D'Souza to Obama, With Malice

The president is a Keynesian meddler not a Kenyan anti-colonialist.

Just when the ObamaCare debate was heating up, I was dining with a renowned conservative professor with impeccable Ivy credentials when the conversation suddenly turned surreal. Encouraged that I too had deep misgivings about the direction in which the new president was taking the country, the good professor opined that America had put in the White House a subversive radical. Obama wasn’t a well intentioned but misguided liberal, he insisted, he was motivated by actual malice toward America. What evidence did he have for this rather bizarre suggestion, I asked, shocked? Among the things the professor cited was that in his public appearances, Obama communicated with a cabal of fellow America haters in secret hand gestures. For example, during one speech, Obama stroked his cheek with his middle finger extended to convey “fuck you, America,” the professor said imitating Obama.

I had completely forgotten that conversation, dismissing it as the crazy ruminations of a kooky academic, till Forbes put on its cover Dinesh D’Souza’s latest opus, offering as sophisticated an explanation for the Obama agenda as the professor’s hand-gesture theory.

D’Souza’s central thesis is that the ideology that motivates Obama is not socialism or some variant thereof. Rather, it is anti-colonialism, something that he inherited from his long-dead Kenyan father whom he saw only twice. According to this doctrine, which reigned supreme in the 1960s when Obama’s father was cutting his intellectual teeth, rich countries got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries. Even after the colonial powers depart, this doctrine holds, poor countries “continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites,” as D’Souza puts it.

How do we know Obama still subscribes to a worldview that is now passé even in the Third World where it originated, thanks to the post-liberalization success of the Indian and Chinese economies? Because he constantly rails against the rich for not paying their fair share in taxes. And he believes that Americans engage in unseemly conspicuous consumption. As proof, D’Souza trots out this Obama quote: “(Americans) consume more than 20% of the world’s oil but have less than 2% of the world’s resources.” Anti-colonialism, D’Souza posits, offers a unified explanation for Obama’s foreign and domestic policy initiatives.

Writers these days are supposed to cultivate a niche, and D’Souza seems to have homesteaded the intellectual goofiness spot all for himself. His post-9/11 tract, The Enemy at Home, which blamed American sexual decadence for inspiring the Twin Tower attacks, was so far out of left—or, was it, right?—field that even his team members abandoned him. And so far D’Souza’s Forbes piece has inspired the same reception—a collective “huh?”—from allies and opponents alike. The one exception is Newt Gingrich who has dubbed this the “most profound insight anyone has had about Barack Obama in six years.” But it would be possible to take the former Republican House speaker seriously only if he didn’t do the intellectual equivalent of howling at the moon with disturbing regularity these days. He has been making one over-the-top suggestion after another to prevent poor Imam Rauf from building his version of the YMCA near Ground Zero, even advocating the deployment of the government’s eminent domain powers to stop the project—a complete “refudiation” of his own cherished views about the sanctity of property rights.

Gingrich aside, many commentators have already pointed out the factual problems with many of D’Souza’s claims. One involves a $2 billion loan that the administration handed via the Export-Import bank to encourage off-shore drilling in Brazil. “He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil,” D’Souza rails. This is a foolish decision, no doubt, but one that was unanimously endorsed by the bank’s five board members, none of whom were Obama appointees.

But there is a problem more basic than factual inaccuracies with D’Souza’s thesis. If Obama were seriously motivated by a moral desire to protect poor countries from being ruined by excessive American consumption then his biggest priority would be to rein in this consumption. But that is the exact opposite of what he has done since assuming office. His entire economic agenda is one big and desperate attempt to boost American consumption.

He propped up financial institutions and increased government oversight of them not to use them as a tool for some future global redistribution—or “decolonization”—as D’Souza bizarrely suggests, but for far more mundane purposes: making easy credit available for American businesses to grow their way out of the recession. Likewise, the notorious clash-for-clunkers program was nothing if not a scheme to stimulate auto consumption. And ObamaCare’s individual mandate practically forces Americans to consume more health care. All of this seems more in line with Keynesian stimulation—rather than Kenyan anti-colonialism.

