Obama the new leftist: everything old is new again

The New Neo Posted on by

Barry Rubin has written a piece describing Obama as a new kind of leftist:

Barack Obama is not a communist, a fascist, a Muslim, a Marxist, a Progressive (in the pre-1920s meaning of that word), or even a socialist. Obama and those who control much of America’s academia, mass media, and entertainment industry ”” plus a number of trade unions and hundreds of foundations, think tanks, and front groups ”” are believers in a new, very American form of leftism. It is very statist, very dangerous for freedom, and economically destructive…

So what are we dealing with here? A radical leftist movement pretending to be liberal, growing out of the New Left of the 1960s, painfully aware of how the far left miserably failed in American history, and trying to create a twenty-first century stealth leftism. The first step was to gain hegemony in the key institutions that created ideas, rather than the factories that created material goods. They succeeded brilliantly.

The next step was to shape millions of Americans, especially young Americans, to accept their ideas that the United States was a force for evil in the world, a failed society, a place of terrible racism and hatred for women, and a country where the vast majority didn’t have a fair chance because the system was unfair. In fact, if you take away the varnish rhetoric, they argue that America is a virtual dictatorship of a small minority of wealthy people who just set everything up for their own convenience.

I kept reading Rubin’s piece to see what was so very very new about this, because it just didn’t seem new to me at all. It seemed rather old, actually, and known by the name Fabianism—and in fact, I’ve long thought of Obama as a type of American Fabian.

Who were the Fabians? They were British socialists who got together in the late 19th century and believed in peaceful gradualism:

The Fabian Society is a British socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary, means….

An explanatory note appearing on the title page of the group’s first pamphlet declared:

“For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.”…

The first Fabian Society pamphlets advocating tenets of social justice coincided with the zeitgeist of Liberal reforms during the early 1900s. The Fabian proposals however were considerably more progressive than those that were enacted in the Liberal reform legislation. The Fabians lobbied for the introduction of a minimum wage in 1906, for the creation of a universal health care system in 1911 and for the abolition of hereditary peerages in 1917.

There are differences, of course (particularly in foreign policy), as befit a different time and place. But the similarities are striking, as is the fact that the Fabian Society was manned (and womanned) by intellectuals and artists, especially writers.

I’m hardly the first person to make the comparison. Just Google “Obama Fabian” and you’ll see. One of the earliest articles on the subject was this one by Jerry Bowyer, appearing in Forbes around the time of Obama’s 2008 election. I wrote much the same about Obama in October of 2008; although I didn’t actually use the term “Fabian,” that’s what I was referring to.

I’ve never ascribed to the “Obama isn’t intelligent” philosophy. He may not be wise, but he’s very smart about the things that especially interest him. One of these things is political strategy of the Alinsky variety. Another is “progressivism.” A third is how to appear to be moderate and soothing, and thus ingratiate himself with enough of the public to win an election.

[NOTE: The title of this post comes from this song.]

It seems to me we’ve reached…

The New Neo Posted on by

…some sort of tipping point.

Either the American people will prove they’re susceptible to disinformation, or they won’t.

Either the American people will prefer to go the way of Europe, or they’ll want to keep their exceptionalism.

Either the American people will succumb to a con artist intent on expanding his power, or they won’t.

It’s really up to them. The sad thing is that, if the people choose the first alternative of each pair, they probably will see it all as a good thing, not a bad one—until, perhaps, it’s too late, and maybe not even then. It’s been a long slow Gramscian slide, hasn’t it?

Take a deep breath

The New Neo Posted on by

This is one of those times when news comes fast and furious, emotions accelerate, and anger takes over.

I know that’s been true for me. Unfortunately, in addition to the crummy news—the embassy attacks and murders, the press’s unconscionable reaction, and continual indications that there’s an excellent chance Obama will be re-elected despite what a terrible, destructive president he’s been—I’ve been dealing with several crises involving my mother’s health. Some of you may have followed her story: she’s 98 now, and things are really starting to unravel. It’s been going on for several weeks, including two longish visits on my part to New York.

And so I’m trying to calm down. It does no good to stress myself out unduly. But if I’m a little less coherent than usual, you’ll know why.

More Carter redux?

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “Teri Pittman.”]

