Obama as Humpty Dumpty (redux)
We all know Humpty Dumpty as the unfortunate protagonist of the ancient nursery rhyme:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses,
And all the king’s men,
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
But Humpty has other claims to fame. For instance, he’s a character in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, and as such, he featured (much less famously) in this year-old post of mine about Obama.
I was reminded by all of this by a comment by “E” in a recent thread about Obama, to wit:
More worrisome than Obama’s ignorance about geography and culture is his ignorance about history. He seems to recognize no reality and no narrative but the one he creates, with the willing collusion of the mainstream media.
This is where we’ve gotten to – from a lying President who manipulated the meaning of the word “is,” to a self-centered, self-important twit who thinks the meaning of the word “is” is whatever he says it is.
The real problem is, he may be right. In a world where perception is reality, those of us on the side of logic and history are getting shut down by a delusional mob with their fingers in their ears, chanting “la la la la la!”
So once again it seems highly appropriate to quote the great Humpty. With the passage of time, Obama has only grown to sound more like the famous eggman (or is it the Walrus? koo koo kachoo) rather than less. Here’s the relevant dialogue from the Lewis Carroll work, in which Humpty arrogantly tells Alice he can manipulate words and make them do whatever he wants:
“[T]hat shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents ”” ”
“Certainly,” said Alice.
“And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!”
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,'” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t””till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,'” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean””neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master””that’s all.”
[NOTE: In that post from a year ago, I was discussing Obama’s claim that he wasn’t really a liberal. Sounds pretty funny now, doesn’t it?
It’s interesting to revisit it now, I think:
When asked if he’s comfortable with the liberal label, [Obama] says, “This is what I would call old politics. This is the stuff we’re trying to get rid of . . . Those old categories don’t work, and they’re preventing us from solving problems.”
Here is another interesting indication of Obama’s belief in the power of mere words. It works on two levels. The first is that he is very eager to distance himself from the label “liberal” while continuing to advocate the policies. The second is that he asserts that it’s these labels themselves that get in the way of “solving problems,” not the ideological differences behind the labels.
Are disagreements actually real to Obama? Or does he think that just changing the “dialogue”””and the terminology””would be enough to solve them (including, of course, our disagreements with the likes of Iran)?…
At the time, Obama was quoted as having said, in answer to accusations that he’s a liberal, “Let me tell you something. There’s nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics. It’s common sense. . . . There’s nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has health care.”
This seems even more ironic with the passage of a year. It was only two months later, in June of 2008, that Obama threw out his public financing pledge in favor of running the most expensive campaign in history. And there’s something very liberal about making sure everybody has health care—especially if you’re willing to break the bank to do so, and have the government be in charge rather than the private sector.
The underpinnings of Obama’s reasoning were illogical, anyway. Even if those particular two things were not liberal, and even had he actually stuck to both instead of tossing out the first, it would not prove whether or not he was a liberal. It’s the aggregate of a candidate’s policies that indicate such things, particularly once elected.
Although, come to think of it, maybe Obama was right. He’s no liberal—he’s a Leftist.]
“And there’s something very liberal about making sure everybody has health care–especially if you’re willing to break the bank to do so”
I’ve debated many of them on this and I think they really want forced equality in healthcare more than everyone to have it. No one having it might work too. 🙂
Here’s Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”. Not much has changed since when he wrote it.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
I think Oblio would also do a good job of explaining the link between revolutionary ethics and the increasing imprecision of language.
“The real problem is, he may be right. In a world where perception is reality, those of us on the side of logic and history are getting shut down by a delusional mob with their fingers in their ears, chanting ‘la la la la la!'”
See this post at Dr. Sanity for a broader discussion of exactly this point (Title: Post-Modernism and the Corruption of Truth)
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
I don’t even know that I’d call it arrogance, because I’m not sure Obama fully understands the difference between narrative and reality. God knows I’ve met a lot of his supporters that clearly don’t, and when you think about it, why should he? His first job was in a field that literally consists entirely of the interpretation of words- law- and his political career based on the use of narratives has been a smashing success, so long as you define “success” as “winning elections”.
