Guest Piece: The Banality of Obama

By Bruce Walker

Pundits have been critiquing the new administration for its socialism, for its willful ignorance of foreign policy, for its puerile missteps, but the salient fact of the Obama Presidency is its banality.  He who promised change has dredged up the failed nostrums of the past as if they were something new and fresh.  In fact, the ordinariness, the dullness, the lifelessness of the Obama Administration is obvious.

What is the answer to a collapsing economy?  Obama simply resorts to the seventy-five year old policies of FDR.  When the New Deal began it was, at least, new.   It is perfectly right to judge the New Deal a mistake with the perfect vision of hindsight, but at least in 1933 the New Deal was a radical departure from the surplus budgets and modest federal role which had been the tradition of American peaceful national government.

It seems as if Obama cannot think of anything more creative than doing what Franklin Roosevelt did but on a grander scale.  When JFK and Reagan slashed taxes, that was revolutionary.  When Truman endorsed the Marshal Plan, that was something new.  But Obama money to throw at domestic programs, that is robotic governance.

What is Obama’s foreign policy? It is a return to the naiveté of Woodrow Wilson of a century ago and to the sanctimonious silliness of Jimmy Carter three decades ago.  Evil men are murdering innocent people and reveling in their mayhem?  The culprit cannot be these evil enemies of America.  It must be the imperfect morality of our nation. Our nation must try to understand those who hate us for being us.  We must try in our time, as Neville Chamberlain did in his time, to parlay with the “moderate” wing of the National Socialist German Workers Party or, in our case, with the “moderate” wing of the Taliban.  Forget the stupidity of this.  Just think about its blandness of this approach.

What is the answer to our problem of national morale?  President Obama will use the “bully pulpit” – again and again and again.  Teddy Roosevelt coined that term … over one hundred years ago.  In the first decade of the Twentieth Century, this was a relatively novel approach.  T.R. understood media and mass communications.  Americans responded to a truly bold, inspiring character in the White House.  When his cousin, FDR, used the fireside chat three decades later, his considerable charm and the novelty of radio helped him reassure a frightened nation.  But the most commonplace presidential politics of the last five decades has been an American president addressing the nation on television or coming out (usually every week or so) with a new campaign or policy.   President Obama seems to think that if he just does even more of what nearly every president in the last fifty years has done, miracles will follow.

Reagan did great things.  He decided to win the Cold War.  He cut tax rates and federal regulation.  Ronald Reagan took the tide of history and turned it away from the dreary meanders of the postwar world and channeled events towards new and happy futures.  

John Kennedy actually thought about things like “flexible response” in national security policy or landing an American on the moon before the end of the decade.  JFK slashed capital gains tax rates, trying something truly different.  Reagan and Kennedy, as much as any other two modern presidents, took gambles.  They tried new ideas.  They inspired us.

Great presidents do that.  George Washington eschewed personal power for the glorious goal of a limited presidency:  America would have no kings.  Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of America with a daring purchase.  Lincoln fought a horrific war to preserve the Union.  Teddy Roosevelt brought a genuine vitality and courage into the presidency.  Sometimes these men failed, but they all tried to lead the nation rather than follow the dull force of past directions.

Obama, by stark contrast, seems to think that doing what we have been doing will somehow bring a better America.  What if Obama had promised within his term of office to consolidate the cabinet into eight offices?  Even Richard Nixon had the imagination to propose that idea.  What if Obama proposed a radical tax simplification, even if rates stayed high? That would be something to savor:  he could remain a socialist, but at least stand against hopeless confusion.

Instead we have a president who is not even an innovative ideologue.  He is more like a cipher.  His rhetoric is lifeless and poll driven.  His almost daily new “campaigns” reflect nothing more creative than the last news cycle.  People worry that Barack Obama is an American Lenin.  No, Barack Obama is an American Konstantin Chernenko, a very dull man with very tired programs.  The invented giddiness which Obama gets from the mainstream media is as tedious as the Pravda reports of addresses by General Secretary Chernenko, which invariably informed readers were met by “prolonged, stormy applause.”  That is the banality of Obama.