Most tendentious, however, is D’Souza’s assertion that Obama’s support for carbon taxes is a ploy to reduce not global warming but America’s carbon consumption. But if Obama were a self-respecting anti-colonialist he’d be slashing not America’s carbon consumption, but America’s carbon consumption relative to poor countries. In other words, he wouldn’t be demanding—as he has been doing—that poor countries cut their emissions as well. Yet at the Copenhagen climate change summit last year, Hillary Clinton promised to contribute to a $100 billion global fund to help poor countries offset their cost of emission cuts only if they opened themselves to international inspections. To most Third World countries this smacks of Western neo-colonialism, not anti-colonialism.

D’Souza’s thesis is so obviously flawed that one has to wonder what caused him to propose it. Accusing Obama of Keynesiasm or socialism or crony-capitalism—as the rest of us Obama critics are doing—is damning enough. Why does D’Souza need to go further?

Part of the reason no doubt is that D’Souza suffers from the pundit’s curse—the need to say something original, something different, regardless of how unsustainable. But the bigger reason is this: Socialism—no matter how unworkable—is still a fully elaborated socio-economic vision that has to be confronted on its own terms with arguments and evidence. One can accuse its advocates of being misguided or utopian or wrong. But one can’t accuse them of bad faith. Anti-colonialism, on the other hand, means not that Obama has the wrong ideas, but that he is on the wrong side. He is the “other.” And no argument is needed to deal with the “other.” Ad hominem attacks do just fine.

And there is not an ad hominem lead that D’Souza misses. D’Souza even declares open season on Obama’s family. In a parody of investigative journalism, he castigates the media for failing to explore Obama’s intellectual ties to his dad. He digs up a decades-old article by Obama Sr. making the case for Africans reasserting control over their own resources in order to damn Obama with guilt by association.  “This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son,” D’Souza rants.

But D’Souza’s big gottcha is a comment that Obama’s grandmother—“not his real grandmother but one of his grandfather’s many wives,” he reminds us—made to Newsweek. “The son is realizing everything the father wanted,” she said. “The dreams of the father are still alive in the son.”

To most human beings with a normal psychological constitution this would come across as nothing more than the innocuous ramblings of a doting grandma eager to see her legacy and life continued through her loved ones, especially if one of them happens to be the President of the United States. Not to D’Souza. He sees it as final corroboration for his thesis from those who best know Obama, never mind that Obama had virtually no contact with this granny growing up. Talk about confirmation bias!

What is even more unsettling than D’Souza’s unsubstantiated ideological accusations against Obama are his gratuitous digs at polygamy in Obama’s family. He plays this up repeatedly. What is the point of this except to remind Americans that Obama is a Muslim—the most dreaded of “others”? Ultimately, D’Souza’s rumination reveals less about how Obama thinks and more about how D’Souza thinks. It shows not that Obama is motivated by malice toward America, but D’Souza is motivated by malice toward Obama. How pathetic.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a columnist at Forbes. This column originally appeared at Forbes.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    Shikha dislikes Dinesh. Check.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Good thing it's still legal to criticize politicians. We'd better enjoy it while we can.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Did she ever explain how her identification of Obama's economic ignorance and Dinesh's identification of his cultural background and psychopathology are mutually exclusive? I skimmed and if she did I missed it.

  • ||

    Yep, anti-colonialism is also the reason why Obama continues to station troops in Iraq and step up Afghanistan. Makes perfect sense.

  • ||

    anti-colonialism, something that Obama inherited

    How does one "inherit" a political philosophy?

  • DADIODADDY||

    ask Mel Gibson

  • Fiscal Meth||

    After Obama was born(in Kenya, of course) it took him three years to understand object permanece, but he was already anti-colonialist.

  • Bruce Majors||

    As one inherits religion. Patrilineally when Moslem.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    So religion and political leanings are passed on genetically?

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Ahhh but D'Souza loves blowing arabs to hell per his Neo-Con leanings. Admitting that he thinks Obama's war policy is at least tolerable, would diminish his kool-aid attack on Oby while revealing himself to be the lecherous tool he is. What a penis sheath.

    There is plenty wrong with what Obama is doing without having to resort to insane tirades, but of course, Neocons can't throw real stones because their house is made of the cheapest, shittiest glass in existence.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "Neocons can't throw real stones because their house is made of the cheapest, shittiest glass in existence."

    You mean Moral-fiber-glass?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Temperanced glass?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Abstained-glass?

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Your puns do not amuse me...but I think the second one is the least annoying.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Nonsense. Abstained glass was clearly the least obnoxious. I demand justice!

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Tasers at High Noon on the Moonlit beach?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I see you're familiar with the old adage:
    People who live in glass houses should settle their differences with tasers because glass is a poor conductor of electricity.

  • MWG||

    C'mon FM, give someone else a chance.

  • Bruce Majors||

    The 50,000 American NON-COMBATANT servicemembers Obama has left in Iraq to be slaughtered are children of privilege and agents of imperialism. Their bloody sacrifice is another step to defeating the Great satan.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I happen to agree with Shikha on this but I also remember a big cover story in Reason Mag called Inside The Mind of Bill Clinton

  • PETE||

    Move along. Nothing to see here.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Big head or little head?

  • ||

    As much as I loathe Obama's big-government, tax-and-spend agenda, don't ever start with all the birther, secret muslim conspiracy BS in my presence because I'll just tune out and stop listening. One reason being talk like that makes all Obama opponents look foolish. The other reason being I don't even believe in conspiracies, even in governments.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Wake up sheeple!

  • JFK||

    I disagree!

  • ||

    Is there anything less fruitful than speculating on the really real innerworkings of the mind of a professional politician? At a minimum, all such analysis should be hedged with "This week, Obama really believes ..."

  • ||

    That's why you analyze people's intentions based on their actions, rather than rhetoric.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    10 Bucks D'Souza went in for an univited grope, and Shika used this article to vent her justifiable distaste for the toad.

  • highnumber||

    Right, because as a woman she could not have any opinions based on anything other than whether or not she is attracted to a man. Very insightful, Drax.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Yep, because I in no way meant that as a joke but as just unabashed sexism, because, you know, women suck and should get back in the kitchen. Very insightful, High#.

    For my money, Shikha is most likely 20 times smarter than I am, but, not to discredit her, that is not saying much.

  • highnumber||

    You are supposed to be funny when making jokes, Drax.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Well I did admit to being a dumb piece of fucking shit(my usual disclaimer). So if it is not funny, blame the public schools. At this point, it's like your picking on a retarded kid for drooling.

  • VikingMoose||

    "At this point, it's like your [sic] picking on a retarded kid for drooling."

    yes. you've correctly identifying High#'s primary skillset.

  • VM||

    joe's law.

    "yes. you've correctly identifying" sic.
    "you've correctly identified".

    I don't blame the schools. I blame premature transmission.

  • highnumber||

    I consider it more an art form, like buggery.

  • VM||

    fair enough.

    still haven't had time to listen to that podcast...

  • Pip||

    49 minutes later and I'm still laughing my ass off!

  • ||

    So we're supposed to be pro-colonialism now (again)? When did this happen?

    Wouldn't an "anti-colonial" president have a clear pro-Native American agenda?

    D'Souza must have loved Bush, he tried to colonize TWO new countries (Obama's still working on it). Then again, Bush gave a LOT of money to Africa. Hard to say, but Bush wasn't black, so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • ||

    My first thought as well. It's bad to be anti-colonial? WTF?

  • Hogan||

    In order to colonize a country, the government has to establish settlements of it's own citizens there (ie colonies). Who's up for new life in the lands of opportunity Iraq and Afghanistan?

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    A bunch of contractors are doing it on a temporary basis for a fuckload of cash. Why can't we just leave them there? It would save some dough. Not to mention, what do you call the gigantic Military footholds that will be manned for at least 50 years, complete with shops, McDonalds, and free BJs for GIs? They sound like colonies to me... kickass, albeit unjustifiable, colonies.

    OT: BJs for GIs would be a great band name.

  • ||

    Fuck! I never got the free BJ's...

  • Tman||

    There certainly isn't any question that Obama has a different attitude about the British than his predecessors. Obama's grandfather was imprisoned for two years and tortured by white British soldiers during Kenya's bloody fight for independence. That would leave a bad taste in my mouth too, and this probably explains why Obama sent the Churchill bust back to England when he moved in to the West Wing.

    You could argue that Obama lets his personal history influence his diplomacy in regards to the UK, but to then go off in to D'Souza land and say that Obama is also using this history to influence his secret plan to destroy America is ridiculous for several reasons.

    First of all, it isn't a secret. Obama has told everyone who would listen that he plans on "spreading the wealth", and his anti-free market policies have proven he means it. What he envisions us turning in to is open for debate, but there is no need to attach a sinister conspiracy to it.

  • ||

    You could argue that Obama lets his personal history influence his diplomacy in regards to the UK, but to then go off in to D'Souza land and say that Obama is also using this history to influence his secret plan to destroy America is ridiculous for several reasons every policy decision he makes.

  • ||

    Nobody takes D'Souza OR Forbes seriously.

  • Mike the Grouch||

    But the combination of D'Souza AND Forbes is a very serious matter.

  • Bruce Majors||

    This column was published first at Forbes.

  • ||

    Why is being anti-colonialist suddenly so awful? I thought that was one of the bedrock priciples of the left.
    As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, is it now considered wonderful to be "Pro-colonialist"? Would George Washington be considered anti-colonialist?

  • ||

    Don't worry. These people are generally not brainiacs. They will go on and on about following the "anti-colonial" Founding Fathers and seceding from the Federal "empire" but if an argument is even slightly damning of Obama, they will gladly set aside their cognitive dissonance to engage in any personal attack possible.

  • Jason||

    Why is being anti-colonialist suddenly so awful? I thought that was one of the bedrock priciples of the left.

    Woodrow Wilson was quite the colonialist.

  • ChrisL||

    Began 18 year occupation of Haiti. Racist too -- Birth of a Nation in the White House -- but center left at most. T. Roosevelt's 1912 platform was well to the left of Wilson. On the other hand I suppose League of Nations "Mandated Territories" were a compromise with emergent anti-colonialism.

  • Bruce Majors||

    But Obama isn't an actual anti-colonialist. To him anti-colonialism means enslaving anyone who is productive to force them to make wealth transfers to their alleged victims in other lands impoverished by their own local Obamas, while skimming off the cream.

  • Eric Cartman||

    Goddamn it, spam filter, I said, "Indian immigrant fiiiiight!!"

    Do NOT question my authoritah...

  • ||

    Obama's grandfather was imprisoned for two years and tortured by white British soldiers during Kenya's bloody fight for independence.

    Serious question: Did he ever meet his grandfather? My understanding is he hardly ever saw his father.

    Nah. Whatever anti-colonialism he may harbor in his dark and empty heart was picked up where he got everything else: the campus quad.

  • Tman||

    This may be true, But Obama surely appears to have embraced his family's historical oppression.

    I can find no other explanation for his disregard for British policies and influence within American affairs both foreign and domestic.

  • MWG||

    "...his dark and empty heart..."

    RACIST!

  • yawn||

    Shikha you bore the tits off of me. Time is relative to the sun and may the sun burn you - for wasting my time! Remember "radical capitalists" of reason, time is money and money is time. Even the slimiest of all street peddling cunts know this shit, maaannn!!!

    So why you wasting my time writing this bullshit. Dinesh is a glory whore. Reason has allocated too much intellectual capital on some gay ass statements and they milked tits of this cow dry.

    Talk about old ladies being beaten with their own prosthetic legs by the 5-0 over a joint. Talk about how Paul Ryan doesn't whistle dixie on government waste. Glad after voting for tarp and many other terrible things he's still reason's st. christopher.

    Now if you excuse me I have a real job. One that doesn't pay me to moan/bitch/argue tom palmer stylee.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    How did she waste your time by writing something?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    She then forced him at gunpoint to click on it and then sit there and read the entire thing.

    Then her minion thugs beat him about the head and neck until he clicked on the "comment" link, typed out his comment and then hit the "submit" button.