That’s why he defines people’s objections to the specifics of his policies as “the politics of fear” or what have you- he just sees them as competing, destructive narratives. And from that perspective, he’s right. From this worldview, the specifics- or conflicts between words and deeds, for that matter- *actually don’t matter*. There’s no cognitive dissonance because the narrative is the only truly relevant part.
Obama’s given reasoning for essentially nationalizing health care in this country appears to be: “We need to spend trillions on government controlled health care in order to avoid spending trillions on further stimulating the economy or we will have to spend more trillions to cover the trillions we have already spent.” Humpty’s got nothin’ on this Dude!
Leftist indeed Neo
Foreign Minister Steinmeier described him as a visionary the other day. He didn’t mention what Obama had been smoking or snorting to bring on the visions. Some Euros are a bit ticked off about his push to get Turkey in the EU. Obama may yet trip on his own words–if the press would accurately report them.
C’mon Neo, don’t be shy, you can say it…”Obama is a Marxist”. Now rinse and repeat.
The Left cannot make an argument or even carry on a conversation without Humpty-Dumptyism.
I say they don’t own the dictionary.
FALSANI: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.
2004 Interview with Chicago Sun Times Religion Columnist
Most Christians define sin as being out of alignment with God’s values or Christ’s values. Most Christians, at least when speaking in public, do not define sin solely in terms of their personal values.
Of course I never took Obama seriously as a Christian considering the quasi-racist church he attended and his description of his conversion which somehow failed to mention God, Christ, love or forgiveness. As I read Obama’s account he converted to Black Liberationism, not Christianity.
Anyway, after Obama left Trinity United on account of Rev. Wright, he said he was looking for a new church. I wonder how that search has progressed.
Here’s a prediction that if Obama ever finds a new church, it will be Unitarian.
Much as we might like to obscure the fact, words DO have meaning. Case in point: “‘Charge for the guns,’ he said.”
I’m quite convinced that the President suffers, in some form, from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, having closely studied this pattern in a person formerly known as my wife.
“a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.”
“The narcissist is described as turning inward for gratification rather than depending on others and as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power and prestige”
Still feeling used by that flower gag.
I have never been shy of calling Obama a Marxist. From the very beginning, as soon as I read enough articles about his background I knew what I was looking at. I’ve never shied away from the truth. If others are reluctant to call him that, well, I can to a certain extent understand their reluctance. They have rules of evidence I don’t apply and use in this case. The information is sufficient enough to infer his Marxism. Also, having once been one, I can recognize the “tells” in that background.
“He’s no liberal–he’s a Leftist.”
That’s still being too kind to him…
I have one favorite nursery rhyme my dad taught me as a youth. If one looks at the U.S. as Little Miss Muffet, and those who would harm us as spiders……..
Little Miss Muffet
Sat on a tuffet
Eating her curds and whey
Along came a spider
Who sat down beside her
And she beat it to death with her spoon
Fred,
I traveled with my girls to VA and after the girls were asleep and my parents and I watched the news, I saw the changes Fidel – I mean Obama is making with respect to Cuba and I thought…. Obama is turning everything upside down..
Fred – you are right. He is hardcore – not just a liberal leaning guy.
In the late 70’s Carter did what he did.
Now Obama will do what he will do. But I could argue it’s a more dangerous world. I hope and pray we can survive this Carter squared era.
I have never been shy of calling Obama a Marxist.
I know we’ve been around this mulberry bush before, but how is Obama a Marxist and how is it useful to call him one?
He doesn’t run around quoting Marx and Engels or calling for the overthrow of capitalism. He claims to believe to some degree in free markets.
He is certainly influenced by Marxism, as are most college-educated people — particularly those from the ivy league –and most liberal Democrats.
So either the term Marxist is watered-down to the point of meaning little more than “from the left” or it means something stricter which is hard to prove. In either case, labeling Obama a Marxist in most American conversation sounds crazy and IMO causes more trouble than it’s worth.
A fellow shrink, former liberal. I read often but don’t comment.
In my work, I pay close attention to the shape of the narrative, to find out what the Big Story is in which the patient lives. Here’s the left, liberal, progressive story. To me, it explains and predicts.
