Obama the “Patriot”
“So should we vote for Obama?” Having devoted some thousands of words to the unveiling of John McCain low character and sordid record, online and in the current issue of Chronicles, I am asked this question with some regularity. Of course not, I reply; being anti-cancer does not make one pro-HIV. McCain is a neurotic scumbag; his opponent is a destructor.
Only this country’s cultural pathology may account for the cult-like success of a nobody who came from nowhere, whose personal loyalties and cultural preferences are eccentric at best, and who preaches “change” as the way to turn intolerable being into perpetual becoming. Obama’s speech on patriotism at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, last Monday (June 30) illustrates the problem.
“A simple band of colonists” that took up arms “against the tyranny of an Empire” in 1775, according to Obama, “did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea, the idea of liberty . . . Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots.”
This is not true. The revolutionaries—always a minority among the colonists—were motivated by the desire to defend their own interests and those of their families, friends and neighbors (“tribe or lineage”), and not by the urge to uphold any “larger idea.” Even the leaders of the American Revolution—many of them radicals by their time’s standards—did not set out to remake the political order, but to mend a flawed system and improve upon it.
Obama’s falsification of history has the clear purpose of back-dating the credal concept of “patriotism” in the very birth of the nation. It was essential to his subsequent “definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America’s common spirit.” His definition rests squarely on “sacrifice” and “call to service.” For the uninitiated, it means the “haves”—mainly European-Americans—willingly enduring higher taxes to pay for yet more government programs supposedly helping the have-nots—overwhelmingly, of course, the people with whom Obama identifies, to whose grudges he panders, and whose obsessions he shared for 20 years of attendance at Dr. Wright’s (“God damn America”) so-called church.
In Obama’s scheme of things his wife, too, can be classified as eminently patriotic, now that for the first time in her life she can be proud of America thanks to the success of his political career. The “bitter” blue-collar whites, by contrast, cannot be patriotic for as long as they cling to guns, religion, and bigotry, all of which supposedly explains their antipathy to him.
His hypocrisy will not help him with this constituency, however. America “is the greatest country on Earth,” Obama declared in Independence in support of his red-white-and-blue credentials; but he must have reached that conclusion fairly recently. “I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great,” he announced in a speech last fall. In other words, the country is yet to become “great” (Obama Oct. ’07) but it is nevertheless “the greatest on Earth” (Obama, June ’08).
A few touchy-feely snippets of autobiographical faction came next, with Obama claiming to remember his mother “reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’…” The would-be President should be asked whatever happened to the actual first lines, “When in the course of human events,” etc.? He will not be asked, though; it would be… so insensitive.
Towards the end of his speech, Obama reasserted his propositional creed:
Patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America’s ideals—ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one.
“Instead,” indeed. You may love America (“the place on the map”) with all your heart, and you may care for your fellow Americans (“a certain kind of people”) before all others. According to Obama that does not make you patriotic, however, unless you also believe that “anyone” can and therefore at least in principle should become an American, on the grounds of his or her loyalty to the ideal of a multicultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, tolerant, all-inclusive, diverse, anti-discriminationist, redistributionist America.
“That is the community we strive to build,” Obama concluded, “one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America’s happy and singular creed.”
The Obama phenomenon reflects the hysterical temperament of a huge segment of the American public, temperament prone to adolescent over-excitability and willful self-deception bordering on self-hate. This mindset is ostensibly messianic, but the real Obama is only a step away from Gore Vidal’s John Cave, preaching self-annihilation as a way of redeeming a fallen humanity and liberating it from all struggle and disquietude.
If John McCain wins next November, we are likely to end up embroiled in at least one more costly and unnecessary war abroad and there will be a blanket amnesty of up to thirty million illegals at home. If it’s Barack Hussein Obama, we’ll have a massive, revolutionary shift away from the real, historical America—the country that all true patriots love and cherish—into a mutant hybrid unfit for a cultivated person to live in.
May God help us all.
24 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Obama The “Patriot” « Evynn’s Weblog
- Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture | Your Home for Traditional Conservatism » Church and Nation: A Credal Nation, Part 3
- Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture | Your Home for Traditional Conservatism » Defamation vs. Poor Jurnalism: My B92 TV Interview
Entries(RSS)
Obama may prove to be be a better salesman for propositionalism than were the neocons, but at least it will shine some light on the leftist origins of this "creedal nation" nonsense. I hope some of the mainstream "conservatives" are taking notes.