  • yawn||

    Aww the reasonoid tribe of cheerleaders. If reason told you to jump off of the brooklyn bridge would ya? would ya?

  • jacob||

    Not quite sure what you mean. You wrote a totally stupid fucking comment about how an author "wasted" your time after you chose to click on the link and read it. Everyone who disagrees with you is a bunch of followers??

  • yawn||

    you won't change my mind about reason. so be the 'free thinker' that you are and donate some money to reason fantasy land magazine. an unrealistic view of the world and all things that really/should matter.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Tell Shikha's minion thugs to stop wasting my time by making you write comments, which I have no choice but to read at my fake job.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Okay, yawn... tell us where the REAL "free thinker" site is. We'll go visit it and decide for ourselves.

  • Hooha||

    Aww. Yawn seems to have taken his ball and gone home. Way to ruin the fun, FIFY!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    My bad, my bad, my maximum bad. I 'pologize.

  • Fructose||

    If you read Dreams from My Father, which I have, it is hard not to get the impression that Obama was a fairly hard-core anti-colonialist who was fascinated and fixated on the topic of race.

    I don't blame Obama for this, because America's fucked up history (like the one-drop rule) makes it hard for biracial (especially black/white) people to be anything other than "black", this obviously causes cognitive dissonance when you're raised almost exclusively by white people.

    The irony, though, is that Obama's anticolonialism seemed to disappear once he took power, he continues to invade and occupy foreign soil in approximately the same fashion as his hyper-aggressive predecessor.

  • DLM||

    ...makes it hard for biracial (especially black/white) people to be anything other than "black", ...

    Just out of curiousity, if someone is part Chinese and part American, is it hard for *him* as a biracial person to be anything of than "black", too? Seems a little odd.

  • .||

    Just out of curiosity, when did Chinese or American become a race?

  • Max||

    Does cute little Shikha really think that her Tea Party allies can make a distinction between Kenyan and Keynsian?

  • Can You?||

    ?????????

  • Fatty Bolger||

    What's a Keynsian?

  • ||

    But Newt Gangrenich thinks DSouza's analysis is incredibly insightful and accurate!

    And Newt's a GENIUS, dude.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I don't understand all the Dinesh hate on this one. Hate him for when he is truly being a dickhead, not for when he comes up with an interesting, albeit slightly goofy idea and takes it (probably) too far. How do you write more than 100 pages on anything without taking it a little too far?

    It is funny that Newt Gingrich likes it so much though. Thats how you can tell its a goofball idea.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I read "The Third Wave" by Toffler when I was like twelve or something. I could tell it was equal parts obvious stuff that didn't need writing down and bullshit even then.

  • ||

    I'd like someone to examine the psychology of when Indians turn into Christers, like D'Souza has . Invariably they turn out to be dickheads. Does it have something with rejecting the faith of the fathers?

    Seems like a fair question if D'Souza is going to be play such games.

  • ||

    Christianity welcomes all. You just have to forget everything you knew and accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, bodyguard and crutch.

  • ChrisL||

    It is highly likely that D'Souza's ancestors in Goa have been Catholic for many generations. Don't think he's rejecting the faith of his fathers.

  • CBBTOO||

    How could a rich country become richer by looting a poor country? Doesn't a poor country, by definition, lack anything worth looting?

    And that Douchesouza character is surely the prize goof of our age and I'm surprised he didn't find a way to prove that Obama is the member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy too. Just look at some of the shit he writes.

  • T||

    You have 20 bucks you got from panhandling on the street and can fit your entire worldly possessions into the shopping cart you keep under the freeway overpass. I have a house, a car, and a 401k. If I take your 20 bucks at gunpoint, I'm still up 20 bucks.

  • CBBTOO||

    Unless the cops find you. Then you'll be in jail for god only knows how long. All for 20 bucks? In the real world no rational person would take that action. And in the real world looting does not create wealth ergo countries cannot become rich via looting. Quite the contrary in fact: empires were a great financial burden on whatever country maintained them.

  • ||

    "In the real world no rational person would take that action."

    And yet it happens every day. Welcome to the REAL real world, Libertarian.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Rich people mug homeless people everyday?