All people are equally good and talented. But some bad people have acquired status and wealth and power disproportionate to their number or merit. These are oppressors. The rest, who have been cheated out of what they should have and be in a world of equal merit, are victims. Two kinds of people: oppressors and victims.
Both of these come in groups. Look around. Which groups have had what they call “success”: white, male, Christian and Jew, American and Euro, business-oriented, self-defending, consumers.
Which groups have had less so-called “success”: people of color, women, other religions, Asian-African-Indigenous, traditional small plots or commerce, etc.
The whole point of politics is to return the world to its proper equal balance. So it is virtuous and just to use the power of the state and the instruments of culture to deprive the oppressor groups of their gains and grant them to the victim groups.
Multiculturalism, feminism, redistribtutionism, transnationalism, pacifism, secularism and environmentalism are the ways to do this.
Obama is the high priest of this story. Expect no surprises.
Huxley,
The key to all of Marxist thought is redistribution. Expropriation and redistribution.
The State ultimately owns everything and it decides what you can keep. The more sophisticated among them understand that if you take too much you destroy the incentives to produce in the first place.
Obama understands this, to a certain extent.
Also, no one openly quotes Marx or calls himself a Marxist or socialist. Back in the late Seventies and on through the Eighties when I was very much a Marxist I was repeatedly admonished to cease calling myself a Marxist or socialist. I was told to call myself a “progressive” or a liberal. I am not making this shit up. It’s entirely true. Deception is at the core of the cultural Marxist program. Unless you’ve been in the heart of it, Huxley, you cannot understand this.
I understand your discomfort and disagreement. I just don’t agree that your take on it is the correct one. You think that being oblique about Obama’s ideological moorings will be advantageous? Maybe around people who have been well indoctrinated into the anti-anti-Communist mocking of “McCarthyists.”
For the record, I refused every time to hew to the admonitions of other Leftists to cover up what I was with other labels. Instinctively I recoil at such dishonesty. We should be clear about our ideas. What’s more, if the Gramscian Marxists are so given over to being deceptive in order to win people over, how are they any different from Muslims who practice taqiyya?
Fred — I was involved in leftist politics, but never at the center.
I got to see some of the leaders and the committed up close, though I didn’t know them well enough to know what they really thought in their heart of hearts.
Still I doubt most of them thought to themselves, “I’m a Marxist but I can’t let that out,” anymore than LBJ did when he launched his Great Society programs.
Though I understand a few did.
We live in a nation with progressive taxation, i.e. redistribution of wealth. Do we live in a Marxist state?
huxley,
I used to be o.k. with the idea of progressive taxation, and I would argue a good case for it around my libertarian acquaintances who wanted a flat tax.
And then I found out that the flat tax actually works in those countries that have tried it. Also, by the late Eighties I finally understood that there was something to the Laffer Curve that I laughed at when I was an undergraduate and not a Reagan supporter (I was an economics major).
LBJ’s “Great Society” actually contributed to the destruction of the black family and black economic prospects.
As for the level of self-reflection done by Leftists… look, my minor in college was philosophy. Just because I was interested in where ideas come from and how they weave their logic into the way people perceive the world. Then, when I was a Jesuit seminarian, after my two years of novitiate, I did two years of philosophy studies at Loyola of Chicago, just so I could pursue my interests in ideas and in eventually having a solid background for systematic theology some day. I’m in the habit of being curious about the provenance of ideas.
It would seem your Leftist friends were not at all interested in where their “progressive” ideas came from. I know where they came from, because I wanted to know. I knew exactly what I thought about socioeconomic reality way back in those days, so I understood that I was fundamentally a Marxist. Now, whether or not these people I knew and you knew (in your own circles) were conscious of what exactly they were, there is still a point in the history of ideas where what they deeply believe showed up on the scene.