I have no idea whether the facts as related in this Reuter’s article are true. I’m a bit suspicious because (1) there have been so many different sources on the embassy story, each with a dog in the race; and (2) after all, this one’s Reuters.

But with those caveats—the article seems to be indicating a poorly coordinated rescue mission that led to the death of at least one Marine and the wounding of two others. Not as disastrous as the ill-fated Carter effort Operation Eagle Claw, but very troubling.

It’s almost axiomatic that Obama’s foreign policy is most like Carter’s, of all his predecessors. The results appear to be Carteresque, too. I fervently hope that Obama’s number of terms will come to resemble Carter’s, as well.

Who do you trust on job creation?

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s talk about something other than the embassy riots for a change.

The other day a Rasmussen poll asked the question “Who do you trust more on job creation?” The results were 47 Obama to 45 Romney

Sounds crazy, but it’s really not, IMHO.

Lots of people think that in tough economic times it’s the government that can—and should—create jobs, a la the alphabet soup of the FDR years. And not all these people are dumb, by any means; some actually pay attention to history, because that’s the history we all learned, isn’t it? FDR’s programs ended the Depression?

Whether it’s true or not, that is. Recent revisionist histories such as Amity Shlaes’ are just that, recent and revisionist. Before then, the idea that the New Deal may have hurt as much as it helped was a minority position, and certainly not taught in most schools.

As for the survey, I would rather they’d have asked “Which candidate would be better at creating a business climate that favors job creation by private business?” I have a feeling the answer might have been quite different.

I don’t have access to the full results of the poll, but the wording of the questions was also interesting. As pollsters go, Rasmussen is one of the more fair, but I can still see problems with this, “Whom do you trust more on the issue of job creation””President Obama or Mitt Romney?” It would have been a lot better to equalized the names somewhat: “Barack Obama or Mitt Romney” (leaving out the president’s title, which gives him extra gravitas and authority), and varied the order, too.

We are living in an Orwellian world…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and I’m not an Orwellian girl.

Apologies to Madonna, but it seems that in terms of disinformation and propaganda, we are living in an Orwellian world (or at least a Pravda-esque world). And if the American people aren’t sharp enough to see it, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

If that fact weren’t already clear to me, the relentless MSM and administration focus yesterday and today on Mitt Romney’s quite reasonable reaction to the tweet from the Cairo embassy would have brought it home quite dramatically.

I wonder: if you were to interview 100 random people on the street on the subject, what would their reaction be? Perhaps a lot of them are not even paying attention. But my guess is that the majority would take their cue from the headlines and say that Romney made a big boo-boo. What he did, and why it was so wrong, they might not be able to quite say; maybe it was wrong just because the pundits said so.

So, what was Romney’s crime? Speaking out against a really bad communication by the Cairo embassy, one the Obama administration itself has now repudiated? Or was it speaking out on foreign policy at all? Or was it criticizing Obama? Or was it—as some critics say—exploiting American deaths for political gain?

Certainly couldn’t be the latter, because then the MSM would have to have been consistent and have criticized the Democrats (and Obama himself, prior to his presidency) for their relentless put-down of the Iraqi war effort, of Bush’s actions on 9/11, of the surge, of just about everything a Republican has ever done in that arena.

It should be transparently clear to any thinking person what’s happening here. But how many people think critically when they read a story? It’s so much easier to jump on the meme bandwagon.

John Podhoretz has a good piece in the New York Post today on this topic, and the WSJ has an editorial that features this observation:

[Romney’s] political faux pas was to offend a pundit class that wants to cede the foreign policy debate to Mr. Obama without thinking seriously about the trouble for America that is building in the world.

I would go one step futher: the “offense” the pundit class expresses is faux. They don’t really think this topic should be off-limits. Romney’s offensive faux pas is the mere fact that he is the Republican nominee for president running against Obama. The rest of the details don’t matter. If Romney doesn’t oblige them by doing anything wrong, they will make whatever he does do into a wrong. They’re just that creative.

[ADDENDUM: Ann Althouse comments on the phenomenon:

Can we get some consistency from the big-media pundits? Shouldn’t the NYT, for example, have noticed by now that new media is dogging them, and we have YouTube?…The more MSM lets their lust show, the less likely we highly selective swing voters will spend any time with you. You have to insinuate yourself into our minds, and you’ve triggered our resistance. We’re turned off. Yes, the base loves what you’re saying, but they didn’t need to be seduced.

