Victor Davis Hanson over at NRO’s The Corner:
Most Americans simply cannot imagine their president as the topic of a two-hour encomium by Farrakhan, or why an unrepentant terrorist like Ayers would have once been associated with him. Those are legitimate issues, and the Obama campaign needs to come up with a comprehensive defense against them before they arise: e.g., “All sorts of diverse people are attracted to various causes under the umbrella of social change; what distinguishes Obama is his singular devotion to working within the system and avoiding the extremism that plagues the movement.”
Until there is some systematic preemptive exegesis, I think more and more of these disturbing hard-Left embarrassments will turn up — none of them alone a problem; all of them in sum finally devastating.
Our leftwingers have convinced themselves that America has turned decisively leftwards and will embrace a leftwing President. If this is true, then so be it – but I don’t think it is. What this means for Obama is that he’s going to be running in a center/right America as a liberal/left politician. As long as Obama can keep it to high sounding rhetoric, all is well – but just as soon as Obama is forced down into the nitty gritty of politics, his liberalism will prove an obstacle to winning.
Americans are tired of Iraq – but do Americans want to lose in Iraq?
Americans are tired of the mess in health care – but do Americans want socialised medicine?
Americans are tired of endless government debt – but do Americans want tax increases, or would they prefer spending cuts?
These are the sorts of questions we are going to answer between now and November and while Obama can, perhaps, answer them in a way which leads to his being sworn in on January 20th, 2009, the plain fact of the matter is that it won’t be easy – especially not easy against a seasoned campaigner like John McCain, who is popular, highly respected and has a vastly more substantial resume’ than Obama.
Blogs For Victory 
Here’s another one for Obama from the London Times Online…
UK TimesOnline- Mansion ‘mistake’ piles the pressure on Barack Obama (February 26, 2008)
100 billion dollars a year.
That is how much off shore tax havens are sheltering.
Obviously, the middle class does not have the resources to open a tax haven in Europe or the South Pacific. Only the rich have a need for these tax dodges, and they were the ones the benefited the most from Bush’s tax cuts.
We don’t need to increase taxes or cut services. We just need to stop the rich from hiding their assets from the IRS.
The link below is a bill that will stop this illegal activity. Guess who co-sponsored it?
http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?Fuseaction=PressReleases.View&PressRelease_id=1418&Affiliation=R
“Our leftwingers have convinced themselves that America has turned decisively leftwards and will embrace a leftwing President.”
Obviously, if America IS or HAS “turned decisively leftward” the Democrat candidates would openly declare themselves to be Liberals, or at the very least liberals. But they run and hide from the word.
Likewise, they try to hide or disguise the fact that their policies, when viewed on the political spectrum of left to right, are so far left of center that they can accurately be defined as Socialism.
I submit that America has suffered two changes which affect its leftward voting trend. One is the movement of the mass media from journalism to agenda support, and the other is an increasing ignorance of many Americans regarding the true base positions of either party, knowledge being replaced by knee-jerk emotional reactions to demagogues.
The second is directly related to the first, with the addition of our educational system also playing an important role.
But our schools not only do not teach history and what we used to call “civics”, they often teach things which are simply not true. An uneducated, or even poorly educated, voter will not have the ability to analyze the statements of any candidate to be able to determine where on the political spectrum that candidate’s positions lie.
A perfect example is the conviction of so many that fascism is a right-wing philosophy. This is a fallacy, but it is “conventional wisdom” and is used to convince the ignorant that a position which favors conservatism is a position which favors fascism.
If the Left truly believed that Americans openly and knowingly want a Socialist regime, they would act on that belief, and openly acknowledge the true definition of their philosophy and goals.
The fact that they try to disassociate themselves with the “Liberal” identification, and instead try to obfuscate the matter by using terms like “Progressive” is proof that they know that if they were honest about their agenda they would lose votes.
BTW, CW, the thread is about Obama’s liberalism and long-term and deep connections with elements that are either radically Leftist or anti-American, or both.
Liberalism is taking us down a road toward Socialism and Communism.
If you read up, thats how the Soviet Union came into existence, the “Peoples” party in China, and the current regime in Venezuela.
When it all comes down to it, the educational system was a State power until some decades back when the Federal Government got involved. Since that point, our schools have been getting worse. Sure, its right that the Feds require equal opportunity in education, but that didnt give them the right to take over the whole shootin’ match. One thing I strongly agreed with Fred Thompson about what the Fed’s needed to get out of Schools and let the States and the Parents run it.
Obama talks out of his patootie. He is charismatic, but so is Hugo Chavez, and Azerbajimazin, and so was Hitler. He is, and will continue, to say anything his campain managers want him to say, that they think people want to hear.
