AS THE NATION
CONTEMPLATES WHETHER BARACK OBAMA BELONGS IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS BRITNEY
SPEARS AND PARIS Hilton, a more fruitful question suggests itself: Can Barack
Obama go the rest of the campaign without demeaning the country he seeks to
Backlash over John
advertisement and Obama’s playing
the race card (who would have seen that
coming?) drowned out far more significant words from the lips of The
Anointed One this week. “There's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment
of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've
got some very sad and difficult things to account for,” he said. “I
personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our
history, acknowledged.” The media’s favorite candidate then underscored his
belief in reparations: “I consistently believe that when it comes to whether
it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most
important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but
comments came just as the House of Representatives passed
a meaningless resolution condemning the “fundamental injustice, cruelty,
brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow.” The gesture was meaningless,
in part, because Bill Clinton apologized for the American role in the slave
trade during a visit
to Uganda a decade ago. (Ironically, it was Uganda’s president, Yoweri
Museveni, who put the blame on “black traitors, saying:
“African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own
people and selling them. If anyone should apologize, it should be the African
chiefs.”) However, in American textbooks and college classrooms across the
nation, the “tragic elements of our history” are not merely acknowledged but
expounded upon in great depth.
than those historical bits Sen. Obama chooses for private meditation, however,
is the seemingly omnipresent emphasis on the ills and maladies of the nation
whose presidency he seeks.
Horowitz and I relate in our new book, Party of Defeat, a phobia of the
United States has been a sin qua non
of the American Left since the time of George McGovern, and since 1972, it has
been linked inextricably to a defeatist foreign policy. After all, how can one
hope for the advancement of a cause he disbelieves, or believes is harmful?
McGovern’s 1972 acceptance
speech exemplified the Blame America First model, blaming America for “Asian
children running ablaze from bombed-out schools.” He charged, “Let us resolve
that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die
trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad.” The Left’s rallying
cry, “Bring America Home,” was not a prescription to conserve America’s
strength; it was an attempt to quarantine a virus.
As we note,
Jimmy Carter raised this to a high art form, isolating American allies like the
Shah of Iran while courting enemies like Daniel Ortega. At the time, liberal
Democratic Senator Pat Moynihan, D-NY, surmised
Carter was “unable to distinguish between America’s friends and enemies,”
because he shared “the enemy’s view of the world.” As a result, the nation
endured the first successful Islamic revolution since the fall of the Ottoman
Empire, the spread of Communism to its furthest point, and the humiliation of
the United States as fanatics kidnapped innocent civilians for 444 days.
voiced such views in his speech
to Georgetown University students shortly after 9/11, saying those “from
various European lineages are not blameless” in the “long history” of “terror,”
because of the Crusades, slavery, and occasional racial animosity:
Here in the United States, we were
founded as a nation that practiced slavery and slaves were, quite frequently,
killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way
when significant numbers of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to
get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less
than fully human and we are still paying the price today. Even in the 20th
century in America people were terrorized or killed because of their race. And
even today, though we have continued to walk, sometimes to stumble, in the
right direction, we still have the occasional hate crime rooted in race,
religion, or sexual orientation. So,
terror has a long history.
gave us the shameful exit from Mogadishu, and a series of unanswered terrorist
attacks from Osama bin Laden and other jihadists. David and I use insider accounts to
explain how his politically correct worldview left America vulnerable to
Obama, who first raised the issue of why he wore no flag pin, a man who placed
no hand over his heart during the national anthem and belittled small-town
Add to these
spectacles Obama’s defense of Jeremiah Wright and Weather Underground terrorist
William Ayers – equating them with his grandmother and pro-life U.S. Senator
Tom Coburn, respectively.
Then add the other Obama, Mrs.
Michelle Obama. In February, she revealed,
“for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country.” The following
month, in a speech she wrote herself and delivered at least four times, she branded
the United States as a whole “just downright mean.” Then
on May 2, in North Carolina, the First-Lady-in-Waiting drew a less-than-flattering
portrait of America:
living in a nation and in a time
where the bar is set – I talk about this
all the time – they set the bar…and then you work and you struggle, you do
everything that they say, and you think you’re getting close to the bar, and
you’re working hard, and you’re sacrificing. And then you get to the bar.
You’re right there. You’re reaching out for the bar. You think you have it. And
then what happens? They move the bar. They raise it up…it’s always just
quite out of reach…The sad irony is
that’s exactly what’s happening to most Americans in this country.
these mix a volatile cocktail of anti-Americanism through which emerged Obama’s
desire to dwell on a 150-year-old institution destroyed through the most deadly
war in our nation’s history. Perhaps someone should investigate: just how
obsessed is Obama with the ills and evils of his country’s past?
political scientist Larry Sabato wrote in his book Feeding Frenzy that an individual’s “subtext” – the general
assessment of his character – determines much of a candidate’s public perception
and media coverage. Why, then, has this not become the
dominant image of Obama – pushing aside accurate assessments of his paper-thin
resumé and even-thinner list of achievements. (At least John Kerry loitered in
the Senate 20 years before running
for president.) Could this scene have anything to do with it?
When Obama walked on stage at the
McCormick Center, many journalists in the audience leapt to their feet and
applauded enthusiastically after being told not to do so. During a two-minute
break halfway through the event, which was broadcast live on CNN, journalists
ran to the stage to snap photos of Obama.
As Tammy Bruce commented, “Yeah, no
The media refuse
to see, but all Americans with a heart for their country’s well-being in a time
of war should discern the significance of this bias – of the media for Obama,
and of Obama against his country.