                    © 2009 Bruce Walker—All Rights Reserved

 __________________________________________________________

Bruce Walker is the author of two books:  Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and his recently published book, The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.

http://outskirtspress.com/swastika_against_the_cross

 http://outskirtspress.com/Si

Comments

[Philip France]

Bruce Walker is an an outstanding writer and great thinker. He has accurately portrayed Obama's first 60-or-so days in the Office that he has usurped. I fear that this is merely the tip of the iceberg and much worse.

Before I explain myself, I wish to share a quote, whose author will be revealed later on:

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.".

Read that again.

I believe that Obama is a radical Marxist stooge and I fear that he is being directed by uber-terrorist William Ayers. Obama was raised by radical Marxist weirdo mother named Stanley Ann Dunham, who herself was schooled in Marxist politics at her high school in Mercer Island, Washington.

Obama was mentored as an adolescent by card-carrying communist Frank Marshall Davis. He studied at the feet of Marxist professors in college and spoke glowingly of them in his memoirs. He agitated in the streets of Chicago for ACORN, following the script of radical Marxist Saul Alinsky. He befriended and sat on Boards with the unrepentant and America-hating Ayers and his filthy hag of a wife, Bernadine Dohrn. He sat for twenty years in the pews of the luntaic preacher and radical racist bigot Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He emerged from the snakepit of "Crook" County politics, maintaining his charisma, charming good looks and Colgate smile but who can honestly believe that he was unscathed by its machinery, if not complicent with it?

Back to the earlier quote. The author of this quote was none other than Nicolo Machiavelli. I would like to add to that a quote that sums up the phenomenon that is Barack Hussein Obama:

"The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to keep power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.". The author of this quote? Saul Alinsky.

We have every reason to oppose and to fear this man. Look up HR 1388 for just one more.

[Walt]

Great article Bruce.

Thanks for the heads up on HR1388 Philip. Sig Heil!

[sadlerx]

Top notch yet again Bruce.....

[Robert Berger]

Phil, you're just mindlessly rehashing all the lies,half-truths and innuendo against Obama here. There is not a shred of truth in any of these accusations. Obama is not a Marxist or communist. Ayers may have been a radical leftist terrorist, but Obama had absolutely NO connections with him and has never shared the same radical views.
Lies,lies, and nothing but lies.
It's still much too early to know how things will develop under Obama. Those who think that his administration is going to turn this nation into another communist dictatorship and take all our freedom away are pathetically deluded. And ironically, the REAL left-wing in America thinks he's just too conservative !
It's so ludicrous the way conservatives are so terrified about communism today.Let's face it; communism is dead.Gone.Completely discredited worldwide except for a handful of extremist wackos who still support it. There is absolutely zero chance of it coming to America. And we don't even have socialism here,despite the hysterical claims of the right. There is about as much chance of communism being imposed by Obama as Osama Bin Laden converting to Judaism and settling in Israel.
And it's not Obama who's the real threat to freedom in America today;it's the religious right and neanderthal conservative politicians in Washington who would really take our freedom away in this country if they got the chance. They say they want to restore"freedom" to America. But with freedom like this, who needs tyranny?

[Walt]

You must be right Robert

Obama didn’t spend years teaching workshops based on Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals”

Obama didn’t for 20 years; attend a church headed by a “Black Liberation Theologist” that honored Louis Farrakhan.

Obama wasn’t mentored through his formative years by Frank Marshall Davis, a card carrying communist and poet.

Obama’s father (the one he dreamt of) was not a socialist

Obama didn’t attend Occidental college, considered by many as the most leftist college in America. And even though he didn’t attend, he has turned over his entrance papers, which shows he didn’t apply under another name as a foreign student.

Obama has complied with the Constitution and turned over his birth certificate.

Obama ardently avoided admitted terrorist Bill Ayers

Obama rose to power quickly in the cleanest of all political stages (Chicago).

Are those the kind of truths you are looking for? They are in print, they must be true.

Robert also said, “Let's face it; communism is dead.Gone.Completely discredited worldwide except for a handful of extremist wackos who still support it. There is absolutely zero chance of it coming to America. And we don't even have socialism here,despite the hysterical claims of the right.”