It is, to my changed way of thinking, criminal of the government to think that it has an absolute right to your property and income and then think it knows best in deciding what and how much you can keep. I’m not wealthy, but I do alright. I don’t begrudge anyone if they earn really big money. I say go for it. I want to see everyone succeed. The one thing that will keep most Americans (and any people) mostly poor is the attitude and policy that the government has a right to your property and fruits of your labor. In the name of social and economic planning. There are more than enough examples that this is a failed ideology. For anyone to think that somehow “we’ll get it right next time” – thinking that it’s mainly a problem of “fine-tuning” – I have to say that they fundamentally do not get it.
huxley, the state is not Marxist; the progressive tax code reflects the influence of Marxist thinkers on the political class over the past 90 years. The tax code was never steeply progressive before the 1930’s, I believe beginning with the First New Deal. (Though I am sure Hoover, the Great Planner, did his share of damage before FDR, “the Laughing Boy of Hyde Park,” got his shot.)
My point is that being influenced by Marx is not the same as being a Marxist.
Another point: I attend a progressive Episcopalian church. All but a handful of us voted for Obama. They voted for Obama out of a Social Gospel sentimentality and the Social Gospel preceded Marxism by decades.
Conclusion: Labeling Obama and his supporters Marxist is more a kind of name-calling than an accurate or adequate response.
huxley, I’m with you that wild name-calling is not going to help the side.
I think you have your dates mixed up. The worldwide sensation of Marxism preceded the emergence of the Social Gospel in the US by some five decades. Unquestionably, Marxist analysis and propaganda informed the folks who developed the Social Gospel. The groups that embraced the Social Gospel turned out to be incredibly vulnerable to recruitment to outright Communism. I’m thinking here of the Corliss Lamonts and Michael Straights, as well as Rexford Tugwell, Harry Hopkins, and Alger Hiss. Young Evan Thomas at Newsweek (“We’re All Socialists Now”) didn’t fall far from the tree of old Norman Thomas, who started life as a well-meaning Presbyterian minister.
My church is like yours, and we might suspect that our ‘Pisky co-religionists would on average make poor security risks.
You also agree above, that a lot of people at elite universities are taught Marxist analysis and concepts without necessarily being aware that they are being indoctrinated. They are de facto Marxists whether they would describe themselves that way or no. I, like Fred, also knew kids in college who were aware that they were Marxists, but would not let it out…to remain “viable.” My son knows rich students today who proclaim themselves to be Marxists, and they are of course in love with Obama.
I do see a difference between so-called Christian Socialists and hard core Marxist Socialists: the Christian Socialists need someone else to provide the muscle.
The thread on Frank Marshall Davis, and the extended discussions with his son, reminded me of the following Lewis Carroll quote:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
(referring here to the “institutional support” discussion.)
in full:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’
oblio — You’re right. I did get my dates mixed up.
But again, being informed by Marxism is not the same as being a Marxist. Also preceding Marx and Engels were the utopian socialists.
There is a natural affinity between Christianity and socialism. The early Christians, as recorded in Acts, lived communally. Those in monastic life continue to do so. However, this does not make such Christians Marxists.
I stand by my claim that it is neither accurate nor useful to label people or groups Marxist unless one can make a very explicit argument to that effect.
Huxley,
Obama’s mother was explicitly a Marxist, and his father was a member of the Communist party in Kenya. In his first autobiography he openly admits that his mother was the most powerful influence in his life. He also expresses admiration for his biological father’s political and economic views.
Now, this is not taking into consideration the other people who have influenced his thinking later on. Clearly, there is a connection here to Marxist ideology. But, because you don’t have actual, material proof that he calls himself a Marxist I am to refrain from calling him this? So, what you are saying is that he is something else quite apart from the ideology of his parents he so admired?
I am trying to be respectful of your admonition towards me. Yet, I am still not convinced by your argument. I’m saying there is continuity, and you are saying that there is a break somewhere and a branching off into something else. I have heard it said that he may be described as a Fabian Socialist. That’s a reasonable conjecture, but Fabian Socialism is an intellectual branch that owes some of its language and analysis to Marxist cultural and economic critique.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, when he was head of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, influenced Pope John Paul II to condemn liberation theology for its being influenced by Marxism. There is plenty in the corpus of liberation theology that does indeed draw from Marxist analysis and critique of society, mixed in with biblical language. Ratzinger has a mind like a trap; he may be the most formidable cleric in our world today in terms of intellect and training. Obama was comfortable with the liberation theology practiced at Trinity Church with Rev. Jeremiah Wright as pastor. That theology is much less nuanced and more militant than that of Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Gutierrez, and Juan Luis Segundo, S.J. It’s more strident and actually primitive.