Ah, but it’s a different calculus the MSM is using. How many “highly selective swing voters” are there? Not very many, I’m afraid; there are probably far more of the liberal readers who want to participate in the daily two minutes’ hate, plus a vast number of swing voters who just read headlines.

I don’t think the NYT thinks it’s losing readers because of its partisanship and transparent, logically inconsistent, and deceptive shilling for Obama and the left. I think the Times thinks it’s keeping some of the readers it already has in a market in which most newspapers are having circulation trouble for a host of reasons, and at the same time it is furthering the Cause.]

Security? What security?

The New Neo Posted on by

Ace writes about the deplorable lack of security at the Benghazi consulate. I can’t find a link in Ace’s post, but the information seems to come from this Politico article:

The Benghazi consulate had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy, an intelligence source told POLITICO. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies. The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt ”“ “a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend.” The Cairo embassy also was attacked Tuesday.

I called it “deplorable.” Perhaps “criminal” would be a better word.

[ADDENDUM: As for supposed Israeli “Sam Bacile,” producer of the film that supposedly sparked the whole thing, he may not be Israeli, Jewish, or named Sam Bacile.

But I’m sure it’s all the Jews’ fault anyway. Them, and Bush.]

[ADDENDUM II: Could Hillary Clinton actually be naive enough (or dumb enough) to have sincerely asked herself this question on learning of the attacks?:

The secretary of state said she asked herself “how could this happen in a country we helped liberate and in a city we helped to save from destruction.” But she added that the people who attacked the consulate were a “small and savage group.”

It seems like either criminal lack of awareness to the point of delusion, or something else. Perhaps my imagination’s not Byzantine or Machiavellian enough, but I can’t imagine that an incident like this one could possibly serve either Obama or Hillary. So it may be that they’re just that naive and just that stupid.]

Who was the US ambassador killed in 1979?

The New Neo Posted on by

I keep reading references to the last time a US ambassador was killed: 1979. But nothing about who it was.

So let me fill that gap. The man was Adolph Dubs, then-ambassador to Afghanistan (no surprise there, right?). Here’s what happened:

In 1978 Dubs was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan following a coup d’etat which brought the Soviet-aligned Khalq faction to power. On February 14, 1979, he was kidnapped by four armed militants belonging to the Setami Milli party posing as police. The kidnappers demanded the release of Badruddin Bahes, the imprisoned leader of their party. The government of Hafizullah Amin denied holding Bahes, and refused categorically to negotiate with the militants, in spite of the US embassy’s demands. Dubs was held in Room 117 of the Kabul Hotel (now called Kabul Serena Hotel). Afghan security forces and Soviet advisers swarmed the hallway and surrounding rooftops, but negotiations stalled. Shortly after 12:30 p.m., an exchange of gunfire started between the terrorists and the Afghan security forces, and the ambassador was killed. Afterwards the U.S. government formally expressed to Moscow its disapproval of the assault by the security forces.

Ambassador Dubs was not replaced by the US government and the embassy was finally closed in 1989 as security in Kabul deteriorated. The position of US ambassador in Afghanistan was not filled until 2002.

The death of ambassador Dubs is currently considered a “Significant Terrorist Incident” by the US State Department.

Documents released from the Soviet KGB archives by Vasily Mitrokhin in the 1990s showed that the Afghan government clearly authorized the assault despite forceful demands for peaceful negotiations by the U.S., and that the KGB adviser on scene, Sergei Batrukhin, may have recommended the assault, as well as the execution of a kidnapper before U.S. experts could interrogate him. Other questions remain unanswered.

Unanswered, indeed.

Obama’s statement on the death of Ambassador Stevens

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the text of Obama’s statement on the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Some excerpts:

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

Statements like this are tricky to write, because they need to walk a fine line between angry condemnation and diplomacy. But a couple of things stand out in Obama’s. The first is that when he said “we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people,” Obama appears to be leaving the justice to the Libyans.

Next, the statement “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” is a sop to the PC crowd, a less-than-ringing defense of free speech (to say the least), and an implicit endorsement of the probably-bogus theory that these killings were actually sparked by the Coptic videos.

