How Obama Won—and May Win
by Patrick J. Buchanan
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. . . . I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Thus did Joe Biden famously describe his rival for the nomination, Barack Obama, to the The New York Observer, a year ago.
Biden, however, thought Obama might not be able to win the fall election, as he is “a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate. . . . I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”
Biden was forced to apologize, but was dead on in discerning Barack’s strengths as a candidate in the primaries, which might prove weaknesses in the fall.
A new face in the game, Barack opened with three aces. He opposed the Iraq war, the defining issue in a party that had come to detest the war. He was an African-American. Thus, as the hopes of millions rose that he could be the first black president, there were surges of black voters whom he begin to sweep 90-10.
Lastly, Barack is a natural, a Mickey Mantle, a superb political athlete like JFK, who has looks, charm, youth and a speaking style that can move crowds to cheers or laughter.
Barack was thus able to unite the McGovern wing—young, idealistic, liberal, anti-war—with the Jesse Jackson quadrant of the party, black folks, and defeat Hillary’s coalition of working-class Catholics, women, seniors and Hispanics.
As of today, by the traditional metrics of national politics, Democrats should roll up a victory this fall like FDR’s first in 1932.
Bush’s disapproval is near 70 percent, and 80 percent of the country believes the nation is on the wrong course. Unemployment is rising. Surging gas and food prices compete for the top story not only on business pages but front pages, with home foreclosures and the housing slump. Family incomes of Middle Americans have ceased to rise, as millions of their best jobs have been outsourced overseas.
Yet, national polls show McCain-Obama a close race, and the electoral map points to critical problems for Barack.
He seeks, for example, to target Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. But in all three the Hispanic vote may be decisive. And Barack was beaten by Hillary two to one among Hispanics, and between these two largest of America’s minorities, rivalry and tension are real and rising.
Barack must hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and pick up Ohio or Virginia. Yet, his weakness among Southern and working-class whites and women is remarkable. By two to one they rejected him.
After his string of primary and caucus victories in February, Barack proceeded to lose Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, then West Virginia by 41, Kentucky by 35, Puerto Rico two to one and South Dakota by 10. That last one Barack was supposed to win.
The longer the campaign went on, the more reluctant Democrats seemed to be to embrace his nomination.
What is Barack’s problem?
Middle America knows little about him, and much of what they know they do not like. When West Virginians were asked what they knew about Barack, a plurality said the Rev. Wright was his pastor. In Pennsylvania, a goodly slice of Democrats knew Barack had said they were “bitter” about being left behind and were clinging to their bigotries, Bibles and guns.
By June, resistance to Barack’s nomination in the party that he now leads was extraordinary, stemming from a belief that he is too naive to be commander in chief in wartime and too far left, and does not like or understand Middle America or its values.
“He is not one of us.”
And if Barack cannot erase this hardening perception in the American mind, he will not be president.
Democrats may talk of making the economy the issue this fall, but Republicans are going to make Barack the issue. Story line: We cannot entrust our beloved America, in a time of war, to this radical and exotic figure who has so many crazy and extremist associates.
Barack’s problem is thus Reagan’s problem.
As the country wished to be rid of Jimmy Carter in 1980, so the nation today wishes to be rid of Bush and his Republicans. But America is apprehensive over a roll of the dice, in Bill Clinton’s metaphor.
How did Reagan ease the anxiety? In the debate with Carter, he came off as conservative, yes, but also traditional, mainstream, witty and the more likable man. The real Reagan came through.
With his persona, Barack may be able to do the same—in the debates. The problem is that he had two dozen debates with Hillary and, by the end of the primary season, five months after it began, he was still losing ground.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Robert Borne on 10 June 2008:
Obama’s a talent and his character probably more sanguine and substantial than McWar’s is. But when I hear the former speak and the eddying concentric pools tighten pleasantly drawing us farther down for the last time into the vortex, with my last unobstructed breath, I watch the others with me happily imagining right along with Obama’s seeing it too: ‘ah yes, here come the flamingos.’
Clinton balanced the budget because the Republicans had the Congress. This time the Democrats will have both houses of Congress and so perhaps it would be fortuitous therefore if there were a Republican President. If the Democrats have it all just like the Republicans have had their own Frat party for the past 8 years breaking the bank and the nation, it could spell our end. Seems that the only *real remaining check & balance is when one party has the legislative branch and the other party the executive?
2 Comment by JMB on 10 June 2008:
Barack Obama will waltz to the presidency this fall, beating the curmudgeon, that angry half-wit from Arizona. Obama will be the first candidate to reap the benefit of the miseducation of the country’s youth in our public schools. Here is a candidate that says and appeals to the sort of tripe and post-modern nonsense the young and mid twenty somethings have had shoved down their throats over the last 18 years or so of their public schooling.
He is the uber-candidate of the youth, ethno-centric blacks and self-hating whites, the latter of which believe virtue can only be demonstrated by voting for a black candidate. This is the chance to assuage all that guilt they acquired during their schooling in their “schooling.”
It’s over my fellow countrymen. We ought do nothing more than strive to live well in a dying age…
3 Comment by Dominic on 10 June 2008:
“Obama will be the first candidate to reap the benefit of the miseducation of the country’s youth in our public schools.”