I compose these words as one who is very well read in philosophy and theology, even if I left the Society of Jesus after four years, never going beyond my M.A. in Philosophy at Loyola of Chicago. During college and later on I voraciously read books and articles probing revisionist Marxist thought and the various liberation theologies in the Catholic Church and in Protestantism.
I have been trained to understand the continuity of thought and the provenance of ideas that a human being carries around with him. I can understand the currents that a human being swims in.
Therefore, my bar of evidence is set lower than yours. Again, I can understand where you are coming from. We just see things differently and reason them out differently.
huxley, Fred’s point about the continuity of thought deserves some discussion. Your posts suggests you think that we can distinguish between various flavors of socialism, and indeed we can: Utopian, Christian, Marxist, National, and many others. We can distinguish between various sub-flavors of Marxist Socialism: Democratic Socialism vs. Communism. We can distinguish between sub-sub-flavors of Communism: Bolshevism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, ad nauseum.
The problem is, there isn’t necessarily a clear bright line where one clearly ends and the other clearly begins. Where one falls at any given moment is perhaps more a matter of attitude and mood, and there really isn’t any reason that you can’t embrace more than one simultaneously. Witness old Norman Thomas, labeled by his defenders as a Christian Socialist, who nevertheless ran as the standard bearer for the clearly Marxist Socialism Party 6 times.
In our own times, we see the edifying spectacle of the former Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, daughter of a civil rights pioneer, who proclaims herself both a Muslim and a Christian. An Episcopalian, natch, and formerly in charge of faith formation for the Seattle diocese. The Onion couldn’t dream this stuff up.
You may say that she is deeply confused, and I say, a lot of them are deeply confused, and likely to be on one side or the other of your logical distinctions at any given moment. It is not hard to believe that someone might be both a Marxist and Christian Socialist at the same time if they didn’t focus much on the distinction, for example if they happened to be feeling righteously angry and materialistic.
Fred testifies to his experience of Communists trying to subvert the Catholic Church. Trinity United Church of Christ is objectively National Socialist, if anything, based on its stated philosophy.
huxley, there is some burden on you to explain the ironclad distinctions in real life and observable behavior. How do you tell them apart? I don’t think it can be done with any certainty.
I agree that it is bad business to badmouth Marxists from the pulpit of an Episcopal Church: you will be criticizing half the family of most of the congregants. They will take it as a personal affront.
I’m saying there is continuity, and you are saying that there is a break somewhere and a branching off into something else.
huxley, there is some burden on you to explain the ironclad distinctions in real life and observable behavior.
Fred, Oblio — When I can’t tell things apart, I don’t speak as though I can tell them apart.
You wish to call Obama a Marxist. Fine. The onus, therefore, is on you to support that distinction.
You have made the case that Obama has been around Marxists, an he has been influenced by Marxists and Marxist thought, but that still doesn’t make him a Marxist.
Gandhi was deeply influenced by the Gospels and he even claimed to be a Christian — as well as a Hindu, a Muslim, and a Buddhist.
Nonetheless, if you were to insist on labeling Gandhi a Christian you would not be taken seriously because that is very different from how people understand what it means to call someone a Christian.
Gee, huxley, what WOULD make Obama a Marxist in your eyes?
I am not arguing that Obama is a Marxist and only a Marxist beyond any doubt. Such a thing would be exceedingly rare in the real world. If you need a person to make a public affirmation before you believe it, we will be waiting awhile longer yet before broad market politicians will embrace that label.
I am arguing that Obama is Marxist to some degree, but not exclusively–more than 0% and less than 100%. I suspect,, but the evidence suggests rather than proves, that there is more Marxism in Obama’s thinking rather than less.
I am arguing that when it is hard to discriminate between Marxist and non-Marxist socialists, when there is no “bright line” separating the, you are going to get both “false positives” and “false negatives.”
Let’s also be clear that saying someone is Marxist is not identical to calling them a Communist.