Target audience is more important to these people than topic’s. Take the Health Care Issue as an example. Every time the Democrats get into hot water, they bring this up. Its been this way since JFK. By playing on sympathy, compasion, and hope, they manipulate people into following the game. The problem is, health care never gets fixed. Been that way for half a century now. WHY? Because Insurance companies pay big bucks to political campains. Instead of pointing the finger at the real problem, they scheme with the rich to create a vehicle (universal health care as a requirement to buy insurance) instead of regulating the Insurance Industry that is fleecing the people they serve, taking 31% of the Insurance premiums we pay (over 21% higher in the US than any other nation). So the Democrats really dont care about sound fiscal policy and legitimate business interests, because they turn thier heads the other way while all this is going on, being pawns to lobby and special interests in exchange for financial contributions.
These people dont have any idea how to run the country. Most liberals are at a loss to explain why all of these high level elected officials cant get it right. They just behave themselves and follow “whatever sounds good”. Well, socialism is one step closer to communism. What do you think happened in Cuba? and the only difference between Cuba and Iran is Allah.
Wake up people. Its time to stop being sheeple.
A perfect example is the conviction of so many that fascism is a right-wing philosophy. This is a fallacy, but it is “conventional wisdom”
Yeah, all of those scholars and historians and people who spend many years studying fascism–what do they know?!? With their research and their facts. Those don’t count, ‘Ranty declares! Sure, they might be factually correct and supported by the data and all that other stuff, but proving your position with facts is just liberal BS. It doesn’t feel right to ‘Ranty, therefore it must be a fallacy. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Besides, Jonah Goldberg wrote a book that not even fellow right-wingers will cosign–that proves it!
Outside of an actual forensics team debate, I’ve never seen somebody so eager to stake out the position in direct opposition to the facts and defend it to the hilt. I’m sure Bob Altemeyer would love to have you come in for analysis.
“Our leftwingers have convinced themselves that America has turned decisively leftwards and will embrace a leftwing President.”
Honestly – who cares what leftwingers think? The real problem for Rebublicans are what all those folks between the leftwingers and the rightwingers think – because THEY are the folks who decide elections. America doesn’t need to “turn left” to vote for a Democrat this time around. The middle just needs to be ready for a change.
I’m fairly certain that moderates are thinking this country needs a change in direction. Any change. Change that makes us forget about the last 8 years as soon as possible. Does McCain offer that?
A moderate by definition is someone that doesn’t know enough or care enough to take a position.
Obama on the left; McCain on the right; Moderates on a campaign to stir up apathy.
Tract, chill. Just take a deep breath, maybe take a pill, and chill.
So what if there has been a “consensus” which has branded fascism as a right-wing movement?
I once made my comment about fascism being on the left side of the spectrum and got much the same response. When I pointed out that the word “Nazi” comes from the name of the fascist party in Germany, tne National Socialists, the response was “so the word Socialist HAPPENED to be in their name”.
I kid you not. It just HAPPENED but had no meaning, was not in any way a reflection of their politics.
There have been many versions of far-left politics, and they have not always gotten along. When there was a conflict between the socialism of the USSR and the socialism of Germany, the Bolsheviks branded the German socialism as being “right-wing”.
As I said, the determination that facism is a right-wing construct is a cherished lefty fallacy. I knew this long before Johah Goldberg wrote his book, as did many others.
He comments in his book that the definition of facism has been a matter of debate for a long time now. But he goes on to give specific details about its origins on the Left.
So, tract, you can sputter all you like but you can’t change history or facts.
You assert, about Goldberg’s book, “..not even fellow right-wingers will cosign…” Did Mr. Goldberg go out and seek “right-wingers” to “cosign” his book? What does that mean, anyway? I have heard of “cosigning” a loan, for example, but a book??
Tract, you seem to have a personal animus toward me. You love to attack me personally, hurling insults, attempting to demean me personally rather than address my comments. Your style toward me is not to debate the issues but to bully me, to intimidate me. You have remembered what most never paid any attention to—my political journey from the left to the right—and it evidently rankles, as you still bring it up when it has not been mentioned by me for quite some time.
You even appropriate some of my language in your personal attacks—I refer to “Ranty Rhodes” and you twist my name so you can call me Ranty. I often referred to particularly virulent radical Left posts as sounding as if they were spraying spittle in their vehemence, and you used the same terminology about something I said.
‘Fess up, Tract—this is not the first time we have crossed paths, or ideological swords, is it? I have retained my name, not needing to hide behind other identities to return to this blog–though I did use another name, briefly, on another blog, a while back. But you are pretending to be someone else, while going after me with a blind and gleeful vengeance.
??????????
