsibilities" as president is "to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear?" Why would Obama speak sarcastically about Christian Scripture? Why would Obama skip the national day of prayer? Why would Obama subsidize Brazilian oil exploration while banning offshore drilling in the U.S.? Why would Obama say we could no longer drive our SUVs, eat as much as we want and keep our thermostats at 72 degrees? Why would Obama say his energy policies would necessarily bankrupt the U.S. coal industry?
Prior to D'Souza's analysis and conclusion that Obama carries the anti-colonialism dreams from his father commentators were hard-pressed to explain the words and actions of the enigmatic president. Why would a progressive, for example, avow to defend Islam; a religion not exactly in accord with liberalism?
It's easy to reject the theory that Obama sees the world in terms of the oppressors and the oppressed, the exploiters and the exploited, but it's not so easy to provide an alternative theory to connect the scattered dots.
The argument against the anti-colonialism theory goes something like this: Others share similar views with Obama and they are just crazy liberals, not anti-colonialists harboring resentment against America, et al. Paul Krugman advocates for more "stimulus" funny money — so, "does this mean Paul Krugman has a 'Kenyan, anti-colonialist worldview'?" Likewise, not all who support Obama's energy policies are anti-colonialists trapped in time warps because of revolutionary fathers from third world countries.
Ramesh Ponnuru's blog post at the National Review derides D'Souza's theory and concludes: "I think that it is a mistake to imagine that Obama is a deeply mysterious figure, as opposed to a conventional liberal. He is no stranger than contemporary liberalism is."
Well, we don't have to "imagine" that Obama is a deeply mysterious figure (oddly, no one even knows, inter alia, the courses Obama took in college or his grades). And, as strange as "contemporary liberalism" is, Obama is a tad stranger.
It's important to grasp that D'Souza doesn't argue that one has to be an anti-colonialist in order to be a leftwing environmentalist. One doesn't have to be an anti-colonialist in order to be a leftwing racist, and so on. Liberalism has many tenets and the various aspects of liberalism overlap.
Neither does D'Souza argue that Obama is only an anti-colonialist.
It's just that an anti-colonialism worldview helps to explain so much. Such as Obama's snubbing of a European king and bowing down to a Saudi king. Muslim countries are in the class with those which have been exploited and oppressed by the evil European colonialists (and, of course, Obama has a great deal of respect for Islam because of his childhood). Likewise, Mr. Obama's tax and kill energy policy may be motivated more by the redistributive fairness of anti-colonialism than global warming purism. The fact that Obama is okay with oil production by third world countries tends to negate any sincerity to the religion of man-made climate change.
The best evidence that D'Souza is on to something is the prompt reaction of the establishment media. A theory that gets to the substance of the real Obama cannot be tolerated. The "mainstream" media will not stand idle as Toto tugs at the wizard's curtain.
© Monte Kuligowski
October 6, 2010
In retrospect, Barack Obama's afterthought in 2006 of tossing his hat into the 2008 presidential race was both bodacious and harebrained. Then-Senator Obama lacked the experience to be president — he admitted that himself. A few days after his election to the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama was asked by a reporter if he would run for the White House in 2008. He responded:
You know, I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people.
The damage being caused by the inexperience factor is out there for everyone to see (and feel, economically). But there is more than just inexperience.
Equally important is the Obama substance factor. If the revelations about Obama were ever to merit the attention of the "mainstream" media and become general knowledge, he would be finished in an instant. Mr. Obama and his people knew that. They nervously still know that.
With so much to hide and rewrite, Barry Soetoro's candidacy for president was perhaps the most reckless move in the history of American politics.
Today's dilemma is that the administration and its lapdog media must keep the fiction believable. But as time goes by, that's more than a difficult task — it's ultimately impossible. And Dinesh D'Souza isn't making the task any easier.
D'Souza proposes a comprehensive theory into which most of the formerly disconnected oddities of Obama fit. The Obama oddities happen to personify the ideological dreams from Obama's father — Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (see "How Obama Thinks" and The Roots of Obama's Rage). Below is a short list of the Obama oddities in question form:
Why would Obama be drawn to Saul Alinsky community organizing? Why would Obama be drawn to Rev. Wright's church of the Unjust America? Why would Obama enjoy membership in Wright's church for 20 plus years? Why would Obama be the first president to skip the Military Inaugural Ball? Why would Obama send back the bust of Winston Churchill (a priceless gift to America from the British)? Why would Obama choose an Arabic TV network for his first formal interview as president? Why would Obama snub the Israeli Prime Minister? Why would Obama snub the King of Norway after receiving the Nobel peace award? Why would Obama publicly speak out against America while abroad? Why would Obama say that one of his "responsibilities" as president is "to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear?" Why would Obama speak sarcastically about Christian Scripture? Why would Obama skip the national day of prayer? Why would Obama subsidize Brazilian oil exploration while banning offshore drilling in the U.S.? Why would Obama say we could no longer drive our SUVs, eat as much as we want and keep our thermostats at 72 degrees? Why would Obama say his energy policies would necessarily bankrupt the U.S. coal industry?
Prior to D'Souza's analysis and conclusion that Obama carries the anti-colonialism dreams from his father commentators were hard-pressed to explain the words and actions of the enigmatic president. Why would a progressive, for example, avow to defend Islam; a religion not exactly in accord with liberalism?
It's easy to reject the theory that Obama sees the world in terms of the oppressors and the oppressed, the exploiters and the exploited, but it's not so easy to provide an alternative theory to connect the scattered dots.
The argument against the anti-colonialism theory goes something like this: Others share similar views with Obama and they are just crazy liberals, not anti-colonialists harboring resentment against America, et al. Paul Krugman advocates for more "stimulus" funny money — so, "does this mean Paul Krugman has a 'Kenyan, anti-colonialist worldview'?" Likewise, not all who support Obama's energy policies are anti-colonialists trapped in time warps because of revolutionary fathers from third world countries.
Ramesh Ponnuru's blog post at the National Review derides D'Souza's theory and concludes: "I think that it is a mistake to imagine that Obama is a deeply mysterious figure, as opposed to a conventional liberal. He is no stranger than contemporary liberalism is."
Well, we don't have to "imagine" that Obama is a deeply mysterious figure (oddly, no one even knows, inter alia, the courses Obama took in college or his grades). And, as strange as "contemporary liberalism" is, Obama is a tad stranger.
It's important to grasp that D'Souza doesn't argue that one has to be an anti-colonialist in order to be a leftwing environmentalist. One doesn't have to be an anti-colonialist in order to be a leftwing racist, and so on. Liberalism has many tenets and the various aspects of liberalism overlap.
Neither does D'Souza argue that Obama is only an anti-colonialist.
It's just that an anti-colonialism worldview helps to explain so much. Such as Obama's snubbing of a European king and bowing down to a Saudi king. Muslim countries are in the class with those which have been exploited and oppressed by the evil European colonialists (and, of course, Obama has a great deal of respect for Islam because of his childhood). Likewise, Mr. Obama's tax and kill energy policy may be motivated more by the redistributive fairness of anti-colonialism than global warming purism. The fact that Obama is okay with oil production by third world countries tends to negate any sincerity to the religion of man-made climate change.
The best evidence that D'Souza is on to something is the prompt reaction of the establishment media. A theory that gets to the substance of the real Obama cannot be tolerated. The "mainstream" media will not stand idle as Toto tugs at the wizard's curtain.
© Monte Kuligowski
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