And I agree that it is bad business to throw around wild labels, not least of all because there is a narrative that is conventional wisdom among the bien-pensants that falsely accusing someone of being a Communist is a hundred times worse that actually being a Communist, illogical though that is. I think we need to attack that narrative at its foundation.
Gee, huxley, what WOULD make Obama a Marxist in your eyes?
Oblio — That’s not hard. The same things that would make someone a Christian in my eyes: declare oneself to be a Marxist, use Marxist language, quote from Marxist texts, and work in concert with other declared Marxists.
If you want to say that Obama is somewhere between 0% and 100% Marxist that’s fine with me, but it doesn’t have the same ring, does it?
huxley, you want a properly tolerant, Anglican way for us all to shift along together in the big tent, and like Good Queen Bess, you aren’t interested in trying to open windows into men’s souls. (I am referring to the rejection of the Lambeth Articles in 1595.) Your test is simple enough and practical enough for most daily wear. In principle, I am with you.
But I also worry about what people will affirm in the presence of coercion and an incentive for dissimulation. Using your religious analogy, would a Christian cease to be a Christian if he needed to deny it to escape persecution? This is not a mere hypothetical, as we have seen such persecution around the world in our lifetimes. It is not unknown in Jewish history.
Similarly, if I am a Marxist, but I know that affirming it is bad for business, why not lie about it? I knew kids in college who admitted doing that, and they are doing it to this day. History is full of Marxists lying, claiming not to be Marxists. In our experience in the West, there is very little evidence for actual Christians who publicly claim not to be Christians. So your analogy is not as good as it needs to be.
You can’t simply wish away the problem of the “false negatives.”
Oblio — I’m addressing the matter of labeling someone a Marxist.
You wish to claim that Obama is a Marxist pretending not to be a Marxist. Maybe so. But you can’t prove it and I don’t know either way.
In these circumstances I wouldn’t call Obama a Marxist. And I think if you do, you will lose credibility with ordinary folks once they realize, correctly, that you are concealing a certain amount of mindreading behind your claim.
huxley, I agree with you on your basic conclusion: it is counter-productive stand on the street corner and holler “Obama is a Marxist!” This would be true, at this moment in time, whether or not Obama actually is a “Marxist.”
The question I am arguing is how does one tell that a person has reached such a level of Marxist orientation that one must conclude that such and such a person is a Marxist and can properly label him that way. We went through this with Castro, who denied he was a Communist until the day he proclaimed that he was and always had been.
I don’t think your rule is any help at all for dealing with these “false negatives.” Beyond that, you are confusing what one may say to the public (and we mustn’t frighten the old ladies and children), and what we must consider for purposes of analysis. I am not making propaganda; there are Marxists, and many people like being Marxists.
I think Fred is sometimes a little to quick to attach labels. But Fred and I are alike in one way and perhaps different from you for occupational reasons: it is in the nature of our jobs to anticipate facts that are not yet in evidence in the face of vociferous disputation. To do this, we depend on pattern recognition and hypothesis. If we wait to read about something in the paper, we have already lost.
Again, I am talking about labeling someone Marxist, not anticipating a concealed Marxist.
Nor am I confused about what one must say to the public. It’s not a matter of frightening old ladies and children. I consider it a matter of intellectual clarity, even honesty.
Frankly you and Fred have lost some credibility with me to come to the end of this discussion and realize that you are both making guesses, however informed, that Obama is a Marxist.
If you want to make strategy on dealing with Obama, because Obama is likely a Marxist, that’s one thing, but I would prefer that you be clear it.
huxley, I don’t understand your point. If you re-read the thread, I have agreed with you at every turn that labeling Obama as Marxist is not helpful. You have agreed that a lot of people like Obama are influenced by Marxism.
Now you bring in questions of intellectual honesty and tell me I am losing credibility with you. I thought I was driving for clarity and intellectual honesty.
I moved the debate from public “labeling” to being able to “identify” a preponderance of Marxist influence in cases that are mixed and uncertain. The importance of being able to do that should be obvious. Are you now arguing that we may suspect that Obama (or anyone else) is a Marxist (a Marxist Socialist, perhaps of the democratic variety), but we must never say it?