You’re just too wound up over what I have said recently, too deeply affected by my true personal story of —- to put it in a way that is sure to rile you—my political redemption, and too much a collector of things I have said to just be a casual lefty commenting on my recent posts.
“Moderates on a campaign to stir up apathy” – What exactly does that mean?
You are wrong about moderates. Moderates both know and care deeply about issues and also take strong positions. Moderates just don’t join a “team”. They vote for the candidate who, on the balance, offers the best policies and solutions for their goals.
Put another way, I would find either side’s utopia to be utter hell, so my job is to make sure that neither side ever achieves it.
“Moderates take strong positions”
Or, I might be ambivalent about that, but at least I don’t commit!
HAHAHAHAHA … yer killin’ me, Smalls!
But our schools not only do not teach history and what we used to call “civics”, they often teach things which are simply not true.
Wow, you do realize Spook made this same claim just a few days ago and was not able to back it up with any actual evidence. Maybe you could provide some real evidence of this.
How many schools do you visit every year Alimranta? How many history classes have you sat in to determine exactly what is being taught to students? How many history textbooks have you gone through to determine this?
What convinced you this was happening Almiranta? What evidence did you use to draw this conclusion?
FoolYou, Schools teach evolution and science. Science presents a different perspective on society than the bible. Evolution could poke holes in the 7 day theory. So, schools are therefore teaching kids things that are simply not true. Quite simple really. If you don’t question anything and do as your told.
But now that Tract has brought it up, I do recommend Goldberg’s book. I am only about 75 pages into it, but it is very interesting reading.
It discusses the various definitions given to the term fascism over the decades, and the origin of the term in Mussolini’s Italy. He points out that Italian fascism was clearly a left-wing construct, clearly a branch of socialism—and much beloved of liberals in the United States, seen as a paradigm of ideal government. This is all fully and completely documented in the book.
He also points out that it took Hitler to introduce anti-Semitism to fascism, and that prior to Hitler’s rise there were a disproportionate number of Jews involved in Italian fascism.
He says, to introduce Chapter 2–“Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left” —
“Was Hitler’s Germany fascist? Many of the leading scholars of fascism and Nazism–Eugen Weber, A. James Gregor, Renzo De Felice, George Mosse, and others—and answered more or less no. For various reasons having to do with different interpretations of fascism, these academics have concluded that Italian Fascism and Nazism, while superficially similar and historically bound up with each other, were in fact very different phenomena. Ultimately, it is probably too confusing to try to separate Nazism and Italian Fascism completely. In other words, Nazism wasn’t Fascist with a capital F, but it was fascist with a lowercase f. But the fact that such an argument exists among high-level scholars should suggest how abysmally misunderstood both phenomena are in the popular mind, and why reflexive rejection of the concept of liberal fascism may be misguided.”
So much for your claims of academic consensus.
“This is the monumental fact of the Nazi rise to power that has slowly been airbrushed from our collective memories: the Nazis campaigned as SOCIALISTS. Yes, they were also nationalists, which in the context of the 1920s was considered a rightist position, but this was at a time when the “internationalism” of the Soviet Union defined ALL nationalisms as right-wing.”………………………historically, nationalism was a liberal left-wing phenomenon. The French Revolution was a nationalist revolution, but it was also seen as a left-liberal one for breaking with the Catholic Church and empowering the people. German Romanticism as championed by Gottfried Herder and others was seen as both nationalistic and liberal. The National Socialist movement was part of this revolutionary tradition.”
It is typically simple-minded leftist cant to refuse to understand the complexity of political labeling, to refuse to put such labels into the context of the times, and to hijack a term which has negative connotations and then use it as a polticial weapon, freely applying it to any group which it wants to discredit.
Which is what happened when Socialists wanted to attack the right, and decided to label Hitler’s fascism as “right-wing”, in the face of its historical roots and its true philosophies.
Schools routinely teach our children that Columbus, for example, was really a racist who practiced genocide. They teach that Bush is a war criminal. They teach, or have taught, that Americans purposely killed Native Americans by giving them blankets carrying smallpox.
Some schools have taught that World War II was the natural and justified revolt of Japan against American imperialism.
They have taught that America was losing an unjust war in Viet Nam.
I do not have children, but I have friends with children in schools ranging from pre school to college, and they talk about the sheer garbage their children are being taught and the difficulty of being able to present enough facts to counter the indoctrination which passes for education.
I refer you to David Horowitz as one source of information on what passes for education these days, and of course you can google Ward Churchill and/or the Boulder High School geography teacher who spent much of his classroom time instructing his students on how George Bush is a war criminal.
FYT, it is not necessary to “visit schools” to know how upset many parents are at what their children are being taught. It is not necessary to read school texts to know that some students are failed because they do not agree with the political indoctrination put out by their teachers. If you are not aware of these things happening, you are not paying attention.