When Obama says “The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts,” I give him a bit of a pass because it’s just the usual obligatory diplomacy-speak. It’s not going to happen, and Obama knows that (at least, I think he does).

As for the role of Libyan security in the whole mess, that remains to be seen. According to Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi:

…Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building – deemed safer – after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack…

Al-Sharef said there had been threats that Islamic militants might try to take revenge for the death of al Qaeda’s No. 2 commander Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan in June, and he said the U.S. consulate should have been better protected…

Al-Sharef said the Libyan guards employed to guard the consulate building were far outgunned by the protesters, and thus retreated when the building was stormed.

Is al-Sharef telling the truth? Beats me.

Violence against Americans in Cairo and Benghazi

The New Neo Posted on by

Let me see if I’ve got this straight:

A privately produced and amateurish anti-Islam film made by expat Coptic Christians in the US and distributed on YouTube is said to spark violent protests in Cairo. The US Embassy there apologies for offending Muslim sensibilities. Violence escalates in Cairo and in Benghazi (cities in countries that have recently undergone American-approved oustings of long-time dictators). It is reported that an”embassy worker” may have been killed in Benghazi. Mitt Romney condemns the Cairo embassy apology in a statement that also condemns the attacks. The Obama administration disavows the apology issued by its own embassy. Later it is announced that the “embassy worker” was actually the US ambassador to Libya, and that three other diplomats were killed as well.

And one of the main responses of the MSM and the left is to condemn Mitt Romney for his statement. I kid you not.

Here’s a good summary of the timeline of events.

The press has been eagerly awaiting a major and important gaffe by Romney, and they’re hoping this is it. I can’t quite see that, though. I can’t imagine that most Americans (at least, the ones following the story, which may not be most Americans) were not as outraged as Romney by the statement of the Cairo embassy at the time.

The fact that this sort of violence occurred in two countries where Obama supported the revolts and the installation of the present governments does not make the president look good. It also seems that Obama either initially approved of the Cairo embassy statement and then backtracked, or had so little communication with and control of the embassy there that it was issuing a rogue statement with which he disagreed during the crisis. Neither possibility makes the president look good.

And now the terrible murder of the US ambassador to Libya, and the three other embassy workers—complete with horrific-appearing visuals conjuring up memories of Blawkhawk Down, but which have recently been reported to be of people taking him to the hospital (hard to believe, but I suppose possible)—spark further outrage, and also do not make the president look good.

In addition: why was the security at the embassy so poor? Could this not have been predicted? Especially on 9/11? Which also does not make the president look good.

And if by saying that I’m “politicizing” the attacks, of course I am. But they are already political; what else would they be, in addition to tragic and anger-provoking? Such an event will naturally engender commentary and criticism, and part of that commentary and criticism will be of the administration on whose watch it occurred.

It is only two short months before the election. One of the major issues—although we don’t hear as much about it as we hear about the economy, or dogs on the roof—is foreign policy. Obama’s has been execrable, and it has featured (among other things) bowing to dictators and appeasement abroad. Whether he approved of the Cairo embassy statement or not, he has created a perception of weakness and lack of fortitude on the part of the US. Some people consider that’s the right way to go—it’s sensitive and all that, and should appease those offended by our actions. Others (and I include myself in this group) think that honor/shame cultures are only inflamed by the perception of our weakness.

[ADDENDUM: (Hat tip: “Artfldgr”) It seems likely that the attacks were coordinated and not by spontaneous mobs at all. That makes a great deal of sense, especially considering the locations—embassies in two different countries— and the date, 9/11, as well as the fact that a rocket seems to have been involved. It has all the hallmarks of coordination by an al Qaeda-esque group.

I have not written about the exact circumstances of Ambassador Stevens’ murder because the reports I’ve read so far are conflicting.]

[ADDENDUM II: Here is the text of a statement Romney issued today. It begins with a lengthy expression of mourning and a tribute to Stevens and the others. Then he adds:

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn’t ”˜cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.

The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests. Over the last several years, we have stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region, but also poses the potential for peril, if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events.

We must strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter. ]

[ADDENDUM III: Astounding. Just astounding.

And yet I suppose it shouldn’t be. Much of the left would dearly like to stifle speech it finds inconvenient.]

[CORRECTION: It was a consulate in Benghazi, not an embassy. Embassies are only in capital cities, and Tripoli is the capital of Libya.]