Robert in making that statement I must assume one of two things; you are either a communist or gullible. First off Communism/ Socialism/ Fascism are all alive and well in America and in the world. They do not work, nor will they ever, but they still are an idealistic avenue toward power. On a dare (it will shake your foundation) read the book, “Shadow World” by Robert Chandler. That book will give you a very organized approach to understanding the Communist party in America, how it was founded, its spawn and how it looks today. However, if you are happy with a clouded world view, CNN, NPR style you might not want to read it. “We don’t have socialism here”? Lets see, how do social security, welfare, government grants, federally controlled interest rates (this is a huge problem in a free market), the Community Reinvestment Act (and its kind)…to mention just a few, have to do with free market economics? NOTHING! We are at best a mixed economy. The government interferes with almost every aspect of finance. Government interference with the free market makes it no longer a free market. Government seizure and redistribution is socialist. We also own property “our” at the will of the government, and the property can be taxed at any rate and regulated at any rate and may be seized at any time (personal or business). We have the illusion of ownership; that is fascism.

Now, you commented on a number of things in your post. In most cases it looks as if you are dialectically opposed to the truth that I have sought our via logic and reason. If you have one topic you would like to argue specifically lets go, I promise to retort absent ad hominem.
1

[John]

Robert, it's amazing how you liberals can't learn. Duke himself documented how communism is on the rise right here:
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3899

That's actual communism. Not even communism under a different name.

[Robert Berger]

I am neither a communist nor gullible,nor in any way naive about politics. I,ve never believed in Marxism or communism.Of course they don't work and communist countries have always had terrible economic conditions.
But if you think that welfare and social security etc are"socialism",it's you who are gullible about politics. Do you really think we'd be better off if we justdenied all help to the poor and the unemployed, and did nothing to see that people won't starve when they retire?
And that by giving all the tax breaks to the wealthy and deregulating business to the point where it would be free to exploit citizens mercilessly and despoil the environment, and all that conservative nonsense, general prosperity would increase and everything would be hunky dory? What planet are you living on?
Do you really think that school vouchers will ensure that all youngsters get a good education and that charities can provide for all those in need of help in America?
If you think Obama's economic policies are terrible, the proposed conservative ones if implemented would be infinitely worse.
Just disagreeing with republican social and economic policies doesn't make you a socialist, Marxist or communist.

[Walt]

Robert asked, "Do you really think that school vouchers will ensure that all youngsters get a good education and that charities can provide for all those in need of help in America?"

Yes and Yes, But not in a Godless, immoral nation. Nations of godless men have been shooting blanks for 6000 years, except one. Its remnant forlorn, save a few.

If one person takes from another against their will it is theft. If ten people take from one person against their will we call it gang related theft. If ten people plan to take, and then take from another against their will we call it organized crime and theft. If ten people vote to take from another against their will we call that democratic socialism... a legal injustice.

If one man gives to another that is charity, an act of grace and gratefulness. The impact on both giver and receiver are profound. Both parties win! If the government takes from some and gives to others, the receiver is not grateful because there is no personal interaction, but they are indebted to the beholder of bread and circuses. They owe their vote. The vote of the receiver is bought with the money of the theft victim.
1

[Philip France]

To Robert Berger:

I can forgive your ignorance and naivete if you are a precocious six-year old. But if you are an adult, how did you manage to learn NOTHING from the time that you were six until now?

The claims that I made about Obama in my original post are FACTS. Facts (or more properly, their meaning and relevence) may be debated, but not disputed. Yet in your infantile observation you call them "lies". This is indeed infantile, calling uncomfortable, indisputable facts "lies" simply because you are unwilling accept that they are so. You may find this painful, but most of these "facts" came from Obama's own words and declared by him in his memoirs.

In your first posting, you declare that "Communism is dead and gone". I will gladly pay for your transportation to North Korea if you truly believe this. Missing from the abundance of rebuttal against your ridiculous postings is the fact that Communist/Socialist regimes are responsible for the deaths of more than 100 MILLION people! Read that again: 100 MILLION! Imagine the sea of corpses, if you will. This is the enforcement necessary to maintain the ideaology that you would not recognize even after 30 years in a Gulag.

Grow up, my friend.