I would say your last post is out of line.
Oblio,
I agree with you that I am too quick to attach labels. That does not mean I am reckless, and I suspect that huxley considers me reckless and intemperate. I have take great pains to back up my suppositions with facts from which reasonable inferences can be made.
This whole thing has been turned around such that Obonga gets the benefit of the doubt and we have to hold in our suspicions, however rational they may be. I don’t like the instincts which default to muzzling people like me just because we are not polite. Yeah, I’m not fit company for the kind of circles that would want the kind of proof that slick Leftists like Obama and his operatives would never give or let slip in enough crumbs to put the muffin back together again.
I know plenty of people who, from my contacts with them, are definitely Marxists but have told me in conversation that they avoid that identification as if it was the kiss of death. And that I should too.
As you say, in my profession I cannot afford to abide deception. Frequently I have to go on educated hunches. More often than not I am right. I don’t bat one thousand. No one in my business does.
So, Oblio and huxley, I am not offended by being sized up as a man who would never be invited to certain cocktail parties. I’m comfortable in my skin.
Obama swam in certain currents, by virtue of family, advisers and mentors (which he had no choice over), and then chose to continue to develop himself intellectually within that tradition again and again. I would also point out that Rashid Khalidi was a kind of Marxist Palestinian Islamist who kept himself close to Soviet and then Russian contacts, as well as his work for the PLO.
“Spread the wealth” – that’s pretty substantially Marxist/socialist core. That’s one of the many crumbs he’s dropped along the way.
I’ve got the general outline of the jigsaw puzzle, and quite a few of the details filled in.
Do we pass muster of the trail lawyer’s and prosecutor’s bar of “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?” Probably not, since the rules of evidence are quite strict in that world. But in a tort case I would argue my case well and more than likely win it on the preponderance of the evidence.
Fred, I would be pleased to have a cocktail with you anytime. That wasn’t a shot at you.
We agree on analysis, but perhaps not on tactics. You can add to your puzzle Obama’s comments on wanting to raise the capital gains tax for reasons of “fairness,” even if it reduces overall tax revenue.
There is plenty more to add, but I am tired of the exercise and don’t want to re-hash every Obama statement or action on the record. The total will never get to 100%; then again, it doesn’t have to.
huxley is stuck on “not labeling” for reasons of his own, which must be important to him. He will tell us someday, or maybe we’ll figure it out on our own. In the meantime, I will not cease from mental fight against the anti-Anti-communist narrative.
Pax, huxley? You aren’t the Adversary. I’m just back from a Good Friday service at my own extremely progressive Episcopal church, and I’m feeling more charitable than earlier this afternoon.
Oblio — You consider me confused and stuck. I consider you less credible than I did before.
What would you have me say? When someone tells me “X is Y” and I discover that that person is really saying is “I think X is Y for various reasons, but I can’t say for certain, yet I insist on saying ‘X is Y'” it’s not something I can take to the bank.
Then I get a arguments from your authority as a person with a certain kind of job, which I take as seriously as I did Mitsu’s similar arguments.
Now I have to run what you say through the filter: Oblio says “X is Y, but that may be just his opinion that he is overstating for reasons he considers important.”
That’s what I mean by less credible. And I say it will happen not only with me, but with other Americans, so in addition I don’t think it’s a good approach.
But sure, Pax. I don’t think it’s a big deal either. I still admire your depth of mind and your civil posting style.
These days I am having a small crisis of faith with my very progressive Episcopal church. We don’t have the Stations of the Cross. Instead we do a fancy Good Friday liturgy with candles in the dark and it’s great in its way, but I’m an ex-Catholic and I just wanted the Stations of the Cross, so I went to the Catholic church up the hill instead.
I sat with them for the 2-3pm vigil and they read through the Stations and we all sang “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom” each time and I thought, we are all criminals dying on our own individuals crosses praying that Jesus will remember us.
So yes, peace, dear Oblio.
Compare me to Mitsu? Ouch.
huxley, in the spirit of rapprochement, I want to tidy up a couple of things.
