Obama is a New Kind of Leftist

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.

Barack Obama is not a Communist, a fascist, a Muslim, a Marxist, a Progressive (in the pre-1920s’ meaning of that word, before it just became a cover for Communists and other leftists), 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. But we first have to identify what “it” is. Our difficulty in doing so has been a huge reason why we have not persuaded more people–though goodness knows a lot of people have woken up that there is a huge problem here.

Yet calling Obama those various names doesn’t persuade a large portion of the American population because they sense that these definitions aren’t accurate and can come up valid counter-arguments or be fed by schools and media with phony ones. And all of those who rage in the talk-back columns of websites aren’t persuading anyone anything except, perhaps, that Obama’s opponents are delusional. You may not like hearing that but it’s the truth.

I’m amazed and amused by people who say that Obama cannot be a leftist because he–gasp!–appointed people from Wall Street to his cabinet and favors certain specific companies and banks. Excuse me, you are merely saying perhaps that by engaging in corruption and getting some big favored capitalists to give him big campaign donations in exchange for favors that Obama isn’t an “honest” leftist. If the left can get support from some such people it would be foolish to throw away the chance. Refusing to act like that was how the Old Left and the 1960s’ New Left behaved and we saw what happened to them.

We are in a totally new era. The nineteenth and early twentieth century debates and categories no longer hold. Indeed, when the New Leftists climbed out of the wreckage of the 1960s-early 1970s they realized this and successfully built something very new. (If you are looking for a “prehistoric” founding document in terms of some important themes, albeit very much altered, read the original Weatherman Manifesto and then delete all the hysterical parts. Dress it up in a suit and tie and seat it behind the desk of a professor, foundation director, reporter, or politician. I don’t have the space here to explain this point in detail.)

Let’s start with the word “socialist.” The European socialist, or social democratic, movement was strongly anti-Communist. Did they hate their countries? Remember, these were the people who remained patriots during World War One, that’s one of the main reasons they first broke with the Communists. The European Socialists gave up the idea of abolishing capitalism many decades ago. While some parties were further to the left (notably in Spain and Sweden), most had settled into relatively moderate positions. When was the last time they nationalized anything?

Moreover, remember that European statism is as much of conservative as of socialist origin. Consider France, a country whose high degree of centralization goes back to feudal times and Napoleon, not to mention the Gaullists. America is very exceptional all right, but because it broke with both European conservative and leftist models. The welfare states there were the results of multi-partisan efforts.

Have European socialists—I’m not talking here about left-wing academics and journalists—fallen in love with Barack Obama? Not at all. They might like Obama more than George W. Bush but they liked Bill Clinton better than either one. Not only do they not see Obama as a comrade but they could probably give him good advice about why his policies will inevitably fail. They may not have the answers for their own countries but they understand capitalism and how to make it work—and want to make it work—far more than he does.

So here’s a key point: Obama and his ideological comrades—let me call them the New New Left (NNL)—are to the left of almost all of the European Socialist parties.

Is Obama and company a Marxist group or a bunch of Communists, (referring to the movement begun by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and run thereafter by Joseph Stalin). Well, certainly there are parallels and ideas taken from that movement. But in many ways they have turned Marxism on its head. Let me give one critical example. Marxists held that material conditions were primary and would determine the course of history. The NNL rejects this and argues that it can use ideas and modern methods of advertising, educational indoctrination, a takeover of most media, and so on to bring about the fundamental transformation of America. They draw mainly from a deviant form developed by such people as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. But they have learned the most by taking mainstream American techniques and putting them at the service of radical ideology.

Moreover, in contrast to the NNL, Marxists saw the “bourgeois” government as an inevitable enemy. Impossible to change it could only be overthrown. The NNL sought to take over that government and use it to force “revolution” from above. The Marxists focused on the proletariat; while working with some (mostly government workers’) trade unions, the NNL bases itself on certain elements of the upper middle class while trying to buy off crony capitalists and the poor, who Marx called the lumpenproletariat. Well, of course, the result is a disaster when an anti-capitalist regime takes over a capitalist system. How can the system do anything but crash? The pilots are motivated by something that blends deliberate suicide with incompetence, and an ideology that ensures a crash. And they will never ever get better because they are just uninterested in learning what to do that works.

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; 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. Obviously this parallels both Marxist and non-Marxist historical leftism.

The fact that their description of America has so little to do with the actual country makes it all the more impressive that they’ve been able to sell this set of ideas. Having one of their indoctrinated products become president was a special bonus. That doesn’t mean Obama was backed by some conspiracy or singled out for highest office. There are thousands of such people who are in positions of power, including one-third of the Democrats in the House of Representatives. Obama just perfectly fit the needs of the moment.

Is Obama a Muslim? Of course not and there is no evidence that he is no matter how much you jump up and down and holler about it. On one side, Obama is—like his NNL colleagues–rather obviously a cynical atheist who has no serious religious belief.

On the other side, he certainly had close contact with Islam and functioned as a Muslim in Indonesia. It is worth mentioning that generally speaking Indonesia has about the most moderate form of Islam in the world. Note how in his autobiography, Obama describes his Muslim step-father’s tolerance for “pagan” Indonesian practices. This would be virtually unimaginable in any other country.

Coming from that experience, Obama fancies himself as an expert on Islam with a special rapport and sympathy to Muslims. His policy is a disaster because he refuses to recognize that non-al-Qaida Islamists are extremely anti-American, totalitarian, and anti-democratic. Does Obama want to help Islamists take power? In many cases, yes, but that isn’t because he’s a Muslim but because he falsely believes—encouraged by various “experts”—that this would tame them and they will like America and become democratic.