Very well-put, JMB.
4 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 10 June 2008:
Obama’s biggest weakness is the fact that he is black and many non-blacks will vote against him for that reason alone. On the other side, his solid black voting block will be of only marginal help to him in the general election since blacks vote 90% or better for the democratic candidate anyway. Nonetheless, barring assassination, he will probably win because the fundamentals are in his favor. Most of the electorate just wants peace and prosperity and will not reward a political party which is providing permanent war and progressive impoverishment and pretty much promising more of the same. Obama doesn’t have to have a solution; he just has to be the designated alternative.
5 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 10 June 2008:
Given the pulic brainwashing of the last 50 years, Obama is inevitable. It was only a matter of time.
6 Comment by Bill Wilder on 10 June 2008:
I think Buchanan is overstating the white and hispanic animus to Obama. The Wright issue will fade before the Fall. As in 2004, voting for “one of us” (as Buchanan recommended doing with Bush) yielded disastrous results for middle class Americans.
We have a two-party system and the vast majority of American voters (95-98%+) will view their choices as between those two. Obama cannot be worse either than GWB or a potential McCain and may be better, will be the analysis, I wager. And so he will win.
7 Comment by D Simmons on 10 June 2008:
It seems our Mandella will start his presidency off with some high negatives himself. Still his Achilles Heel is the white liberals and their delusions. They are a safe target the right should concentrate their fire on that group of pampered college diseducated self hating cranks.
8 Comment by Patrick Hall on 10 June 2008:
It comes down to, once again:
Ohio.
Can Barack Obama do what neither Al Gore nor John Kerry could not:
Win Ohio.
99.98% of the California, Illinois, New York, etc. voters can vote for Obama over McCain. That overwhelming landslide means NOTHING if McCain can win Ohio by a single vote.
Currently, Ohio is leaning towards McCain. It doesn’t look good for Barack Obama. We’ll see what happens this November. To think this will be a “cakewalk” for Obama is wrong.
9 Comment by SEMPRONIUS on 10 June 2008:
A few random thoughts.
If the public’s brain has been “washed” then it probably didnt have much of a brain to begin with.
Obama is not an alternative to neo-conservatism;if he truly was he never would have gotten this far.He is a ‘BLACK MAN RUNNIN’ FOR PRESIDENT” and as such, the only novelty aside from clinching the nomination, is that his ambitions ran counter to a few interests that normally worked in synchrony.
Whites, young or otherwise, in a delirium over Obama invite comparison with several analogous and disreputable social phenomenon that I shall not name,but for those who are “in the know” will be readily apparent.
Obama’s success demonstrates that Blacks have greater social standing than Italians and other “dirty white” ethnics.
Compliments to Ann Dunham, Barrack’s white mid-western mom for allowing a Kenyan fellow a pleasant little college diversion.The Kenyan promptly split,leaving you and me to clean up the mess.
As for who’s going to win: McCain has the Zionists solidly behind him-why do you think he’s the Republican nominee-and in present day America what the Zionists want the Zionists get.Expect McCain to win.
10 Comment by Robert Reavis on 10 June 2008:
#5
Yes, there is no doubt that Obamaism has been circulating in the colleges and universities for the last fifty years. It is always hard to tell the beginning of the end, but it is always much sooner than most folks think. For me it was when the author of the Naked Lunch was welcomed to my Alma Mater with a naked lad at table. But that was thirty years ago and only a personal revelation — a strike or sudden realization that one will sometimes experience. The professors who were still worthy of the name had been there much longer and saw it coming years before when the canon of studies had all been replaced with contemporary studies — film, feminism, communism since 1917, The Erotic Poets, The Destroyers, The Inane, The Corrupt, The Exotic, etc.. It was pathetic to even imagine taking money from midwestern families to support this rot, but tuition continued to climb and success was always just over the next hill. Good men like Dr. Wilson fought these effiminate geezers slinging this hash, while others saw it all coming and left before the deluge, like Tom Fleming. Either way, there are carccases of decent men and their reputations strown all over from the cultural battle of the last hundred years. Now the vultures have their meal all to themselves and we have the stench. Younger men are starting to pick up the memories and the mess. God Bless ‘em.
11 Comment by SEMPRONIUS on 10 June 2008:
Forgot one.
The presidency has undergone such a steady declension for such a long time in terms of the value of the men who have held or contested the office that it is now bestowed as little more than a piece of candy to our first ever AFFIRMATIVE ACTION NOMINEE.And for nothing more than a few cheap gestures and a few cheap thrills.
Israel will have to save us from Africa.Quite a pity ain’t it?
12 Comment by Theodore Trifkovic on 10 June 2008:
As a 21 year old kid I am sick tired of the comments that support for Barack Obama among my peers is nothing more than a product of “self hating delusion” brought about by a lack of real education.
I attended a Catholic middle school and a Catholic high school run by Benedictine monks, my father – of whom you may have heard – has a PHD in History and has written best selling books, my mother is a well educated journalist at the Voice of America, and my friend are very talented, interesting, and worldly people. I am quite fond of myself, and I look forward to becoming a productive member of society.