  • ||

    Possibly. But that wasn't my point. My point is that the homeless get robbed all the time by people far better off than them. And though colonialism is costly and ultimately not worth it, it's still with us. My point - contrary to libertarian dogma - is that people (and states) are not rational.

  • CBBTOO||

    I take it "colonialism" for a person such as you refers to the fact that McDonald's are sold in Japan? (More progressive "dogma") I say that since the collapse of the Soviet Union there have been no real empires in existence.

  • ||

    You lose. I'm no leftist. I say the more McDonalds, the better. I wouldn't be caught dead in one here but if I were in Japan, I'm sure every other meal would be chicken nuggets since I'm not down with that freaky Asian cuisine. Empires, well there's China. And frankly, I'll feel more comfortable saying we aren't one once we get our bases out of half the world.

  • .||

    China isn't really an empire - it's just a big fucking country. It's all on the same land mass - no colonies, just provinces, with the possible exception of Tibet.

  • CBBTOO||

    I think he means "talented people earn much more money than I do" every day. That's the moral equivalent of mugging a poor person for anybody that uses the word libertarian as a pejorative.

  • ||

    Uh, no. I mean homeless people get mugged. As in robbed. As in beat with a baseball bat and their booze money swiped.

    Oh, and just so I can fit in around this fever swamp, fuck you. Wow, this is fun!

  • Hooha||

    Wow, you must surely have some kind of concrete proof that this is a regular occurence? Or are we supposed to take your word for it?

    Reguardless of whether there's any truth to the statement or not, it was a really nice straw man. On a national scale, no poor country has the resources to make endless occupation worthwhile.

    If I may have another whack at that wonderful scarecrow, it would be like if you had to buy a baseball bat and a plane ticket to attack every hobo you wanted to mug out of his twenty dollars worth of nickels.

  • kjoiwjfh||

    Let me make another try to get past the spam filter.

    If occ_upying another country for its resources is not worthwhile, why has Russ_ia o_ccup_ied Ch-ech_nya for centuries?

  • .||

    Perhaps to keep Chechnya from occupying Russia.

  • CBBTOO||

    "Homeless people get mugged. As in robbed". By rich people. Who grow rich by such means? You're taking the piss right?

  • ||

    No, see what he's talking about is a person with more tangible assets making transactions with people with possibly fewer assets at an agreed price. Then, the person with less assets bitches that the other person 'stole' from him and 'exploited his situation'. So the poor bastard complains and whines that it isn't fair, forgetting he got a shiny new crack rock or iPod or what the fuck ever.

  • ChrisL||

    Classical anti-imperialist theory (Hobson, Lenin) held that a) colonialists took raw materials largely without paying for them from previous owners of land and using un- or under-paid labor -- Belgian Congo was a particularly egregious case and b) sought to develop colonies only in limited ways to turn them into markets for metropolitan products, usually cheaply made & overpriced. It is true that most colonies cost more to administer than they netted for the "home" metropolitan economies, but there were plenty of powerful private monopoly interests with political pull that made boodles & got the gov't to pay for policing, labor recruiting etc. Cf. military contracting.

  • ||

    I certainly don't think the "anti-colonialist" theory explains Obama's actions in a unified way. But it is part of the "progressive" dogma in which he was immersed during his formative years, and it clearly affected his thinking.

    Remember when he said that we Americans aren't going to be able to eat whatever we want in the future? It sent me the message that our standard of living was going to be reduced. I think the Keynesian attempt to start a spending spree is a temporary necessity in the typical progressive mind. This is clear from the way spending was timed, in the Democrats' plans, to increase before the 2010 and 2012 elections. A side benefit is greater government control over wealth and how it is spent.

    In certain policy areas, I think Obama has been rudely awaked by the reality of How Things Work. It's harder to maintain a pure ideology in the presidency of the United States than in American academia. The intellectual environment in academia is even more artificial than that in politics.

  • Tony||

    The intellectual environment in academia is even more artificial than that in politics.

    And where do you propose we go for intellectual stimulus? Crackpot rightwing websites, perhaps?

