Editorial
Obama's Macabre Politics
Over the last few weeks, indeed since his victory at the polls, I have been listening to President Obama's speeches quite regularly. I wasn't surprised one bit at his ready exploitation of the Connecticut school shooting. As one of his hacks, Rahm Emanuel, said a few months ago, "You never want a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." And more government control of the lives of American citizens is, as I can figure it, the priority of this president. He believes we are a tribe that he rules and whatever chance he finds he will use to make sure everyone does what he envisions is the proper thing to do. Give up your weapons; let the feds be the sole armed group in the country! Treat all wealth as public, collective and basically abolish private property rights, mostly by way of the constant increase of taxation. Don't respect anyone's right to use and dispose of resources; assume full authority over these and set the priorities for what to do with them.
I suppose there is still some semblance of liberty left in the country – mostly having to do with the free flow of opinion and the permission to engage in a great variety of artistic expression (although judging by what kind of works seem to gain the approval of the elite media, even this may reasonably be doubted).
If you check the president's inauguration speech accepting his election to a second term as president of the country, there is in it evidence of a decisive tone of post-modernist political thinking, the road to confusing the public. That is to say, no rhyme or reason can be found in the political ideas Obama has chosen to lump together. There is in the pile a bit of this, a bit of that, a bit of yet something else – socialism, capitalism, fascism, authoritarianism, welfare statism, feudalism and nearly every other identifiable political viewpoint.
It is almost as if he and his team are deliberately advancing an incoherent agenda, one that will leave the American people with no guide to what to expect from his administration of the American government. There certainly is no loyalty to the central element of the American political tradition, namely the doctrine of individual rights. Indeed, if anything, that is one feature completely missing from Mr. Obama's political stew. We must all comply with his vision of a human community, a vision the centerpiece of which is that "we are all in it together," that we are one huge tribe or hive of people who individually are hapless and indeed worthless. But even this collectivist political alternative is buried in mishmash so it's hard to identify it and so it certainly doesn't commit Mr. Obama to having to defend it with a coherent political argument.
The philosophical guidance to this kind of political thinking has had serious proponents; don't get me wrong. There is nothing original about it. Indeed, it is a kind of chicken coming home to roost situation – the Founders being the likes of the ancient sophists featured in Plato's Dialogues and the more recent irrationalists such as Paul Feyerabend (check his book, Farewell to Reason) and Richard Rorty (whose essay "The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy" is very helpful for grasping Mr. Obama's way of thinking in which the population's unavoidably hodge-podge viewpoint is endorsed as against the aim to forge a rational public philosophy).
I do not know if Mr. Obama has read all these and other irrationalist and post-modernist thinkers and consciously follows them but as a self-proclaimed (but much disputed) radical "pragmatist," the way he presents himself in his most recent political proclamations suggests very strongly that he is being deliberately obscure. Why?
My guess is that his goal of top-down control of American society is taken by him to benefit from leaving his audience, indeed, the entire American public, baffled as to just what is best in political matters.
The only explicit school of politics this approach comes close to is fascism, in which the society's leadership is left in the hands of a charismatic ruler, like Mussolini or Hugo Chavez. Do Mr. Obama's supporters realize this about him and his ideas? I do not know.
Tibor Machan is a member of the Advisory Board for The Foundation for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking (FAFMT) and the R. C. Hoiles Professor of Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics, Chapman University in Orange, CA.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Friend_of_John_Galt on 01/28/13 08:13 PM
The most prescient book I read prior to Obama's 2008 election victory was Johah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change.
Click to view link
This book outlined the history of "progressives" from their rise in the late 19th century right up to pre-2008 election period. (An afterword in the paperback edition has been added to address Barack Obama "... and the Old Familiar Change".)
Due to a squabble between communists and fascists back in the 1920-1930s, the international communists criticized the nationalist focused fascists -- and then proceeded to paint those the communists disagreed with as "fascists" -- even though economically communists and fascists are barely discernible. When the conflicts between communists and fascists occurred, it was actually due to their competition for the "hearts and minds" of the public. Thus the name-calling of the right and/or George Bush as "fascist" is and always has been a false accusation with no basis whatsoever in reality. (The right may have its failures, but by far, fascism isn't one of them.)