The reason that I, and “people my age” (I put that in quotes because I think its superficial to clunk everybody intheir twenties into one category) support Obama is for the simple reason that upon looking at McCain, I see a despicable old fart with no appreciation or understanding for history who would like nothing more than to see me – a strong young man in the prime of my life – in a uniform out in the desert waving an M16 at some terrified Arabs. Obama may be full of rhetoric, but at least his rhetoric is ostensibly good – bringing people together, racial harmony, change in Washington, etc. Even misguided optimistic rhetoric tailored for undereducated indolent youth is better than mindless bellicose rhetoric tailored for the products of evangelical summer camps which indoctrinate their youth to think that we need to conquer the middle east to bring about the second coming.
In my humble opinion, I think you should all be on your knees praying that Obama wins – whatever the reason or the cost.
By the way, I hope I didn’t come across as angry, I actually love this site and this is the first comment I have ever posted. The comments here are, for the most part, as good as the articles. Sometimes people have a tendency to generalize to a dangerous extent.
13 Comment by Eagle on 10 June 2008:
These elections are a circus to amuse the masses and to trick many into believing they have a “choice” or a “say”. What should be clear is that the president himself has proven irrelevant, other than as a figure around which to rally or to focus frustrations upon. The specific person has been a PR frontman more than anything else and his personal qualities and abilities have proven to be totally irrelevant.
Would the last three and half years really have been that different had John Kerry’s handlers been calling the shots? Really?
Who among us believes that the economy would be in better shape? That a border adjusted tariff system and sound tax policies would have been instituted to slow the destruction of the manufacturing industries? That sound monetary policies would have been enacted to encourage more personal saving rather than the misuse of easy credit to prop up various business interests?
Who believes that our foreign policy would be better, that America would have more security? That Muslim radicals in the Balkans would not have been given yet another “country” at the expense of Christians by our government that professes to be fighting terrorism? That the belligerance towards various governments from Moscow to Teheran would not have been the earmark of our “diplomacy”?
Who believes that we would have addressed immigration in any sane manner? That the southern border would be sealed and that the authorities would regain some control over who enters the country? That ordinary Americans would not be bullied into stripping when boarding an airplane with their young children or deprived of their leftover dinner when driving back home over the Canada-US border where they are verbally abused by “their” Customs authorities?
It simply does not matter which PR man is foisted upon us. The inertia is what it is and the “interests” who propel our times are well entrenched regardless of which one of their two frontmen we install. That we will continue to be bullied, stolen from, and our children sent to foreign wars to be killed is assured with either candidate’s victory.
A step towards real victory for “we the people” would occur if on election day no one showed up. Absolutely no one. Registering our vote of non-confidence in the current system by not voting would send a strong message that the current regime is on its way out. Then we might have some of that thing all these polictial marketing geniuses peddle – “change”.
14 Comment by Bill Wilder on 10 June 2008:
Eagle @ 13
And since what you prescribe will never happen, perhaps we can simply run naked in the streets with our hair on fire?
It is acceptable to say “pox on both their houses, they are all phonies.” (You are in respected company among various writers here with such an opinion.) But I don’t think there’s much point to radical prescriptions that have no realistic change of ever happening.
15 Comment by Robert Reavis on 10 June 2008:
“By the way, I hope I didn’t come across as angry, I actually love this site and this is the first comment I have ever posted.”
Theodore,
A courageous post. Good to hear from you. If the political options ever weary or disappoint you, don’t forget that a young man of your talent can always find a place like Innisfree if he can read the signs of the time and follow them with courage –which you have in abundance. Thanks for the post
The Lake Isle Of Innisfree
by William Butler Yeats
I WILL arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honeybee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.
And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the mourning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight’s all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet’s wings.
I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart’s core.
16 Comment by Eagle on 10 June 2008:
Mr. Wilder,
Alas, I know that a no-show at the voting booths will not happen and as such I was not really prescribing anything. (Though choosing not to vote is easy – it’s a nonaction.) But I was explaining the futility of debating the merits of one of these candidates over another. The real candidates that we would want were long ago “deselected” and what we are left with are different caricatures with identical platforms when it comes down to it.
Obama’s rhetoric may seem appealing to some, but so was George W. Bush’s. What did it get us?
I fail to see how intelligent, morally balanced people would go out and “choose” anything that the ruling duopoly would offer. Are these the same people that voted in the elections held for the Supreme Soviet?
17 Comment by PcH on 10 June 2008:
Theodore-
In the Soviet Union, a typical ballot might have ten or more candidates. But it didn’t matter whom anyone voted for since the winner was already decided.
In the USA, a typical election has two candidates.
It doesn’t matter whom anyone “votes” for; the outcome was decided years ago.
Some people tend to overlook the obvious: with Diebold, the election will go as programmed into the machines and there is no record of anything whatsoever. It has already been done, numerous test cases were reported in the media, but no one cared.
It doesn’t matter whom anyone “votes” for; either candidate will have the same policies.
It doesn’t matter whom anyone “votes” for; both candidates have been pre-approved by the same people who hate you and me.
The only difference between the candidates is that each is packaging: Obama is marketed for the openly anti-American crowd and McCain for the fantasy pro-American crowd. You identify with the anti-American crowd.
Your vote will not be counted or recorded. Neither will mine. Someone somewhere may be curious to know the actual number of people who vote for the non-candidates, such as whoever is the representing the Constitution Party, but we cannot even be sure of that. I’ll vote for whomever he is, just in case someone’s looking. Otherwise, I’ll type in “Clyde N. Wilson, Jr.”
Most all Americans know US elections are fake and will not bother to drive to the polling station.
The other Americans are fond of their fantasies and will argue against reason that there is some kind of difference between Republicans and Democrats and the candidates they put forward.
These people are robots.
Private schools are better at programming robots these days than public schools. In public schools, I have found that chaos reigns, and little is taught other than sex, drugs, and how to disprespect everyone.
Even in private schools, the sex and drugs are still rampant, but there I have found very compliant, obsequious clentele who will swallow anything they are taught to get grades good enough for medical school or wherever they think they are going. Private school students are the easiest to control anywhere, the most easily programmed robots.
If a youth is smart, he will simply have more complicated lies he tells himself to rationalize the programming and lessen the cognitive disonance.
Both Obama and McCain represent the staus quo, and anyone who backs either is simply a willing slave to dictatorship, a robot, and utterly useless to God and a free society.
18 Comment by Eagle on 10 June 2008:
The upside of a Soviet election was that most people understood that it was a farce and that they were not free and were “voting” with a gun to their back. The fact that so many in our own country believe they are free to make a choice is what scares the snot out of me. What is it – around 60% of eligable voters turn out? Crazy. I guess at least 40% say the heck with it, though I am told some of those don’t turn out becuase it rained or they were hung over or some other laughable reason. And yet, quite intelligent people like Buchanan waste their time analyzing this or that “choice”/”candidate”. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I witness these insane spectacles. To me stumping for one or other of these politicians, analyzing their statements (which they’ll just invert when polls suggest the electorate does not like them), or getting hot and bothered by which party “wins” is indeed as ludicrous as getting naked, setting one’s hair on fire, and running around the streets. Sane people will stay home that first Tuesday in November and do something more productive, like phone in a vote for their favorite on American Idol.
19 Comment by Leo on 10 June 2008:
I have enjoyed the comments.Unfortunately,Mr. Trifkovic you may be deeply disappointed if Obama wins in a regrettable continuation of American foreign interference.I’m not going to even try and justify McCain for you.But Obama’s speech to AIPAC,his support of Kosovo’s independence,his support of military humanitarian intervention,Darfur,etc.,his support of a significant growth in the military budget,his closeness to Russophobes like Zbig,and frankly his membership in the untrustworthy interventionist Democratic Party.If he made Joe Biden Secretary of State(a decent rumor),how would you feel?I’d feel sick.Biden is an architect of the Balkan Caliphate.I’m sorry but Obama is man with strings held by the wrong people.And yet…I really can’t justify McCain for you.Except to say this…if you like to wager…and I do..lock in on McCain now.You can vote for Obama but you should bet on McCain.Sorry,young man ,but the American people are going to elect the old fart (your term) over the gassy speeches.You have to lay the money in London or offshore;it’s illegal in Vegas.If you need the details,I’ll try to get back on this.I have to run a meeting now.By the way your father is a great man.
20 Comment by robert m. peters on 10 June 2008:
PcH @ 17
With a mighty blow delivered by muscle, bone and sinew through a hickory-handled hammer of hard temper and great weight, you have hit, true and straight, a nail of steel squarely on the head and driven to the very heart of the matter. An excellent post!
21 Comment by Horace Grady on 10 June 2008:
Theodore
You will be voting for a candidate who is hell-bent on reducing Native Born White Americans to a racial minority by continuing post 1965 immigration policy Does this bother you at all? Barack Obama will push amnesty for 20 million mostly non-whites. He will very likely get away with it. The Republicans-with very high probability -are going to lose control of the congress.
Also, the Isarelis are calling the shots on US mieast policy. When the Israelis bomb the Iranian nuclear reactors, the war will start. President Barack Obama will invade Iran. You will be a great risk of being drafted to die for Israel.
22 Comment by Brock H. on 10 June 2008:
JMB @2 and Dominic @3:
I also am a member of that generation brainwashed by secularist public education. I am only 23, and I received my public education here in the most filthy, perverse, and hedonistic sewer-swamp of public ed in the country – California. Looking back, sometimes I wish that it had been the good Lord’s plan for my family that they have the financial means to give me private Christian education. But I received that obstacle of public ed, and it was always my duty to overcome it.
And I should not speak as though my fight is over. Now I am at a community college, where the far-left secularist propaganda is much more explicit. My point is, I wanted to comfort you with the fact that there are those of us of Generation Y who have thus far survived the onslaught. The trick is to think for ourselves, outside of the box that school administrators and their textbooks prepared for us over the years. Just two short years ago, I began to do just that. Pray that more of them will do so in the future.
23 Comment by Boyan K. on 10 June 2008:
Being a non-American, I cannot add anything to this conversation, except quietly learning about the conservative insight on the current tides in American political landscape, season 08.. But, as for the general atmosphere among the younger electorate, it seems quite a logical step to choose Obama over McCain. It doesn’t even take a Democrat to feel that way, I guess.
Anyhow, Brock and Theodore (and other participants as well, though I’m addressing the younger ones just for the sake of the first-hand approach to the issue that they certainly have). The Ron Paul phenomenon. Seems that the good doctor has really made his point to the younger audience. Is his base (which, from what I’ve learned over the Internet and on the YouTube, consists of the 20-something generation to a great extent) going to support Obama or stay home in November? The most of them don’t seem likely to support McCain whatsoever. Esp. after the unfair treatment which Mr. Paul received from the GOP leadership during this campaign. Which, I guess, estranged them even further from the party’s mainstream.
24 Comment by Philip Kibbey on 10 June 2008:
Theodore underscores a point that I believe is one of the things paleo-conservatives have failed at doing – reflect our theory and beliefs in a clear way. Obama is wildly popular because he embodies everything liberalism argues. He an opportunistic romanticist who supports government control over people’s lives. Liberals love him even more because his lofty rhetoric disguises the fact that he supports polite totalitarianism. Furthermore he is the product of their baby – affirmative action. He is the perfect candidate in their eyes, and for whatever reason, many independent and some conservative voters have bought into his message.
The only way I believe conservatives can respond is to find a way to communicate better to citizens our message and ideals. Like Theodore and Brock, I am an American in my early twenties and speaking with many friends and older adults, they are intrigued by the ideas set forth by paleo-conservatism. The problem is that they have never heard of it until now. I witnessed something odd this past quarter sitting in a political theory class. Many students who were outspoken democrats were supporting many paleo-conservative stances without knowing it. They support our concepts of liberty, or foreign policy, and support of higher education. For some reason I do not know, these individuals are encapsulated by the Democratic Party. Yet, I feel if conservatives did a much better job publicly explaining our views, more and more people would move back. Periodicals like Chronicles and The American Conservative, and journals like Modern Age, are a step towards this, but we will never see the country we love revert back in the right direction if we do not collectively put a clear message out in the public.
I won’t support McCain – this needs no explanation. But Obama is no better. He may sound nice and talk about great ideals such as unity, but behind the rhetoric is still liberalism and furtherance from our Constitution. That, I will never support no matter how much a candidate sings about change and unity.
25 Comment by Leo on 10 June 2008:
The most significant strategic setback of the Iraq adventure may be the election of the charming adolescent Obama.A man of little actual accomplishment,therapeutic rip-off speeches from King,a boy nurtured in the bosom of the Chicago Machine.The audacity of hype;snake handling for the salvation seekers.Obama suckled at the breasts of Tony Rezko and Reverend Racist Wright.He got a nourishing formula of corruption and identity politics.His foreign policy will be controlled by the interventionist,internationalist,anti-Christian Democratic elite.Boy that’s hope,ain’t it hicks!!!Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever;he actually supports infanticide.Hope!!Hope!!Unless you’re in the womb.Hey you hicks,stop clinging to your guns and religion!!Here comes hope!!And soaring energy prices…no plan for more drilling from the ‘Bama.But there’s hope!!We’ll just hope Congress can print more oil.Hell,they do it with the money.And when he puts Hilary on the ticket,I’ll be hoping…hoping for the end of time.
26 Comment by Sebastian on 10 June 2008:
Trifkovic Jr.
You not only came across as angry and ignorant – and a little too proud and entiled, but as profoundly naive. Those of us adults who pay for your Saturday night sprees, those of us in the upper income brackets, will end up voting for McCain on tax policy alone, not to mention the number of judges a half-east African, neo-Marxist will appoint across the country. Yes, I know, GOPers appoint some bad judges, etc., but please compare that to what Carter did.
We are the ones we have been waiting for; they bamboozle you, hoodwink you…have you any idea what these words mean, their origins? Do you know who Malcom X and Elijah Mohammed were? Ever hear of Michelle Obama? Do you know what the Sixties did to this country?
Let me add something I submitted to Taki Mag just yesterday on the issue of “conservatives” supporting Obama/Islam:
So-called paleoconservatives (how I hate that word) who feel sympathy for Islam in the West because of our current decadence are as attached to an “idea” instead of a concrete civilization as any neocon and are as much traitors to our traditions. One does not side with the enemy when things get tough in one’s camp, when one does not get one’s way politically.
27 Comment by Felix on 10 June 2008:
Sebastian,
Thank you, sir, for the first sensible post on this article.
28 Comment by Howard Sitton on 10 June 2008:
Mr. Trifkovic (@12),
I enjoyed your post, but am aghast at some points you made.
First, let’s get this out of the way: your father Srdja IS a great man. I have disagreed with some of his opinions from time to time, but for the most part I think he is one of the most perceptive analysts of the state of Western culture we have, or could have. His recent Austrian adventures and the follow-up to them have provided very sobering reading and reflection, for me, at least.
Your own post indicates that you are 21, and by dint of the schools you cite, “well-educated.” However, you castigate McCain because he has ” . . . no understanding or interest for history and would like nothing better than to see me . . . in a uniform out in the desert waving an M16 . . .” Point made, although it has Vietnam-era echoes, but nevertheless, point made. But you turn to Obama because “at least his rhetoric is ostensibly good – bringing people together, racial harmony, change in Washington, etc. Even misguided optimistic rhetoric tailored for undereducated indolent youth is better than the mindless bellicose rhetoric tailored for the products of Evangelical summer camps which indoctrinate their youth to think we need to conquer the middle east to bring about the second coming.” An interesting couple of sentences.
As I understand it, “rhetoric” means “talk” – persuasive talk, no more. What are Obama’s positions? You get “talk”, rhetoric. With McCain you get a record – one you may not completely like, and I don’t, either, for some of the same reasons you don’t, but you do have a record. Obama wants to get elected: nobody can claim he gave up his old and good pastor friend without a lot of heavy pressure (sure took him a lot of time!) who preached – something I simply don’t want to say. And Obama ’s reach for power has included his coming down on both sides of major issues, witness Jim McTague’s article on pg. 58 in this week’s “Barron’s” (it is entitled “Obama Takes Both Sides In Nuclear Debate”). Talk, again.
Shall I invest in – nuclear power, or no? This is one of the many discrete decisions (manifestly not only investment decisions) made by millions of Americans based on what they think “future reality” might be. And we are going through a presidential election – with all its flaws, warts, whatever; I would venture that I agree with you on either all or most of them. But the “devil I know” MAY be better than the devil I don’t know – the one defined almost entirely by TALK. I like to listen to pleasant rhetoric as much as I think you do, but a short term in the Illinois Senate and SOME of his talk bothers me greatly. If I could presume to add one thing to the lessons your teachers gave you, I would say, “Don’t confuse talk with reality.”
When Hillary was still in the battle, I was afraid of all three; now, I am only afraid of – all three. And I will NEVER “go on my knees” for any of them.
I wish you the best – which in my mind would be to follow in your father’s footsteps. More than ever, we need penetrating thinkers.
Howard Sitton
29 Comment by Robert Borne on 10 June 2008:
I’d vote for Obama if as a perfect counter-weight to another Republican Congress [as for example Democratic President Bill Clinton was tempered by such-(when he thus could only pose as the rooster by balancing the budget)-], if both Houses of Congress were not also about to go overwhelmingly Democratic. So therefore presently and conversely doesn’t McCain seem like the perfect counter-weight to that reality? When the House is Democratic and the Executive branch Republican or vice versa they tend to balance one another and become more responsible. As one author put it ‘balance is everything.’ I’d say it’s the only potent check & balance remaining anymore, since the system was ruined by the Left and the neo-left or neo-cons.
W. Bush was an alleged, or imaginary conservative i.e. a neo-con but if he had been strapped down and horse whipped (err is it torture?) by a Democratic Congress he would not have been able to pull the stuff he did. It’s all been perverted, everyone’s either a Leftist or a neo-leftist (i.e. neo-con) – and the only check & balance apparently that works as a practical matter is when they’re pitted before the cameras (i.e. the public) against one another fighting for the money or the pie that’s right before them. They can taste it but then they have to play act to get it; so then and only then, strange things like a Democrat in Clinton’s case, end up balancing the budget. It’s tragi-comic. It’s the ‘new’ America.
When the Republicans have it all like w. bush just had it during his 8 year long Frat party and now if the Democrats have it all we’re in trouble with those two events back-to-back. Printing money causes inflation and with irrational exuberance in government unchecked, as the unfunded liabilities mount and the money keeps being printed and our dollar even here at home buys less people don’t realize it but that is the biggest TAX of all. In reality the shrinking dollar is the only thing that actually trickles down and hurts most of all-the middle class and the poor. What will McCain and/or Obama do about that? Printing money on the other side of the coin benefits the wealthiest people in the country, they get it first before inflation nibbles it away. Will either of the two presumptive nominees go up against them, like Ron Paul attempted to do, and got no coverage?
No. You have to accept that hegemony top down these days as a given and then try to figure out, how to nonetheless attempt to control inflation. That’s supposedly the Fed’s job. Why aren’t they hauled out onto the carpet and querried as to what they are doing about inflation? Nevermind I forgot they’re a part of the ‘given.’ No, they would just say control government spending. And today that is impossible (obviously) when one party has both the executive and the legislative branches. What does the chorus say i.e. the Supremes? They love money they even say these days money is ’speech’. Hmm, if one of our returning amputees from Iraq has a wooden leg, does that mean he’s a table?
No one wants to fess up and admit we’re all needy we all have needs and so in reality as a human being it’s always an *occasion in how we comport ourselves privately and publically for indebtedness (God knows we should know that by now), and for responsibility.
But printing money irresponsibly is not the answer, sadly. Even if such promises are a way to get elected. The new America is tragi-comic. Not to worry ah, yes, here come the flamingos.
30 Comment by JMB on 11 June 2008:
Theodore Trifkovic is right to say that not all of the miseducated miscreants are supporters of Obama purely because of their 13 years of indoctrinating. Some are actaully liberals by choice, that is they have investigated the issues and feel the liberal cause is the one they prefer. Fair enough.