    Progressivism rejects dogma, and it's not some fringe cult-like ideology. This country has done pretty well under progressive presidents. Maybe one day a rightwing conservative will do a good job.

    Have you ever stepped foot on a university? The anti-intellectualism in your post is disturbing, and I hope others around here reject it. If most of academia is against you maybe there's something wrong with you.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What a fuckin' laugh. Progressivism IS dogma. Funny how you exclude your own twisted ideology on a regular basis.

    If I wanted left- or right-wing elitists running my life, I'd FUCKING VOTE FOR THEM.

    But, not being a child or an adult with a child-level IQ, my preference is to run my own goddamned life, thanks anyway, Mr. Team Blue and/or Mr. Team Red, whomever is jockeying at the moment to gain that power.

    That is a bipartisan approach, Tony. I don't trust liberal do-gooders OR right-wingers of that do-goody persuasion. You, however, welcome the left-tilting would-be overlords, which is your right, even if you want to help shovel dirt over your own grave.

  • anti-Tony||

    I work at a university and it is full of wack-job leftists who believe shit that would scare even you Tony.

  • .||

    If most of academia is against you maybe there's something wrong with you.

    Or maybe there's something wrong with academia.

  • Bruce Majors||

    WHY DOES THIS “CHRISTIAN” ALWAYS FLOCK TO HEAR THE MUSLIM MESSAGE?
    by Brigitte de Maubec

    Did Obama attend a Protestant church on Sunday because a pro-Palestinian Muslim was invited to speak?
    (Sept. 20, 2010) — Yesterday, on Sunday, September 19, 2010, the Obama family attended church for only the third time in a year. They went on foot to the St. John’s Episcopal Church situated across the Lafayette Park.
    But what is widely not reported by the White House and the MSM is that on that particular Sunday in that particular church, Dr. Ziad Asali, M.D., a Muslim, founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine, was the guest speaker. He was there to speak on the subject of “Prospects of the two-state solution in the Middle-East.”
    According to the website of the American Task Force on Palestine, it is a “non-profit, non-partisan organization based in Washington, DC.” The organization describes itself as “dedicated to advocating that it is in the American national interest to promote an end to the conflict in the Middle East through a negotiated agreement that provides for two states – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security.”
    Dr. Ziad J. Asali is described as “a long-time activist on Middle East issues” who has testified to both chambers of Congress about Palestinian interests, increased U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, and “Israel’s disproportionate use of force” in Gaza. A retired physician, Asali received his early medical training at the American University of Beirut. He previously served as President of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and Chairman of the American Committee on Jerusalem (ACJ), which he also co-founded He also served as the President of the Arab-American University Graduates (AAUG).
    Next Sunday, September 26, 2010, another guest speaker, Dr. Aaron David Miller, a Public Policy Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, is scheduled to speak on the same subject. Dr. Miller was a State Department Analyst and Negotiator from 1978 to 2003. According to the Wilson Center, his expertise lies in US-Middle East relations, Arab-Israeli negotiations, Arab world and Palestinian politics and Israeli politics. He has appeared on major network television as a guest, and his writing has been internationally published. His latest published book is titled The Much Too Promised Land; America’s Elusive Search For Arab-Israeli Peace and was published in 2008. An excerpt from the book can be found here.
    (Dr. Miller is not to be confused with a famous organist with the same name and professional title who ironically has been a church organist and music director at Protestant churches.)
    Let’s see if Dr. Miller’s views on the subject will have enough of the same attraction for Obama and his family to return to Church or if the appeal of golf shall once more be irresistible.
    © 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

  • US Constitution||

    [N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

  • ChrisL||

    American University in Beirut is was founded by Christian missionaries. There is a small but influential Christian Palestinian minority and many Lebanese Arabs are Christian. A couple of years ago the head of the Presbyterian denominational organization in the U.S. was of Palestinian descent. I will not take it for granted that Asali is a Muslim on the say-so of an obviously hostile source that wants to pretend Obama is a Muslim.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Obama isn't a Muslim... he has a dog.

    Unfortunately, though, he IS a U.S.-born citizen.

  • .||

    Obama IS a dog...and the son of a couple.