How many schools do YOU visit, how many texts do YOU read?
And SAR is exhibiting the typical psuedo-humor of the radical Left, but really just giving us a peek into a particularly narrow-minded and hostile pathology.
When and if you guys are willing to debate facts and the real world, get back to us…..
Timmy – I’m glad you are having so much fun!
You seem like a simple man, so I’ll try to make this simple for you. You can take a strong position on an issue (like immigration, campaign finance reform, or abortion) without declaring yourself a conservative or a liberal, or declaring allegiance for a party. Moderates often have some positions which align with the left and others which align with the right. What’s so funny about that to you?
Twice fooled,
Speaking as a former High School teacher, who works at a State University, with a daughter who graduated high school and currently attends a state university; I can state without fear of contradiction that Spook and Almiranta are absolutely correct in their assessments. I have personally read from the books provided including the study guides used by the history teachers.
Also, in reviews by academicians such as Chester E. Finn, Jr. demonstrate the bias and lack of academic credentials contained in most US history lessons and classes sponsored by the state:
Now, provide evidence to the contrary
Mark – when you speak about “The Problem of Obama’s Liberalism”, are you making a case to conservatives, liberals, or the folks in between? If it’s the folks in between, do you assume the description “liberal” has a strong negative connotation – almost as though merely uttering it makes an argument on its own. It certainly seems as though you do, and if so, I’d rethink your assumptions.
Here’s six of the most popular books used in public schools to teach US History, and their evaluations from an independent group of scholars.
I believe you owe Spook and Almiranta an apology.
Alm,
My post earlier would in most cases sum up a typical response on this site. Regardless, I’d like to see you prove to me the first 3 paragraphs of your post #14.
Das,
Using 9/11 in my opinion is not exactly the best way to get your point across on this matter. Considering that day and all reports since have been clouded in such controversy and supposed conspiracy how can a text book get an accurate representation other than to inform students that it did happen. What’s more, the repercussions should be more previlant. I do agree the education system is flawed, but there are national standards for education which must be followed. This will not of course prevent a teacher from being objective and pushing their opinions on their students.
It is not possible to teach students every aspect of american history, theres simply to much information so just the basics are covered. If the student takes up an interest in something then naturally they will per sue it further. This is the whole purpose of middle school to highschool is it not?
XTRA,
So, you’re saying that moderates can have “strong opinions” without the benefit of consistency or core beliefs? Moderates can opine on diverse subjects which should have, as a foundation for belief, a set of core principles that guide in the decision making process; but instead have a loose affiliation of concepts based on how influenced you can be by the last person to whom you’ve engaged?
How’s that workin’ out for ya’?
SOME,
I’m not going to debate you on a set of facts; if you want to understand Almiranta’s post you need only read the critiques I’ve provided.
It is also a fact that the large majority of public school history teachers didn’t major in history, most didn’t even minor in the subject relying instead on the text provided which they didn’t have a say in selecting.
It is not possible to offer a fully comprehensive compendium as a resource for teaching; but that resource should be accurate; historically and objectively. History books used today are neither.
Workin’ out great for me – thanks!
And yes, I can be very consistent in my beliefs on individual issues. I can be steadfast in my support of abortion rights or my belief in laissez-faire government. Collectively however, my beliefs need not align with those of conservatives or those of liberals in order to be sincere. You can if fact have a core set of principals which don’t correspond to a complete left or right wing ideology.
I think what you are attempting to do is to reject postmodernism, which is a valid argument; however my point is about the need to recognize that with the political moderates goes the election. If you don’t figure out a way to convince them to vote your way, you’re not going to win any elections. Worrying about what liberals think is a waste of time – they’re never going to vote for a Republican.
Das,
I’ve skimmed through that link. The ratings for accuracy, historical soundness and lack of bias are the strongest in most of the books. The first two books ‘American Journey’ and ‘American Nation’ both received fairly decent ratings and reviews. Considering the books were also rated on graphics, interest level and Organization. No where did I read that any of the books give false information about history. Not enough specifics sure, but nothing about falsifying history which is what Alm, is infact saying. So I’ll ask again, can you please provide me with facts to support such claims as post #14 please.
One more thing, as a teacher you should know when handing out assignments and research projects which are fairly common in a history course, the text books do not provide sufficient information. So the student it forced to use other means to gather that information. Furthermore, text books are designed as a guideline, used to set direction, but not to be taken as the be all end all knowledge of history.
Hi everyone!
Crrrrraaazzzzy “liberal” SteaM here to entertian you 🙂
Mark,
You said:
Good question! Yet, I am a bit hesitant to give my feedback until I fully understand one thing.
Please explain to me, in terms of the War in Iraq, what “victory” means.
Thank you.