First, please don’t read sarcasm or a personal attack into words like “stuck” (none was intended) or the observation that I understood you to be confusing two different things in your argument as a statement that I consider you to be “confused.” I don’t. You are talking about something important, even if I am not sure that I completely understand it.
Second, my statement about how the work one does affects the way one processes information was not intended to be an appeal to authority–in this case, my own–and I don’t believe that it was. I wasn’t saying that Fred and I are correct in our analysis (not that our reasoning is identical!) because of the work we do; I was explaining how specific kinds of training can cause one to come to certain kinds of conclusions sooner than someone else. I have already identified the risks of “false positives.” The danger of jumping to conclusions stays very much in the front of my mind. I meant that comment to enable the discussion, not to end it.
Hi Oblio — Consider me a literal-minded person for whom the statements:
* Obama is a Marxist.
* Obama seems like a Marxist.
* Obama might be a Marxist.
* I think Obama is a Marxist.
Are all different and those differences are important to me.
In part I’d say that we are dealing with what semanticists call the the “is” of identity and perhaps we would be better off writing in E-Prime: English minus the verb “to be” in its various forms.
If only E-prime would help! Alas, the challenges of semiotics and the associated hermeneutics of interpretation are without end. I see what you what: I just don’t think it’s possible.
“what” s/b “want”
Or, as Liz Lemon says on 30 Rock, “what the what??!#”
Huxley, I think you should leave off worrying this bone.
Is hermanuetics like Dianetics? How chilling.
I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too.
I see what you what: I just don’t think it’s possible.
Doesn’t seem that difficult to me.
Just qualify your statement “Obama is a Marxist” in some fashion so I don’t mistake it as a fact I could look up in an encyclopedia or reference.
Seriously, Huxley? Where is this getting us? It’s YOUR responsibility not to mistake opinion for fact. This obsession with the Marxism point is a big time-waster. Oblio has been clear about his reasoning and takes responsibilty for his position.
Your posts have become picayune. Please move on.
huxley, for good order’s sake, I never said “Obama is a Marxist” full stop. The closest I came to it was when I said,
I could hardly have been more qualified, nuanced, or circumspect.
On the socialism thread, I was specific about the core distinguishing points of Marxism: Historical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics. There are also non-Marxist statements and associations to consider: for example, there is the long time membership in Trinity United Church of Christ, which struck me as at least partially National Socialist in orientation. We could probably find a few good words that he has said about markets.
Like you, I am not claiming to read the man’s mind. Since I am NOT in favor of shouting “Obama is a Marxist” from the rooftops, that seems good enough.
Fred is calling attention to the asymmetry of the rules in which Obama “gets the benefit of the doubt and we have to hold in our suspicions.” Those are worth discussing.
This reversal can be expressed formally as IF NOT 100, THEN 0. That rule is an artifact of the socialization of a whole story about how wicked it is falsely to label someone as a Communist. This is my point about “false positive” being considered in polite company to be a hundred times worse than a “false negative.”
Both the story and the rule are examples of Humpty-Dumptyism, which is where all this started.
E – If you are not interested in the discussion, you are welcome to move on.
This topic is four days old and I wasn’t aware anyone else besides Oblio, Fred, and myself were attending to it.
Oblio — Early in this thread Lucius and Fred expressed, with some vehemence, “Obama is a Marxist,” and “I have never been shy of calling Obama a Marxist.”
I questioned those statements. Later I was under the impression you agreed with Lucius and Fred and that you were defending their statements. Now I understand that your main point is your disagreement with, as you put it, “IF NOT 100, THEN 0.”
My version is “IF NOT 100, then NOT KNOWN.”
Oh Huxley, the point is that it’s more fun when there’s something worth reading on this very interesting thread. You’re being peevish and tendentious! Say something worthwhile.
It would be interesting if Huxley addresses the issue of false positives versus false negatives, which Oblio rightly tags as a central issue on this particular argument. Why is not 100% then Not Known? That seems lame to me. If we look at Obama’s record and actions as a public man, it’s pretty clear there’s a strong Marxist element. It’s not a matter of all or nothing at all. We should be worried about how much evidence there is of Marxist leanings in Obama’s philosophy.
E — I thought you were not interested in this aspect of the discussion or my posts.