But the fact that Theodore attributes his favoring of Obama at least partially to obama’s soaring rhetoric goes along way in proving my point, which is that most of those educated in public schools since 1990 are poorly educated and given to supporting rhetorically gifted but vacuous candidates. They haven’t the ability or the inclination or the chutzpa or whatever else you want to call it to investigate or to pick out logical fallacies with the ear during evening newstime on the tele.
Obama is a racist (read his second book), not to mention a marxist. He wants to redistribute income, socialize healthcare, further common cause with left-wing environmentalist groups and generally attack the America’s blue collar, small town people as religious quacks.
None of this is to say that the knuckleheads supporting John McCain are all paragons of reasoning and enlightenment.
Seriously, of all the years for a third party candidate, a truly conservative alternative, this would be it.
Pat Buchanan for prez. Dr trifkovic for Sec of State. Tom Fleming as Chief of Staff or somesuch. Aaron Wolf as minister of Faith Based Initiatives…no, really.
31 Comment by Leo on 11 June 2008:
More bad news for ‘Bama-babies.We woke up today to discover that one of the poster boys of the sub-prime mortgage crisis,James A. Johnson,the discredited and thoroughly compromised incompetent former Fannie Mae head is vetting VP candidates.Maybe he’ll pick someone like himself: a corrupt Democratic party insider with a lavish lifestyle who has destroyed every job he’s touched.Any Kennedys available?Hey ‘Bama-babies,keep hope alive.
32 Comment by PcH on 11 June 2008:
Robert M. Peters @ 20-
Well, gee, I’m flustered! Thanks! By the way, I love the string of metaphors.
33 Comment by Horace Grady on 11 June 2008:
Harce Grady
What’s wrong with socializing health care costs? Barack Obama is no for Socialized medicine(I am). Barack Obama is for a largely a pirvatized health care system. The insurance companies are very happy with Obama.
Left wing environmentalist are phony environmentalist. They are in favor of thecontinuing post-1965 immigration policy which will cause a massive increase in the number of non-whites and the US population.
The marxist charge against Barack Obama is just plain silly. Barack Obama is a corporatist. That is to say. corprate-powerfull ptivate tyrannies -will call the shots through Obama.
34 Comment by Horace Grady on 11 June 2008:
Barck Obama’s economic advisor is a Chicago school/trained economist. You don’t get any more anti-socialist than that.
Hilarly Clinton’s Health care plan is largely a privaitized one also. Why do you think the insurance companies have been such much money to Clintons since 1992.
You know, I don’t think a scoiety organized the philosophy of the late Ayn Rand-”spitual” advisor to a young Alan Grreespan-will have any appeal to a majority of Euro-Americans. I write this with a high degree of confidence.
Another reason why the socialist charge against Barck Obama is silly.How do you think he was able to get this far? It is well documented that Obama has been on the take from Wall Street and Developers.
35 Comment by Robert Borne on 11 June 2008:
Horace you overlook I guess that it’s all Leftist now, that the neo-left are called and are neo-cons. If you are saying well that’s the context so lets make do and do the best we can ok. State-Capitalism is socialism for the rich and for whatever crumbs the rest of us can palm. It’s been that way for almost 100 years. Yes Obama belongs to the rich in that system. The middle class and the poor don’t own Obama. Hillary sensed they could ’smell’ that, and so she wanted to pretend she belongs to the middle class and the poor (they’re almost by now one and the same), but she belongs inevitably to the rich in this system. That’s the ’system’. That’s why the rich who can afford t.v. ads and own t.v. always do commercials from time to time vaunting how the ‘answer’ IS the system. They forget to add in their commercials for themselves – ‘for us.’ People are mostly still swine top-down. They don’t know it’s always an *occasion for indebtedness and responsibility. Rather they believe they have their own ‘Purpose’ and that purpose is themselves, just like swine.
36 Comment by Leo on 11 June 2008:
It is rather difficult to figure out Obama’s economic views because he has no real record,his books are tedious race-operas and his speeches are little better than high school assembly Martin Luther King I Have A Dream spin-offs.Of course he’s an owned servant of Soros and company.If you didn’t know it yet,the Johnson appointment I refer to above seals the deal.Johnson is a close Soros associate.I suppose in the end it doesn’t matter what he believes or even if he believes;he’ll do as he always has what his masters tell him like the good machine stooge he’s always been.He got busted lying to the voters in Ohio about NAFTA;but the willing dupes that support him refused to believe the Messiah was false.Well guess what dupes….your false Messiah has recently confirmed to his masters his support for NAFTA.He really did reassure Canada during the Ohio primary that he was lying to the voters about overhauling NAFTA.I want to add one last suggestion:Hilary is actually the perfect running mate for this fraud.Her venality will actually raise his integrity.She is a grasping corrupt multi-millionaire that can teach him how to steal better.She is adept at ignoring,justifying and stonewalling crimes from bank and securities fraud,bribery,treason,perverted practices,rape,etc.This was useful for the Man from Hope;it can now work for the Man of Hope.