Has this kind of thinking happened before? Absolutely yes. In the 1950s, the U.S. government decided that Arab nationalists would be anti-Communist modernizers when they turned out to be bloodthirsty anti-American tyrants. In the early 1990s, both the U.S. and Israeli governments decided that helping Yasir Arafat would transform him into a statesman who just wanted to have his own country and settle down to fixing potholes.

Note that even if Obama were to be defeated in the election, the far left’s relative monopoly over mass media, academia, many schools, and much of publishing and entertainment would not be affected. The left-wing’s control over the Democratic Party might also well not be affected, because that would require a revolt by courageous people, further motivated by disastrous defeat, of which so far there is no sign whatsoever.

Obviously, only so much can be said about these things in 1000 words and these are central themes in a book I hope to complete before year’s end called Silent Revolution. But unless we can persuasively explain what is going on and avoid being labeled—at least by anyone who has been duped but wants to be honest—as a bunch of crazy name-callers, there are just going to be years more of the same.

“We are in a totally new era.”

No we aren’t. Were in the middle of a coup, like all Marxist coups that have come before.

A shadow government is building and the destruction of the current structure is progressing. The only thing new about this Marxist takeover is that it is happening now.

ME anarchists will do the heavy lifting for the all out coup “O” wants here.

It will be a done deal by the time “O” is ready to bust a move.

“Liberalism is nothing more than the ideological disguise of the ‘will-to-power’ of some groups who themselves, could not be LESS Liberal.” Camus

Nonsense. Obama most certainly is a Muslim. Ask any Muslim. If you have a Muslim father, you are a Muslim. If you confess the Muslim faith using specific words, you are a Muslim. If you worship Allah in mosques, you are a Muslim. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim, on pain of death.

It’s also silly to say that he is not a Marxist, a Communist, or a Nazi. All of those terms apply. The Chinese Communist leaders indulge in crony capitalism just like Obama does. Hitler indulged in crony capitalism. Marxists talk all such of idealistic talk, but that’s sheer propaganda. What they really crave is absolute and irreversible power.

And it’s not incompatible to be a Nazi, a Communist, and a Muslim. Ask anyone in the Muslim Brotherhood. They palled around with Hitler before they palled around with the Soviet Union. All they cared about was which one was the winner, and where would they get power. Because Islam is, beneath the surface, also all about absolute power. That’s why the Sultans and Caliphs were always murdering their relations and killing each other, between attacks on the infidels.

If you are looking for a “prehistoric” founding document in terms of some important themes, albeit very much altered, read the original Weatherman Manifesto and then delete all the hysterical parts. Dress it up in a suit and tie and seat it behind the desk of a professor, foundation director, reporter, or politician. I don’t have the space here to explain this point in detail.

The new movement is only about hunger - which is why totalitarian wannabees liked Clinton better than Obama. Clinton was ruthless - wasn't able to pull it all off - but he was their type...

Have you seen a copy of the Weatherman Manifesto, Zionist Conspirator? There's something to this theory - even though we know the Manifesto is only window dressing for much worse... we need to know how they pull in the suckers.

By my way of thinking, POTUS is a corporatist with collectivist leanings. A corporatist seeks to co-opt private industry for the purpose of achieving social policy goals by providing them the opportunity to carve out government created monopolies or oligopolies. A collectivist favors organizing society in a way that emphasizes the needs of the collective as opposed to the abstract ideals of personal freedom and choice.

Both corporatism and collectivism can be achieved under the umbrella of a political democracy in the context of the rule of law. I imagine France is the best example of this.

But the combination of corporatist economics and collectivist social policy are a recipe for failure. See the pre-Thatcher U.K. as the perfect example.

What follows the failure of this mixture of policies? Either a country finds a Thatcher or Reagan or it finds a Mussolini or Franco, a strong man willing to use the force of the state to accomplish social and economic policy objectives.

In short, scratch a progressive and you reveal a corporatist/collectivist. Scratch a corporatist/collectivist and you find a fascist. They may not conciously seek to create chaos and failure but you can be sure these nihilists unconsciously do. Where else do you think the phrase "never let a good crisis go to waste" came to be but in the fractured psyche of a dangerously destructive nihilist?

Modern totalitarians don't need the old rationalizations: for the worker - for racial purity - for the proletariat... whatever.

Those are the old horrors.

This is a new type of class warfare - and even that's not right - - it's so much more primal than that class warfare... The 'new' is 'us against them'... simple - uncomplicated by phony justifications. Us vs Them.

The left can't be defined philosophically. Think about it... What do inner city blacks have in common with white upper class gay men? Nothing. What do Jewish intellectuals have in common with Muslim immigrants? Nothing. What do TSA rent-a-cops have to do with illegal immigrants? Nothing. And Occupy astroturfers - what connection is there with them and white liberal elites? Nothing. The whole mess has devolved into who's team gets the spoils.

Irish - you're dressing up what democrats are doing - don't bother. It's a movement based on envy - that's the only glue between groups in 'the left'.

J: You identify critical contradictions in the uneasy political coalition of the U.S. Left. But I think there is a common thread among these groups. They all want to use the power of the state to achieve greater economic security and consumption without producing more or taking economic risks as well as enhanced hedonistic license. They recognize correctly that they are more likely to achieve these goals by creating a mass political movement.

While understandable, such a movement is easily swayed by demagogues that promise to fulfill their material and sensual desires — bread and circus if you will — in return for political support. We know from history that a nation of decadent citizens led by ambitious demagogues or unscrupulous ideologues never ends well.

How we turn this around is anyone’s guess. Frankly, I am not optimistic. The upcoming election may be this country's last chance for redemption. After 2012, the deck will be stacked against any candidate that does not offer a direct quid pro quo of stuff for votes.

Perhaps our only hope is that the decay will be long and mostly pleasant, as with Rome rather than swift and tumultuous, as with Athens and the Peloponnesian War.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.