The right-wing’s portrayal of Obama as a terrorist-sympathising, anti-Western alien intent on destroying the country was patently absurd from the start—which isn’t to say that that portrayal can’t grow absurder still. Obama’s justified caution in using force unilaterally against Gaddafi shows the instincts of a conservative realist, not a wild-eyed radical committed anywhere and everywhere to the liberation of the masses. “Bombs away” is not traditionally a conservative inclination.
I haven’t subjected myself to much right-wing talk radio and TV recently, so I don’t know whether the Obama-haters have made the predictable flip-flop. Having opposed Obama’s ultimate verbal support for the Egyptian protesters (an opposition not based on any a priori principle regarding the proper deference due to Middle Eastern dictators, but simply on the rule: whatever Obama does is wrong), the right-wing media, if they were suddenly to become guided by reason, should now be supporting Obama’s caution towards Libya. Because such backing for Obama’s Libyan diplomacy would represent principle and consistency, I can only suppose that the right is now blasting him for not siccing the American military on Libya.
The final nail in the coffin of Obama hysteria should be his disappointing approval of the shameful treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning. If ever there were a moment to stand up to the military complex, this is it. But instead Obama is rubber-stamping the military’s punitive behavior towards Manning. I detest Wikileaks’s childish belief that diplomatic secrecy is illegitimate and its outrageous presumptuousness acting on that belief. But I have yet to read any persuasive justification for the inhumane conditions Manning has been subjected to, including his near total isolation. Manning may have betrayed his country, but he is not a present security threat. Unless there are current facts about Manning that have not been made public, Obama’s kowtowing to the Pentagon on this one suggests at best an instinctive deference towards military judgment—again, hardly a left-wing, radical position—or at worst a weak indecisiveness. I will choose to believe the former, but wish that he channeled a little more of his alleged inner-ACLU advocate here. In any case, I am sure that Obama will get no credit from the pro-military right for this refusal to question the military’s judgment.
(This is not to say that Obama does not pursue plenty of left-wing big government policies. But he does so from within the mainstream liberal tradition, not as a fringe outsider.)
I cannot even pretend to believe that there is a coherent thought behind this rant. Heather first claims that she has “subjected [her]self to much right-wing talk radio and TV recently.” Then she imagines what they might be saying about Egypt and Libya with an imagined contradiction between the two imagined positions. After that she let loose a condemnation of the imagined views of those she has not heard express such views.
Who knows? They might not be contradicting themselves or even worse they might have an explanation as to why they believe that these two situations are different. Heather can’t know because she has not heard what they have said or how they explained themselves.
At least she got the categorization “right wing paranoia” right. She doesn’t realize that she is the one who is paranoid. Her post proves it. Gee, Heather I have read many of the serious things you have written. You can do better than these pointless rants.
This seems like a blog entry I might find on a Left Wing site. Illogical, based on preset presumptions. The paleo right is utterly opposed to the Bush/Obama warmongering. The fact that Obama didn’t go along with the liberal/neocon desire for more warmongering in no way gainsays the notion that Obama hates America and yearns for its demise as a Western nation witha white majority. He does indeed live for the day that middle America is majority nonwhite and under the UN bankers. Obama is already guaranteed a nine figure paycheck with book and speaking deals etc upon leaving office. He won’t want to kill the nation that fast….
Wow that last guy’s the most obvious troll I’ve seen in a long time.
Plus, if leaking documents that revealed extensive CIA interference in European countries to subvert the rule of law is “betraying the country,” so was Ellsberg’s leaks on how badly managed the Vietnam War was as well.
Doing whatever DoD wants isn’t always good for the country, folks.
Obama might be a mainstream liberal, but I don’t see how that excludes the possibility he wants to destroy America as it is and replace it with some version of America anathema to the principles behind the founding of the United States. Mainstream liberalism advocates various policies which will directly lead to the downfall of the United States and a catastrophe for American society if ever fully implemented. It might not be their express intent but that’ll be a pretty pointless distinction when it’s all said and done.
I have to agree with the above commenters. The only thing missing from this post is “Fucking NASCAR retards!!!”
“I detest Wikileaks’s childish belief that diplomatic secrecy is illegitimate and its outrageous presumptuousness acting on that belief.”
Do you also destest the enormous amount of corruption and illegal behaviour these leaks exposed? Not just by Americans, but by governments all over the world?
Gaddafi is a terrorist-sympathising, anti-Western alien. Could it be that Obama sympathizes with both alien sides in this fight?
Andrew Sullivan, is that you?
The fact that Obama acts as a mainstream left-liberal and not an explicit socialist does not mean that he is harmless. Mainstream left-liberalism is dedicated to the egalitarian remake of American society; ie it is dedicated to the end of the semi-free American Republic that currently exists.
Obama doesn’t have to be a Manchurian candidate planted by an international Communist organization to assist the Left in transforming America into an egalitarian totalitarian state. All he has to do is act on his ideological beliefs and get as much central planning in that he can. This is exactly what he is doing. With Bernanke’s help, he is paving the way for an even bigger economic meltdown. Some Leftist politician will be able to capitalize on that future meltdown. But Obama, with Neo-Conservative complicity, is setting the table.
The road that all Leftists and Neo-Conservatives are traveling on is one that leads to some version of a totalitarian state. There is no way that the American welfare-state is sustainable. Bush was a disaster from both a domestic and foreign policy perspective. Obama is worse, which is no small feat.
This post by Mac Donald shows that she does not understand the evil of the Left and that she does not understand the various divisions on the Right. If she can’t see that most mainstream Conservatives are nothing more than socially Conservative moderate Left-Liberals with a pro-American veneer, then she is relatively useless as a cultural commentator.
It seems to me there is a distinction between wanting to change America — including in ways reasonable people might disagree with — and wanting to destroy America. Obama is no doubt in favour of making America more multicultural and more social-democratic. Conservatives are entitled to hope he fails. But if he succeeds, the country will still be America, and patriots should still love it.
Identifying your country with your faction is dangerous.
Obama is no doubt in favour of making America more multicultural and more social-democratic. Conservatives are entitled to hope he fails. But if he succeeds, the country will still be America, and patriots should still love it.
Uh, no, you change the culture, you change the nation. And the vision being suggested is utterly hateful. If you want to embrace the sewer, however, be my guest.