Trifkovic: "If John McCain wins next November, we are likely to end up embroiled in at least one more costly and unnecessary war abroad and there will be a blanket amnesty of up to thirty million illegals at home. If it’s Barack Hussein Obama, we’ll have a massive, revolutionary shift away from the real, historical America—the country that all true patriots love and cherish—into a mutant hybrid unfit for a cultivated person to live in."
Choosing between McCain and Obama is like choosing whether one wants to die via firing squad or hanging.
"If it’s Barack Hussein Obama, we’ll have a massive, revolutionary shift away from the real, historical America—the country that all true patriots love and cherish—into a mutant hybrid unfit for a cultivated person to live in."
But what if his reign brings unprecedented disaster? That could teach Americans a lesson or two.
Bin Laden has probably held back from ordering an attack on US Soil lately because he's afraid that if a second (neccessarily larger) attack is undertaken in the context of a Republican President, the base of his party would demand a strong crackdown on immigration (troops on the border, etc.) that could frustrate Bin Laden's ability to launch attacks on US Soil in the future.
With Barack Obama, on the other hand, I don't know what his base would demand after "9/11, Part Two", but I know it wouldn't have a dang thing to do with Immigration.
If Bin Laden is rational, and I think he is, this is and will be a very important consideration given that in the future, he and his people will have much better weapons than they currently enjoy.
Of course, the young iman lies about the Revolution, but that is nothing new in American discourse. The lie is at least a century and a half old.
The bemused view of most of us down here in
Melbourne is that Obama is nothing more than a vacuous televangelist - a man who manages to say nothing while blethering feel-good rhetoric in spades. What on earth does 'change you can believe in' mean?. If an Australian politician were to shroud himself with such an empty banner without laying out a convincing manifesto of what changes he actually proposes to introduce he would be treated with deserved contempt. Or are such rudimentary details unimportant to Americans?
Didn't the american revolution happen primeraly because the British empire increased taxes on the colonies. I think it was Benjamin Franklin himself who considered this the main reason behind the revolution in his autobiography.
Its funny how the US choosing with countries to export its ideas. it seems to attack and "promote" democracy to countries outside its influence through NED and other NGO's yet props up less than democratic alligned with the US like Kosovo or the North Korean style family monarchy of Azerbajin.
We need to reform the news media aswell because lets face it it doesn't exactly exert any independent reporting and viewpoints. Look how they reported on the Serbs in the 90's, on Kosovo, Waco, Russia, Iraq war before and present.
Of course its not just the media in the US. The European media is identical in viewpoints and perspectives. One of the biggest myths is that the BBC was against the Iraq war which is a lie it produced two 1 hour programs that Iraq could secretly aquire nuclear material from facilities were security is lax and the other were there was a lingering fear that Saddam might try to genocide the Kurds.
Plus western media is constantly pushing this multi-cultural agenda.
Your final paragraph is a perfect analysis of the catastrophe.We should probably now think in terms of surviving a catastrophe not winning already fixed elections.It is a small consolation that our enemies need us to feed,cure and protect them.Without us,they will wither. It is a bleak outlook-and most men will come to regret the decline of the "real,historical" America,particularily those least equipped to survive without it.Good riddance,San Francisco. Glad you folks hated guns.
You are rather kind to Obama, except in using the HUSSEIN, which has no purpose other than the obvious one. Let's also use "John Sidney McCain III." I suspect that it would have more negative effect on blue collar Catholics, who are going to determine this election anyway. By the way, is it not quite possible that the greater threat to expanded warfare and expanded empire might well come from Democrats?
John Wilson,I appreciate but don't agree with your hope about the Democrats.Wilson's war,FDR's war(which we are barely permitted to debate),Truman's Korea(remember it took Ike to end this one),Johnson's Viet Nam,Clinton's Bosnia and Kosovo,and that's just the short list.The Democratic Party basically went along for the ride in Iraq in 1991 and 2003.Obama has openly and increasingly refused to disavow the Empire.He has made noises about war with Pakistan and Iran...and to be fair made noises about peace.His recent groveling before AIPAC was an embarrassment to everyone.Who knows what his real "plan" for withdrawal from Iraq is.And he's seemingly inclined to intervene in really stupid conflicts like Darfur.Obama sees himself as the multiracial emperor of a multicultural empire.I doubt very much it will succeed...but it will be attempted and they will try to use our military.That's going to be as they say "crunch time" for more than a few soldiers.
