Victor Davis Hanson quotes left-wing journalist Ben Wallace-Wells, writing in “The Rolling Stone” in 2007:
This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics. The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”
Obama wasn’t born into Wright’s world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student, Jerry Falwell’s nightmare vision of secular liberals come to life. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the awesome pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue. Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright, and “felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams.”
Obama has now spent two years in the Senate and written two books about himself, both remarkably frank: There is a desire to own his story, to be both his own Boswell and his own investigative reporter. When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing — for such a measured politician — is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that’s packed in there. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising. Obama’s life story is a splicing of two different roles, and two different ways of thinking about America’s. One is that of the consummate insider, someone who has been raised believing that he will help to lead America, who believes in this country’s capacity for acts of outstanding virtue. The other is that of a black man who feels very deeply that this country’s exercise of its great inherited wealth and power has been grossly unjust. This tension runs through his life; Obama is at once an insider and an outsider, a bomb thrower and the class president. “I’m somebody who believes in this country and its institutions,” he tells me. “But I often think they’re broken.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama/print
Other radicals are excited about Obama. Are they wrong?
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
obama in alot of ways IS a human rhorshack (sp?) test. people project onto him what they want.
part of this is most probably due to obama strategy. He KNOWS that he cannot come across as threatening, as an angry black man, and cultural cues in this country are literally a field of landmines here…I believe that obama very deliberately and rather studiously does everything possible to appear to be non threatening. “no sudden moves” as he puts it in his book. it is sad that this is necessary for someone to do because of their color, but on the other hand maybe EVERY candidate should be doing this…..it looks respectful , introspective, and conciliatory. three qualities we should value in a leader.
i think both conservatives AND liberals will be disappointed at how their wildest expectations will be unmet.
I think obama will be “middle of the road” on domestic policy along the lines of FDR and LBJ and on foreign policy he will look very much like Bush the senior.
I do not think that even with a democratic filibuster proof majority in the senate that things would be more radical than they have been with republican socialism. i dont see obama actively embracing liberal social agendas. I just see him rather passively not making a centerpiece of his policy to war against them.
a breather from the culture wars might do us all some good…. I think he will provide this….
“a breather from the culture wars might do us all some good…. I think he will provide this….”
Then you, too, are letting Obama be a Rohrshack test because I would imagine the opposite. I think the Clinton presidency demonstrated that a liberal in office does not give us a breather from the culture wars; it inflames them. Liberal artists (writers, artists, producers, etc) during the Clinton administration felt much more free to speak their minds without fear of repercussion from society at large.
Frank:
I have to disagree with you about Obama giving us a respite from the culture wars. As the article points out, Obama’s old associates will be rejoicing at how their fellow traveler has moved into the white house, and they will be very triumphantly in the faces of conservatives about it. Then they will start lining up in Washington petitioning the new administration for extreme leftist policies.
This will alarm conservatives such that they will begin to fight Obama immediately at every turn. Obama will try to keep his former associates from being too vocal about what kind of “change” they want for this country, and he may try to restrain them from moving too fast. He will also try to soothe the fears of the American people with his personal presence and eloquence. But it won’t matter. Obama is simply trying to “change” the United States in ways that it cannot be changed without viceral resistance from the right and most of the Christian community.
George Bush said he would be a uniter and not a divider, but it doesn’t seem to have worked out that way. I am afraid that Obama will be the left wing version of Bush in this respect.
middle of the road like FDR and LBJ? What road are you on?
“middle of the road like FDR and LBJ? What road are you on?”
The left one. The progressive left routinely sees its own positions as mainstream and reasonable, allowing it to characterize center-right as extreme.
Ken @ 5,
“The progressive left routinely sees its own positions as mainstream and reasonable, allowing it to characterize center-right as extreme.”
Don’t both sides do this?
RE: “The progressive left routinely sees its own positions as mainstream and reasonable, allowing it to characterize center-right as extreme.” @5, “Don’t both sides do this?” 6
To judge something as “extreme” requires a reference point. If a compass has no poll, it has no direction. If there is no horizon, then up and down are confused.
The reference point for those who govern in this country is the constitution – or have we completely forgotten that?
A person who supports the original intent / strict constructionist sense of the constitution is not extreme. He does not diverge from what is properly the chief norm by which to govern, and to which he takes his oath.
A peson who sets aside the constitution for the purpose of such inchoate references as “justice” or “fairness” or “reasonableness” as has Mr. Obama diverges extremely from the norm that he would swear to uphold. He arrives at such outrages as declaring (as in Roe) the non-personhood of the unborn. He repeals the 2nd Amendment on the basis of “reasonable” restrictions, such as absolute prohibition. That is extreme. These are wild gyrations from the norm.
The concern that conservatives have for the likes of Mr. McCain is that while he acknowedges the constitution as the standard, he has adhered to it less than we would like.
The reason that radicals like Mr. Obama can be characterized as “centrist” is because they are judged according to a socialogical consensus (what people will tolerate) as the norm, rather than the constitution.
I have become acquainted with the set of radicals from which Mr. Obama comes and with which he identifies here in Chicago. To generalize rather accurately, they despise this country as it is constiuted (as in “constitution”). Many view the constiution of the united states as an instrument of slavery. I have heard them say, “I HATE this country.”
Given his public pronunciations, I do not believe that Mr. Obama could take the presidential oath without the reservation that the constution means only what he wants it to mean. With that we cease to be a nation under law. He is not alone in this, of course, but in his stated divergence from that document he is of all recent major presidential candidates the most .. well, .. extreme.
Fidel Castro has once again endorsed Obama, along with Hugo Chavez, Hamas and I believe, Hezbollah.