Goldberg's book describes "American fascism" as "fascism with a 'happy face.'" (And that is why the cover features a happy face with a mustache.) Indeed, the fascism of Germany had a particularly militarist bent -- but that only reflects certain aspects of Germanic culture. Italian and Spanish fascism were both rather less militaristic, yet both were also totalitarian regimes, just the same. As Goldberg sees it, American fascism would have a "kinder" face -- but ultimately be a system that continues to reduce liberty as it fully develops.
Of course, most of the public is stupidly unaware of the reality of Obama and the thugs running his Administration. Indeed, even opposition politicians seem to treat Obama as "just another liberal" and don't understand the danger that we face. Of course, there are Democrats who find fascism repugnant -- and they have conveniently decided to remain dumb in the face of Obama's excesses, simply to get along (and remain in the public trough).
So, what is the political leaning of Obama. Clearly it is a "crony capitalism" based type of fascism using the progressive regulatory system to impose his views on the economy and on the public. This comes as no surprise to me.
 |
Posted by pragmatico on 01/28/13 07:47 PM
" ... no rhyme or reason can be found in the political ideas Obama has chosen to lump together... .It is almost as if he and his team are deliberately advancing an incoherent agenda... .the way he presents himself in his most recent political proclamations suggests very strongly that he is being deliberately obscure. Why?"
My take on President Obama is this: He is a seething stew of prejudices (like many of us, in reality), prejudices that are hankering for manifestation. What does he have going for him that most others don't? He is a master hypnotist/magician able to create powerful, concrete, emotion-packed pictures with his words, mannerisms and actions, the kinds of pictures that tell collectivist minds that the world he wants to create is the same one they inherently long for. Most important, it's a world that's within the range of immediate gratification if his prescriptions are followed. All his subjects have to do is jump on his bandwagon and the opposition will be crushed.
As we've all noticed, Obama's hypnotized subjects range widely in intelligence. In fact, he seems to appeal neither to intelligence nor the lack of it. Rather, he appeals to an inbuilt susceptibility in many people's minds that bypasses intelligence. A liberal or collectivist gateway? A serotonin release button? Who knows. All we know is that he has access through pictures.
I don't believe Obama is intentionally following any classical philosophies, per se, although it's easy to pin classical labels on him via speculation. It's probably good to remember that human behavior existed long before the labels developed to describe and categorize it. Not everyone's behavior can be pigeon-holed because it's not overt philosophy or rationality that creates behavior, but subconscious prejudices and fixations (some of which, admittedly, can come from falling in love with philosophy).
Obama doesn't follow threads of classical logic that I (or Dr. Machan, apparently) can see, although he often "reasons by analogy" to construct and project the polarizing pictures he has been finding so terribly effective in leading his flock. He's not a paragon of consistency because consistency just gets in the way of getting the immediate job done. His subjects don't need consistency. It seems they don't even expect it. They just need the continued promise that he can give them the kind of life and society they want, tout de suite. They also need the continued thrills he apparently provides. He is an amazing man in this regard. He definitely does get serotonin flowing.
In truth, the pictures Obama creates are far more effective for swaying his hypnotic subjects than the threads of reasoning libertarians construct, including those of great analysts such as Ron Paul. For a huge segment of the population, emotion-filled pictures and promises, no matter how unreal, will trump reason every time. There is no sense in becoming indignant about this. Castigating him or complaining about his methods doesn't help. What makes more sense is for libertarians to begin developing picture-projecting skills and to look for good hypnotists to deliver poignant picture-messages of liberty that threads of reason and analysis can't. Yes, I know, fighting fire with fire may sound like sacrilege in libertarian camps.
|
Posted by seer on 01/28/13 06:52 PM
Beware of a series of one.
|
Posted by oldman67 on 01/28/13 06:29 PM
Saul alinsky and his "Rules for Radicals was a prefect fit.Alinsky said that one of the most important ways to bring change was with 'community organizers.Obama as a "community organizer in Chicago with Projevt Vote/ACORN used the tactics taught by Saul Alinsky in 'Rules for Radicals.' In his book,Audacity of Hope obama saod,"I learned more from Saul Alinsky's 'community organizing than i did in all my years at Havard Law School.
While at Occidental College Obama was a Marxist Revolutionaist.i believe Obama has been underestimated in his ability to bring about change to America through Alinsky's teachings.'Rules for Radicals'is a book that everyone should read to understand the real Obama and his agenda.You can visit youtube/Rules for Radical and listen to one of the most famous radicals of the 60's David Howowitz explain the corelation between Saul Alinsky and Obama.
The Marxist Karl Marx dreamed of seeing one day a Socialist United States.David Horowitz said he himself did everything possibletoward that end. saul alinsky aid the number one and greatest radical was Satan because he got his own kingdom.in Rules for Radicals Alinsky continiously mentioned the need for chane and how to obtain it throu a revolution.After all,that is what a revolution does is to bring change.i often wonered if those obama supporters who waved the Socialist banners (FOWARD) had any idea that was a Socialist solgan or did they even care?
 |
Posted by Kansas She Says on 01/28/13 04:21 PM
Obama's ideas can be summed up in three words: "Yes, we can." They can and they will, because who can or will stop them?
|
Posted by care4mn on 01/28/13 02:56 PM
I fear that we are living in the era that Nikita Khrushchev apparently predicted in the 1960's. We,(communists) will keep feeding you small doses of socialism in small bits until you finally wake up and find that you already have communism... we'll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.(paraphrased)
We have for too long ignored the incremental changes in our society as those who distain the American Experiment have advanced a hidden agenda. Our children are being indoctrinated not educated. This has been true since the 1960's Our current President has been perhaps the boldest advocate of these changes but he is only the latest in a long list of people who carry this agenda forward.
 |
Posted by Just John on 01/28/13 02:20 PM
Aloha,
A big Mahalo!
 |
Posted by tone-bone on 01/28/13 02:12 PM
Libertarian Jerry-
Obama is just another link in a fairly long chain of socialist/fascist/corporatist/globalist rulers of the US. He seems to be the most, obvious one yet.
Why everyone doesn't 'see' it? Because his followers are either fascists as he is, or they are just ignorant of history and its repitition.
Best.
|
Posted by RED on 01/28/13 02:03 PM
It's gratifying to hear the quite accurate and well considered terms I have been using to describe Barry Soetoro and his "administration" over the past several years now routinely being used by other scholars and writers for whom I hold great respect.
By "their" Actions (not "their" words) the informed objective observer can only use the following to describe these heinous creatures:
MARXISTS and FASCISTS!
Once you fully acknowledge these accurate labels, you can oppose these creatures more effetively!
|
Posted by tone-bone on 01/28/13 02:02 PM
No, his 'folllowers' do not see it. Sure, some attach their hopes of a better tommorow, to his bid for total gun-control, or more entitlements, a free phone, or one of his other emotional, crowd-pleasing slight-of-hand tricks, packaged into an easy-to-grasp McModern mcNugget.
But [they] do not see how embolding a dictator can be a problem for the other half of the population he makes life-altering decisions for. Nor do they see how [his] policies will ruin the lives of their children and grandchildren.
Good article.
|
Posted by Libertarian Jerry on 01/28/13 05:25 AM
Mr.Obama is pretty easy to figure out. Just study the concept of protracted conflict and dialectical materialism as practiced by Cultural Marxists for the last 100 years. By infiltrating the Culture you act to destroy self reliance and self responsibility. Create a nation of dependency. Grind the productive middle class between high taxes and inflation. Make those dependent a voting majority. And then claim power. Try to be all things to all people in order to garner their votes. Of course,in the end,you'll bankrupt the country,ruin its economy,destroy its currency,enslave its productive people. But what does that matter. Mr.Obama will have power. Its all about power.
 |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 01/24/13 06:02 AM
"The only explicit school of politics this approach comes close to is fascism, in which the society's leadership is left in the hands of a charismatic ruler, like Mussolini or Hugo Chavez. Do Mr. Obama's supporters realize this about him and his ideas?"
--------------------
I guess some Obamas supporters DO realize this - in a sense ...
"British Newspaper Calls for a 3rd Obama Term"
Click to view link