"If it’s Barack Hussein Obama, we’ll have a massive, revolutionary shift away from the real, historical America—the country that all true patriots love and cherish—into a mutant hybrid unfit for a cultivated person to live in."
Too late.
"I will never question anybody's patriotism" - which is not to say I won't let General W. Clark puke all over John McCain, but should anybody on my behalf question somebody's patriotism - that can not be applied to me because I said that I will not question anybody's patriotism. "Outweighed our imperfections (Apalachia, Mississippi Delta), worship as we please (even Satan? Alah? Charles Manson?) - I am not too sure this is spoken by a future American President. Boy, did he shoot the American flags full of holes. Comparisons of America to the achievements of Zimbabwe, Burma, Iraq? What's next? We have to compare ourselves to penguins who are on a strickt deit of fish alone, while we in America may have an ocassional chicken? Mark Twain was badly outdone by Edward Abbey: "A patriot must always be ready to protect his country against his government".
yes yes but the destruction is even larger than anticipated. We can expect reverse discrimination of the whites on a grand scale and on every level. The further browbeating of white culture with rap music, mediocre minority in search of a victim literature and film propaganda from Hollywood, in your face sports where whites just don't measure up, establishment of one party system in states such as Illinois, Massachussets and California, a complete demise of the economy as the capital loses all confidence in the USA, just to name a few of the consequences .The secret agenda of the left seems to be to make the whites pay for their capitalist trespasses of the past by turning them into the future underclass via the stockholm syndrome. After 4 years of Obama, which would be nothing like Carter's second term, as there would be no way to turn back, we would be facing an abolishment of the USA as we know it. The right of this country would be defeated for ever.
They (both candidates) want to kill the old America [as Lincoln started to do.] This is sad because I never knew her in person. There are only little sort of vestiges left here and there wherein people love their place and their people and their western, christian heritage, their real culture.
'The silly boy/s' (candidates) 'believing she is dead,
Claps her pale cheek till clapping makes it red.' -W.S.
Things are circular as in a curlicue, go around, slight advance, go around etc. Would that the slight advance were now.
'The warm effects which she in him' (will) 'finds missing
She seeks to kindle with continual kissing.' -W.S.
Describes the candidates. ... Where's Hillary and Ron Paul when you need'em?!
'No, lady, no. My heart longs not to groan,
But soundly sleeps, while now it sleeps alone.' -W.S.
I think the problem can be phrased as follows:
Most liberals believe that "liberty" can be divorced from the process of constructing it in one's specific local and historical context. The hearkens back to Rousseau's "Man is born free" [in a state of nature] idea. In other words, it is the idea that liberty is a "creed" rather than a free conscience formed in the midst of specific social relations. It is connected to the false abstractions of Christianity into a religion of ideas (which can be transmitted anywhere) rather than a religion of obedience (which you have to make happen in your actual life with actual people around you).
The probem with this, that we are already seeing in Obama is that, when the effort to foster "political altruism" or "brotherhood" based on political will rather than the more modest goal of developing a politics that effectively supports society's free pursuit of what its people want (which is likely to include some altruism on a private level) fails, which it inevitably will, the politician realizes that, to do something, he / she must resort to naked political manipulation or force. This disappoints supporters who believed in something 'new' (as Obama is doing now) and usually leaves in its place raw power and partisanship.
In our context, it would be better if Obama actually tried to implement his stated principles (getting us out of Iraq, reinstating civil liberties), but instead he is backtracking on both because those ideas were the right ideas with the wrong basis - they seem to have been based on some combination of compassion-utilitarian consideration rather than the desire to maintain specific, locally constructed liberty. As such, even he knows compassionate politics is nonsense so now he will go back on himself, retaining the compassion for the speeches and using the utilitarianism for governing... alternating, alternating.
That said, I still hold out more hope of him finding a real notion of liberty than I do of McCain - I actually think its in him - but only if he can escape from liberal wishywashy compassion nonsense on one side and Clintonian / LBJ power grabbing influences on the other.