Michael (and honestly, man–if you don’t like the “Caligula” designation you need to find a new moniker or hang out in places where the folks aren’t as familiar with classical history): ELB is spot-on.
In general, I believe most conservatives think of progressives as wrong-headed but right-hearted, while most progressives think of conservatives as wrong-headed and evil. Thus the tendency of the progressive left to demonize its philosophical and political opponents.
ELB @ 7,
“He is not alone in this, of course, but in his stated divergence from that document he is of all recent major presidential candidates the most .. well, .. extreme.”
In his “stated divergence,” possibly. But the most recent president has diverged from the constitution more than any other president in the past. Nothing in what you’ve stated says to me Obama is any different from Bush. Bush has taken his personal opinions as more important than the constitution. I think most people think that same way. I think it’s unhelpful, and possibly unhealthy, but there you go.
Ken @ 9,
“In general, I believe most conservatives think of progressives as wrong-headed but right-hearted, while most progressives think of conservatives as wrong-headed and evil.” I think both sides think the other is wrong-headed and evil. Nothing either side says would lead one to believe otherwise. Unless you want to believe “your” side is correct, or at least better. I think there are examples on both sides which would lead one to believe each side demonizes the other. How can you say the right doesn’t demonize the left? Do you even watch television?
As for the Caligula thing: come on, people. Just because Caligula is ONE WAY to say “little boot” in another language doesn’t mean it’s all that phrase can mean. I only speak english, so I say little boot. I had no knowledge of its connection to Caligula until I got to this blog. If I change my name here, I’ll have to explain to everyone who I am! Why doesn’t everyone just stop saying it? In fact, I don’t really care that people use it as a joke. I was mostly referring to Anon’s usage of it. Anon likes to use it to “poke the bear.” Anon’s lucky we don’t talk in person.
#3 kerner,
bush the younger´s campaign tipped his hat as to what kind of administration he would have. it was agressively partisan and the tactics were rovian. the end justifies the means was the rule.
#4 #5 joe and ken. yeah yeah, I know. I have to be mindful of the audience here. what i mean is that fdr and lbj´s policies are generally not viewed as “radical” or “socialist” or “communist”. they are in fact viewed as the current traditional norm. both republicans and democrats look at social security and medicare as a political “third rail”. I am merely saying that obama will seek to preserve and extend policies that look like that. this actually makes him a “conserve-ative” in a certain sense doesn´t it? In any case my point is that he will be predictably and not radically liberal. no sudden moves.
Nevertheless, Michael, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus is the most famous “Little Boots” in all of history. You have to take care with a literate crowd. If someone came around here styling herself “BVM” we might legitimately make some Assumptions…
FW, calling a progressive “conservative” because he seeks to maintain and expand on established progressive programs is certainly an inventive use of language. That progressive, nay, socialistic government programs are widely accepted as the current traditional norm goes to show that the frogs are oblivious to the temperature of the water in their pot.
By the way, did anybody follow the link Dr. Veith left at the end of this post? Seems the Communists are absolutely giddy about all that’s happened in the past month and the growing prospects of an Obama presidency. That ought to give people pause. Ought, but apparently won’t.
Ken @ 13,
“Nevertheless, Michael, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus is the most famous “Little Boots” in all of history. You have to take care with a literate crowd. If someone came around here styling herself “BVM” we might legitimately make some Assumptions…”
Well, I am not literate then. I have said numerous times I didn’t know it meant that before I came here, and I don’t use it for that purpose. It’s not “little boots” it’s “the little boot,” which is literally different. Caligula means “little boots.” Also, just because someone is the most famous person in history to have used a name, that means it’s off limits to anyone not wishing to be associated with that person? Ridiculous. It seems a lot of people want me to be a hedonistic Roman emperor. Just because I don’t believe in God, or what?
I don’t know who BVM might refer to, as I am not literate. Those of you who keep going on about this are pretty happy with how many works of “classical” literature you’ve read and apparently memorized. Awesome. Ever cracked the Bhagavad-gita? That’s even older. Older than the Bible, too.
No, Michael, I think they are just having a little bit of fun with you. You’re right in that “the little boot” and “Little Boots” are not exactly the same, but there’s enough of a similarity to trigger an association. For my part, I am not trying to link you to Caligula in belief or behavior.
Okay, so you didn’t get my BVM (Blessed Virgin Mary, a common designation for Mary especially in the Roman Catholic communion) or the pun on “assumptions.” Here’s another attempt at making the same point. Let’s say someone posted at this site using the handle “Adolf Schickelgruber.” Now admittedly it’s not the most common knowledge that this was Hitler’s name before he changed it, but folks who know a thing or two about 20th century world history might pick up on it immediately and start teasing the poster about being “der Fuhrer.”
Ken @ 16,
Yeah, I didn’t grow up Catholic. My mom did, so I didn’t learn ANYTHING about it until college. Nice with the Assumption thing. Didn’t get it till you pointed it out.
“Let’s say someone posted at this site using the handle ‘Adolf Schickelgruber.’ Now admittedly it’s not the most common knowledge that this was Hitler’s name before he changed it, but folks who know a thing or two about 20th century world history might pick up on it immediately and start teasing the poster about being ‘der Fuhrer.’” It’s funny you mention this, as it was debunked right here on this site not too long ago. I think tODD or WebMonk or someone talked about it being a bit of a myth or something. Not totally sure. Whatever. I’m not using the little boot anymore, just so I can avoid all this in the future.
Another excited person is Colin Powell, who just endorsed Barry 0bama while appearing on “Meet the Depressed.” However, Powell noted that he was not voting for 0bama because of his race.
In an email Rush Limbaugh wrote, “OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.”
Yeah, Limbaugh. Now there’s a credible source!