37 Comment by Horace Grady on 11 June 2008:
Robert
You got it nailed down pretty good. Who were these working class fools in WV who voted for HC? Was it a lesser of two evil strategy? Reallity has already sent some very strong signals that busines as usual will result in death and destruction. The signals will get stronger the next time around. It is ealy summer and we already hear news about a terrible drought in California. Just got back fom the Charlotte area. It was like an oven. No people to be seen outside. Everyone hiding inside the mcmansions in the central air conditioning controlled environmnet. The ponds are almost all dried up.America is a joke nation. But the signals keep comming. One day a really big one will arrive.
38 Comment by Horace Grady on 11 June 2008:
Leo
It is not all that difficult to figure out Barack Obama’s econmic views. Neoliberal economic policies all the way. Take a look at the Ken Silverstien article on Barack Obama that came out last year in Harpers. Manufacturing jobs will be exported relaced by jobs ripping tickets in a theater. These are new jobs for grown men with families. White Americans will also be forced to compete with an even greater number of scab workers-legal immigrants-on a much much greater scale.
If Barack Obama is allowed to define the terms of the debate, White Americans are really doomed. As far as America interests go, there should be no debate. It is time that WE read them the riot act. The racial transformation of America should be opposed with every fibre of ones being.
What I would tell Theodore is this:stop looking for a dear leader. That is the kind of crap that goes on in North Korea.
Barack Obama will increase the scale of social,economic and environmental problems. And as a consequence, these nagging ,grinding social,economic and environamnetal problems will remain unsilvable for man years to come. If Theodore T. wants to be taken serioulsy, he should at least admit this.
WE are doomed.
39 Comment by Leo on 11 June 2008:
We don’t disagree about the probable economic consequences of Obama’s possible election,Horace.It remains difficult to figure out what Obama actually thinks about anything.He follows orders from his wealthy radical masters and mentors.He probably is well trained enough now to anticipate what they expect him to do.But I cannot ascribe to this a form of “belief”,just a pattern of obedience.Now,mind you,Obama does believe in certain things:he believes he should be President.He also believes in hope.Thus ,if you believe in hope,too,he wants you to also believe he should be President.Finally,as to Theodore he’s probably a decent young man.We all had political flirtations when we were young,and he’ll get over it.I will not belittle or insult him;that will just harden him.I think Obama and Obamania is too absurd not to have a ton of laughs over.I am confident soon Theodore will shake his head in disbelief he had fainting spells over Obama.And when the prodigal Theodore returns lets all raise our glasses and say welcome back.
40 Comment by Robert Borne on 11 June 2008:
I don’t believe we’re doomed unless and until I say we are. Ok, we’re doomed. I’m kidding there’s an old saying if you want to lead the band either get it to go the way it’s going or when they’re not looking get in the front. That don’t work so well if it’s doomed and going over the falls. (humor.) I could spell out otherwise but as you know – would they listen? And really who cares if they do or not. CheeriO. I like you Horace (really) you make me smile.
41 Comment by Horace Grady on 12 June 2008:
I’m not putting Theodore T down. I just want him to think about consequences of voting for Barack Obama. He is worried about being drafted and sent to Iraq. He is at that age.
McCain is insane in the clinical sense of the word. And he is capable of igniting something really big over in the middle east.
If a whole lot of American teenagers are killed, there will be tremendous pressure to bring back the draft.American male teenagers not serving in the American military are going to be in quite a bind.There will be questions raised about their manhood at a time when other American teenagers die by the dozens every week.
Depending on how many American teenagers die each week, the case for a draft may become very compelling.
In this environment the only proper response is a very powerfull antiwar counterargument based upon deep moral principles. There would have to be call to bring all the American teenagers back home-out of Korea also. There would have to be a movement to pack off Jorge W Bush,Condalezza Rice. Donald Rumsfeld.Mary Maitlin,Dick Cheney and Colin Powell off to the Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.
The cae against Barack Obama comes down to this:you shouldn’t believe a word he says. Only a child would. Actually, the only thing you should take seriously is Barack Obama’s very strong desire to reduce the Euro-American majority to a racial minority.
In general, anyone who aspires to be president of United States should viewed as a madman who embodies the worst traits in humanity:greed and a lust for power.
42 Comment by Leo on 12 June 2008:
Actually,Horace,Theodore talks about “waving an M16 at some terrified Arabs”.I assume he is worried about being drafted and sent on to Iraq as you state.He’s spot on about that.But,Horace and Theodore,think carefully about the following and quietly follow my instructions.Inevitably,you will need a sturdy weapon to wave at and,yes,terrify your enemy…as you try to hold this land.You may even need to use the bullets.I’ve never suggested McCain can “save” us.Obama is only the Messiah P.T. Barnum prayed for.The only thing that saves you is your Bible and your gun.It may not save your life,but it will save your soul and reputation.Pray hard that you never have to take the rifle off the wall,but if you do offer your life to God and go down fighting.Plenty of Americans have “waved M16s” and they’ll know how its done.Plenty know we’ve been sold out.Plenty know that Islam is an enemy within the bosom of the West.I’m signing off for good on this,but just the fact that I know my circle will fight back is the only optimism I’ll ever need.