Let's not forget as Dr. Trifkovic pointed out McCain famously lost 5 taxpayers' jets prior to having a sixth shot down, after which he was captured. (where's Rambo when you need him?) This apparently suggests a flying acumen (of the fourth or fifth to last in his graduating class) on a par with Budy Hackett's in the film 'It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World', which I rented and watched the other night. Although I didn't find it as funny as I had when I was 10, I laughed occasionally and recommend it for the McCain Buddy Hackett analogy. The funniest moment for me today as a crazy adult, was when Jerry Lewis ran over Spencer Tracy's hat.
If you want to laugh like mad as an adult rent or buy the film: "What About Bob?" starrying Bill Murray. You can't do much better than Bill Murray as a comedic actor. You could die laughing - which I guess ain't a bad way to go.
Someone also suggested I don't think it was Dr. T., that the Viet Cong kicked McCain out of prisoner of war camp; finally figuring out he was more of a detriment to their enemies, if permitted to function in their behalf. OR maybe the chip was successfully implanted? Could he be the new manchurian candidate? (I can't imagine who would 'want' to be president these days. Shouldn't they be disqualified on that basis alone?)
"If it’s Barack Hussein Obama, we’ll have a massive, revolutionary shift away from the real, historical America—the country that all true patriots love and cherish—into a mutant hybrid unfit for a cultivated person to live in." True, but why is that statement relevant to most Amerikans?
So where do we move when he wins?
As in Edward Abbey's: "A patriot must always be prepared to defend his country against his government"
I wonder how one gets a working permit for Ireland, New Zealand, Australia.
It may very well be that a choice between Obama and McCain is the choice between death by hemlock or cyanide, but from an opposition standpoint there are advantages to having Obama win the White House than John McCain.
If there is a McCain presidency, it would be very difficult to mount an effective oppsition to it within the Republican Party. As we saw during the primaries, Republican voters tend to have pathological support of "the leader" or any kind of "leader" that presents himself as such. This why McCain won. He stayed loyal to the war in Iraq, loyal to the President's overall policy and gave himself credit for advocating better strategy for that war, helping out the commander-in-chief. Ron Paul himself noted that support for the war among many Republicans was out of party loyalty for the war they started and loyalty to the President as commander-in-chief (this goes to show that the military-industrial complex, more so than the so-called "Christian Right" or "economic conservatives" calls the shots in the modern GOP). A McCain presidency would make it impossible to oppose McCain's neocon policies from within the GOP because no politician would stick their necks out to oppose someone as hair-tempered and as vindictive as McCain and most rank and filers would support McCain out of that same sense of loyalty, perverted though it may be.
With Obama the situation completely changes. Now it's the Democrats that are in charge now it is Obama ideology that is front and center for conservatives to oppose and the neocons, who would not fundementally reject what Obama says, get squeezed out. It's the same situation that presented itself with Bill Clinton's arrival as President back in 1992. It was easy to create an effective conservative opposition to Clinton in the early 1990s than it would have been had George Bush I been re-elected. There would have been no Republican Revolution had the latter happened. A badly beaten GOP with McCain and the neocons utterly discredited, leaves a wide open GOP with a vacumn to fill and that vacumn can be filled with clear opposition to Obama's Jacobism.
'The bemused view of most of us down here in
Melbourne is that Obama is nothing more than a vacuous televangelist - a man who manages to say nothing while blathering feel-good rhetoric in spades.'
Exactly my experience seeing and hearing the man in person.
Long time ago we begun to vote. Like, all of us. We gave our vote to The Guy. Later we voted against the Other Guy. Recently we are confused. A lot.
Yeah, may God help us all.
Providing expensive, useless, meaningless "choice" was patented by any sadistic hypocrisy in History, best represented by "communists", of course, but ever spread well beyond certain "curtains". That is, at last, "crystally clear" to all.
Point of "democracy" is absolute denial of it as it goes.
Applause?
"If it’s Barack Hussein Obama, we’ll have a massive, revolutionary shift away from the real, historical America—the country that all true patriots love and cherish—into a mutant hybrid unfit for a cultivated person to live in."
The shift will just accelerate. This shift has been underway since the founding of the Republic. Twenty-first century American culture is a pretty ghastly pool of financial, political, and moral bankruptcy. It reels like a drunkard.
The historical America that all true patriots love and cherish definitively died in 1865 with the defeat of the South and has been dying progressively ever since.