  • ||

    Actually, some Lebanese Christians would disagree with you about their... Arabness? Aribity? You know what I mean.

  • ||

    TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT…..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.THE COMMANDER.
    OBAMA goes about his business by speaking the lie. II Thessalonians 2 says that he comes "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness." Revelation 13:12 says, "and he spoke as a dragon...." Revelation 17 tells us that he was a false prophet, a prophet being one whose calling it is to speak and to teach. The armies of the world may have guns and tanks and bombs to bring people into submission; but the power of speech and ideas is a mighty power. In his initial attempts to destroy the cause of God, the devil used a serpent to deceive the woman with crooked speech: "You will be like God." Now he uses a "dragon" who speaks crafty, lying words. His speeches will be heard by millions who will hang on his persuasive rhetoric. The content as well as the form of his speech will attract. Like most false prophets, he will even be sincere and passionate. But he is a liar. He adds dashes of truth to the mix, so that his lie tastes like truth. He will use all the right catchwords, using the language of the church, even throwing in a Bible text or two. But he is the ultimate Liar, and will deceive many.
    OBAMA will use every tool available: school teachers, politicians, news broadcasters, artists, musicians, scientists and doctors, lawyers and businessmen. All will be pressed into the service of OBAMA to deceive men. But especially he will use those whose calling it is to persuade and to teach -- men who claim to be preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    THE COMMANDER,,, REPOST THIS IF YOU AGREE .. THE END OF AMERICAIf ,one asks what he should look for in the days to come, we say this: there will be political union all nations will be gathered together into one mighty empire. This is the first of obama. There will also be religious union, joining all the religions and religious empires of the world. The powerful ecumenical movement of today, led by the religions of Christianity, will in the end fully succeed, swallowing up all the other religions of the world. You may expect to see one man over it all. obama.

  • .||

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  • ||

    There's one in every bunch.

  • ||

    Can I subscribe to your cardboard box suit/newsletter? I'll pay an extra 50 cents for ketchup stains on that.

  • THIS!||

    D'Souza is wrong. Michelle Obama was the inspiration for his anti-American socialist tendacies. I suspect Barry was a milatto boy searching for an identity most of his life until he met Mechelle. His daddy left him when he was two, he didn't like living with his flaky humanist mother in Indonesia and he was mostly raised by his "typical" white grandparents. As a young ladd Barry was mentored by Frank Marshal Davis the proud CPUSA poet. I'd bet anything he was still using the name Barry Soetero until he met Mechelle who probably convinced him to find his African roots and be proud of which you can clearly see in so many photos of him tilting that head up as if he were Lenin himself. His mentor of 20 years the rabid fool Rev Wright is also a product of Mechelle's influence on him.

    Thank goodness Mechelle is finally proud of her country now that she's collecting reparations in the form of vacations and such on behalf of ALL Blacks.

  • THIS!||

    Also, this explanation could be the reason Obama spent millions hiding his records.

  • ||

    What I dont understand is why others cannot see that Obama is a straight up, boilerplate, stereotypical progressive.
    Why the need to make up all these crazy explanations? He subscribes to the progressive orthordoxy so well, that if you just went by his voting record and positions on everything, he would be indistinguishable from innumerable other progressive politicians.
    There really is absolutely nothing remarkable about this man, good or bad. Which does make it the greatest irony that all those clowns thought him the most remarkable man in the history of everything.

  • Hacha Cha||

    Do these people know what "anti-colonialist" means? Obama is about as far from an anti-colonialist as it gets.

  • .||

    "Socialism—no matter how unworkable—is still a fully elaborated socio-economic vision that has to be confronted on its own terms with arguments and evidence. One can accuse its advocates of being misguided or utopian or wrong. But one can’t accuse them of bad faith."

    Can't accuse them of bad faith?!?!?! And just why in hell not?

  • ||

    It's embarrassing when your perceived side includes crazy conspiracists. But, on the other hand, if our side had nothing but attractive, charming rationalists, WE might be happier, but our opponents still wouldn't be convinced. I mean, if they were smart they could figure out the right answer on their own.

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

  • UGG Boots Cheap||

    dd

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement