Obama’s philosophically fascist SOTU speech
Fascinating analysis here, by a student at Obama’s alma mater, Harvard Law School.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Fascinating analysis here, by a student at Obama’s alma mater, Harvard Law School.
Was part of the hatred of Bush rooted in a desire of the left for a president/philosopher king/fuhrer that would take care of them?
Excellent piece, thanks for linking it.
Shapiro thinks and reads like a young Mark Levin. Refreshing.
Struck me as short and shallow. The author doesn’t like Obama’s upturned chin and Obama’s soppy, egocentric rhetoric, ergo Obama is philosophically a fascist — the most misused and meaningless term of abuse in current politics.
I thought the author was leading up to some strong arguments but the article suddenly ended.
If this is what passes for analysis at Harvard Law School, no wonder Obama is such a tool.
I’m surprised that I disagree with huxley. Perhaps you have not read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism.” To understand how Obama embodies the typical liberal fascist probably escapes those who associate fascsism only with the Germans and Italians of WWII. For me the essay was spot on. Particularly because he pointed out how Obama used the occasion to attack several enemies, and even explained that he wished for debate to end so he could “govern.” Ironic that. He has spent most of his time on campaigning and precious little on governance since being inaugurated.
He pointed out that Obama expects to be followed and expects to win. (“I don’t quit!”) And to hell with the desires of all those nattering pygmies who still don’t get it. IMO, that was the meaning of the end of his speech.
Read Goldberg’s book and you will see how the liberals (some call them progressives) wish to sweep aside all opposition, use the government as a command and control unit to obtain their utopian ends. As Goldberg points out in his book, it’s soft fascism, but fascism no less. If they succeed, one day our most dreaded fear will be a knock on the door followed by the words, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”
J.J.: Yes, I have read JG’s Liberal Fascism.
That’s a large part of why I expect some sort of reasoned argument when someone, a law student even, makes the accusation of “philosphically fascist” as opposed to tossing out a grab bag of impressions, partial quotes lacking context, and unsupported claims about the US government.
I don’t like Obama’s mannerisms or egocentric grandiosity or rhetorical tricks or shallow populism either, but I’m not going to wrap up my dislikes with bow labeled “philosophically fascist” just because it makes me and my readers feel good.
If one is going to speak philosophically, one ought define terms at least and Shapiro makes no attempt to explain by what he means by fascist, much less demonstrating how Obama’s speech fits that definition.
IMO this is just the flip-side to liberal accusations that conservatives are racists because if you squint hard conservatives are kinda, sorta like racists, dontcha know.
Great article. I’m sure Harvard Law finds Obama to be quite an embarrassment. Obama is really out of his mind. Has he mentioned anything lately about the civilian army that he wants to create that reports to the White House? I remember it was in his campaign speech. Apparently he thought this idea would be attractive to people. Yikes, that’s when he totally lost me. Serious sounding fascism as far as I’m concerned, and, since I had the luxury of growing up in the wonderful U S of A, I barely even knew what a fascist was. But even I knew that a special, civilian army, with guns and everything, reporting only to Obama was completely insane. And not what we do here in America.
And of course where was our illustrious 4th Estate during the unveiling of this rather interesting idea? Nowhere, as usual. Just going on about how Michelle is a fashion plate. The next Jackie. (I was a Hillary Dem, and we feminist dems used to be lock step democrats, doing whatever they told us to do, so theoretically I would just be an Obama voter, cause hey, that’s what we all used to do! Ha. Those days are over.)
Julia NYC,
Here is an example of some recruiting that’s going on–not quite an army but obnoxious enough (via Bookworm Room):
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/atlas-exclusive-obama-organizing-for-communism-and-youth-corps-in-the-public-school-1.html
I’m more troubled about this sentence from the SOTU than almost anything Obama’s said since he was elected:
We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we’re all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.
Forget the fact that he apparently thinks that the quotation “all men are created equal” is in the Constitution rather than the Declaration of Independence. Far more troubling is his misunderstanding of the substance. Look: IF you abide by the law you are protected (those who break the law aren’t entitled to equal protection?); IF you adhere to “our common values” (whose? who gets to decide?) you should be treated equally (but what happens to the others, those stubborn souls who insist on adhering to values of their own, rather than the herd’s?) It’s downright creepy.
I commented on this once before, but it got buried at the end of a long thread. Weeks later, it’s still bothering me. Does this Harvard-educated lawyer, this Constitutional law teacher, truly believe that the Bill of Rights is conditional on conformance to certain beliefs? Or, perhaps, does he think that it SHOULD be? How did this profound misunderstanding of one of the central principles of this nation get past, not just Obama himself, but the others who must have vetted the speech? Does anyone there know anything???
Thanks Expat:
“The power of good data and reporting” – yuck. Reporting to whom? That is such a creepy sentence. The whole thing seems extremely illegal. I’m sure a lot of the teachers are against it but are too scared to say anything, they would surely be fired. It seems like the President should not be allowed to use the school system to recruit public highschool students for his own personal mailing list that he will be taking with him long after he leaves office in 2012.
Well, he can try all he wants, but he still seems pretty lame duck to me.
Huxley, I get your point. It is difficult, given how obnoxious most conservatives find Obama’s plans and policies not to retreat into stereotyping or ad hominem.
There are several definitions of fascism, depending on the point of view of the person doing the defining. Economic Fascism is defined rather well, I believe here:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Some of the things which Obama said that lead one to see him in the light of fascism are:
1. He would like to see an end to the debate because he is right and the other side is wrong. (Why would we follow the failed policies of the last 8 years? Longing for a one party nation.)
2. He seeks to control, indirectly, many of our industries. (Banking, autos, medical insurance.)
3. He wants companies and people to use their property in the national interest. (Weatherizing our homes, going green in the business world, influencing how much medical care providers will earn.)
3. Central government planning by calling for a doubling of exports in five years. (While setting iup protective regulations that discourage imports.)
4. Calls for people to lower their consumption and for “excess” income to be taxed for fairness.
No that list does not put him in a league with Mussolini. Just an Il Duce wannabe. Maybe it is best to use the less inflammatory Progressive lable pending further developments.
Leftists are SO convinced that they are right, that they really, really believe “The Argument Should Be OVER, Poople!”
If you take that point of view, then all the “nattering” about democracy and due process and all the rest of it doesn’t mean beans. You know, Abe Lincoln felt the same way: he dispensed with a good deal of the Constitution because he felt that the South should be forced to remain in the Union by hook or by crook. (Nota bene: he didn’t sign the Emancipation Proclamation until well along into the war, and it didn’t apply to any territory he actually had jurisdiction over!)
Note also, that I’m not making a case for slavery, just pointing out that this isn’t the first time someone in power was so convinced he was right that he rubbished the rules of our republic.
Oh, and no, I’m not saying Lincoln was a lefty! (He might be one today, though.)
And damn, that man could write. Miles ahead of Obummer’s windy generalities and pompous bromides.
“And damn, that man could write.”
So true. I’m presently reading his speeches and letters which cover the period from his entry into politics through his presidency. Excellent insights into the Burning issue of the day – slavery. His words are a tribute to clear thinking and logic. At least that’s the way I see it.
J.J.: I can see Obama as something of a fascist. In fact I do.
Frankly I was hoping that Shapiro’s piece would give me some serious ammunition on that score, but I would be embarrassed to use his material outside of a conversation in a bar or at a loud party.
Excuse the length of this quote but I love it. Here’s a wonderful, cutting, and funny interview with Jonah Goldberg on Hugh Hewitt two years ago referring to some choice quasi-fascist quotes from the Michelle Obama before the Obama campaign assigned someone to sit on her hard.
Lincoln knew his priorities and knew when he was sacrificing something lower down on his list in order to preserve the most important. Obama wants everything and sacrifices anything depending on the wind direction. He has nothing to offer but himself, and that is not much of a foundation for our country. People are beginning to see that he offered us a mirror of our dreams and that the mirror is badly cracked.
I don’t think Americans will fall for a strong man leaning in another direction. I think they will look for something approaching a normal American who likes and respects his fellow citizens.
Hux, Here is my Michelle Obama fascist quote
“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
Give up my cynicism? Not for gold sweetheart.
Remember that fascist motto, believe, work, obey, or something like that, I wonder why Obmessiah failed to use that as a campaign slogan, his admirers would have bought it.
that should have read “my FAVORITE Michelle Obama fascist quote”.
Life is hard if one is ADD.
He sees himself as embodiment of the collective will. No president should speak in these terms — not in a representative republic.
I certainly agree. I have found that disturbing from Day One. Every speech he makes I find myself thinking: “Who does he think he is?”
Most disturbing moment in SOTU? His attack on the Supreme Court justices. Not only rude and not the sort of person I want representing my country, but showed his dangerous disrespect for the law – when it doesn’t serve his purposes.
Selfishness is not a bug, but a feature. This is an indispensible part of human nature, needed to prevent degeneration of humankind into beehive. Bigotry is also not a bug, but a feature: it is needed to keep cultures and people separate and compete with each other. Inequality is both inevitable and necessary for progress, because natural selection works only by elimination of misfits from reproduction.
Everybody who wants eradicate selfishness, bigotry and inequality is a fascist. You can take it as a definition of this notion.
Pingback:Obama’s Bunker Bubble « Sake White
Ya know what? I really learn a lot from neo and the commenters here. It’s like being part of a graduate school seminar.
It makes one feel very grateful for……….well, everything. But especially the Internet.
If one is going to speak philosophically, one ought define terms at least and Shapiro makes no attempt to explain by what he means by fascist, much less demonstrating how Obama’s speech fits that definition.
thats because he isnt writing to the ignorant who dont know what it is in its visceral form
your faulting him for not doing what you yelled at me when i did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fascism is communism and capitalism together.
thats it.. nothing more, nothing less.
when the state controls the means of production by owning it itself thats communism
when the state controls the means of production by taxation, laws, rules, and regulations that pick winners and losers and take a big cut from companies, while favoring monopolization..
thats fascism.
[not chrony capitalism and all the othe false labels that equate what we have now with capitalism, not with what it is, fascism]
of course you never lived under it
or grew up with dozens of people who did.
so please continue.
i find your fantasies and other views made up from smoke to be very interesting now. i am no longer interested in participating with you on my level, i am intrested in participating with you on your level.
so i am trying to learn to key off of the general false reality made by the resonance of similar fantasies replacing historical facts.
so please continue
Pingback:Obama’s fascist SOTU speech « Public Secrets