Reasons why I don’t trust or like Obama.

When Barack Obama first appeared on the scene as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, I didn’t think much of him. If you’ve read my previous posts, you’d know that I would be fundamentally at odds with the idea of a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq. I mean it’s not as if it is actually a war! To call it the War in Iraq or the Iraq War is just hyperbole; a war is a high intensity campaign. The last few years since the end of “major combat operations” have been a low intensity, counter-insurgency campaign punctuated by sudden bursts of heavy combat against nationalist, fascist and Islamofascist terrorist groups (to call them “insurgents” would be to grant them legitimacy).
The Democrats’ view of the world is one of unwavering liberal left ideology, not observation. Obama compares to my mind to Harriet Harman who has just described Fidel Castro as a “hero of the left”. Excepting the deep baritone and the messianic status of Obama, they seem to share many similar points of view.
So let’s start with why I distrust him and actually dislike him. I feel all these things because he poses as a messianic figure, appealing with emotion and all the demagogic tricks of the post-modern left. He talks about “uniting the country” and about being bi-partisan, which would be fine, except there is a clever twist to his words. The insinuation is constant and present, that you still disagree with him and will not work towards what he wants (which is characterised as being fair and reasonable), then you are a hardliner or the worst sort of person. It is possible to see these tricks being used all over the Left, start with Quakers and the hippies, the radical feminists and the Greens. The tone of the language is conciliatory but the burden of action is placed upon the recipient to do as the speaker wishes. Once you refuse to play the “passive-aggressive” game, you are marked out as “difficult” or “uncooperative”.
How about his blatant opposition to free trade? In particular NAFTA, which was one of Bill Clinton’s greatest achievements. Why? Because as any economist will point out, the benefits of NAFTA have been manifold in Mexico and Central America. What the Democrats in general and Obama in particular have been doing is playing towards two galleries; the far left who hate free trade and trade in general, and the unions who hate free trade because their members jobs lose the insulation of punative tariffs. The far left, to which I suspect Obama is rather partial, hate free trade because they oppose capitalism, which is the basis of Western and increasingly global wealth. They are ideologically invested in victim-politics, which become broken down when the victims no longer require aid or alms to support and NGOs cannot parade their consciences as modern saints, when people in the Third World can afford to buy satellite televisions. The unions in all western countries are at heart selfish interest groups, with no more than rhetorical commitment to economic freedom in other parts of the world.
Obama represents to me the handsome face of the ideological left, opposed to human development, preferring to freeze the poor of the world in a permanent state of rural idyll (ideal except for those forced to live in it). The ideological left would rather girls in Africa and the Middle East suffer forced genital mutilation than suffer the agonies of their consciences from having to actually take a stand against the modern saints of the sanctified Third World.
On foreign policy, leave aside the question of Iraq, Obama represents that strain of the Left who honestly believe that the problems of the modern world are at root the fault of the West. They seem to honestly believe that totalitarian dictators and tyrannical governments offer a better way of life to that found in the West. The worst about Obama is the occluded subscription to the West-hatred of the idiotarian Chomskyite strain of thought.
The poison of Chomskyism combined with the obscene refuse of “black liberation” theology and the leftwing fixation on Western whites as inherently racist beings a dangerously unpredictable element to the notion of an Obama presidency. His presidency could merely be an embarrassment on the scale of Jimmy Carter (of whom Obama reminds me) or it could be much worse.
Finally, though he has uttered little on Israel, other than a recent speech where he compared being pro-Israel to automatically voting Likud, one becomes worried by the company he keeps. Though he has rejected Louis Farrakhan, I wonder about the sincerity of this. More, I worry about his advisors, who are virulently anti-Israel, subscribing to the view of Israeli provocation as the cause of the terrorism. It is this inability to see fault in the “other” that makes Obama such a disabling threat for Israel. As Israel is a western nation, then it must be a colonial power, therefore it must make concessions and the belief is that the terrorists, demagogues and tyrants will be satisfied because they represent “alternative” social systems.
How would a President Obama react to an Iranian nuclear weapon? I suspect with acquiescence. How would a President Obama react to an Iranian nuclear first strike against Israel, but also likely simultaneous strikes against Russia and Europe? It is well known that Iran funds, assists and trains Islamic terrorists from all over the Middle East, whether Hizbollah or Al-Qaeda. It is well know that Iranian agents and weapons are attempting to kill Coalition soldiers, Iraqis and overthrow the Iraqi democratic government. How would President Obama react to these threats to the US and to world order? I suspect he will shut his eyes and blame the Republicans…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: