Posted on 09/16/2010 9:12:25 PM PDT by This Just In
Inside Obama’s Brain
by Andrew Klavan
in politics
I’m very wary when people try to psycho-analyze their political opposition. It’s fun, I know – and unavoidable sometimes. But in general, it strikes me as a suspiciously easy way of avoiding out-and-out confrontation with their ideas. After all, just because some guy is a self-righteous clown who tries to make friends in men’s room stalls doesn’t mean his policy suggestions are wrong. Just means he’s, you know, cree-pay.
That said, Dinesh D’Souza’s cover piece in the new Forbes, “How Obama Thinks,” is both devastating and remarkably convincing. For those of us who haven’t been swayed by the idea that O’s a secret socialist or muslim or whatever – and yet are puzzled why he would continually put forward ideas that are so bad for the country he’s supposed to be leading – D’Souza has some answers:
Theories abound to explain the President’s goals and actions. Critics in the business community–including some Obama voters who now have buyer’s remorse–tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist–not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution.
(Excerpt) Read more at andrewklavan.com ...
D’Souza found the range. Let loose more volleys along these lines on The Thin Skinned One.
I hope this link works:
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/09/16/surprise-white-house-unhappy-with-dinesh-dsouza/
If you haven’t read Dinesh D’Souza’s article, I would encourage you to. There is good reason why the libs and CINO’s are breaking out in a rash over D’Souza’s insight.
I’m glad that this appeared in a mainstream magazine. Didn’t any of Obie’s supporters read any of his books? They act so shocked anytime someone mentions something “he” wrote.
I believe this is one of the reasons libs and CINO’s are going ballistic over the article. D’Souza is methodically analyzing this and presenting insightful conclusions using Obama’s own history rather than personal attacks based on an opposing view.
How many “psycho-histories” of the Bush family were posted in the past decade? I’ve read more than a few and their totally straight-faced conclusions about money, frats, mothering, daddy hatred, etc. etc. are a wealth of post-modernist,Foucaultian nonsense. That’s why this article hits home - because it dares to twist the oppositions orthodoxies around Obama’s throat. It is brilliant.
One of the comments was so true: “If he were judged on merits, he’d be a congressional valet.” Plan on reading and have a couple of clients who are psychologists who will really be interested. Appreciate the info!
You can say that again.
A brief D’Souza bio:
Here’s a brief bio:
D’Souza has been called one of the “top young public-policy makers in the country” by Investor’s Business Daily. The New York Times Magazine named him one of America’s most influential conservative thinkers. The World Affairs Council lists him as one of the nation’s 500 leading authorities on international issues. Newsweek cited him as one of the country’s most prominent Asian Americans.
A former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, D’Souza also served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983.
Mr. D’Souza’s books have had a major influence on public opinion and public policy. His 1991 book Illiberal Education was the first study to publicize the phenomenon of political correctness. The book was widely acclaimed and became a New York Times bestseller for 15 weeks. It has been listed as one of the most influential books of the 1990’s.
In 1995 D’Souza published The End of Racism, which became one of the most controversial books of the time and a national bestseller. D”Souza’s 1997 book Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader was the first book to make the case for Reagan’s intellectual and political importance. In 2000, D’Souza published The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno Affluence, which explores the social and moral implications of wealth.
In 2002 he published his New York Times bestseller What’s So Great About America , which was critically acclaimed for its thoughtful patriotism. His 2003 book Letters to a Young Conservative has become a handbook for a new generation of young conservatives inspired by D’Souza’s style and ideas. The Enemy at Home: published in 2006, stirred up a furious debate both on the left and the right; even so, it became a national bestseller and will be published in paperback, January 2008, with a new Afterword by the author responding to his critics.
D’Souza’s articles have appeared in virtually every major magazine and newspaper, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, Vanity Fair, New Republic, and National Review. He has appeared on numerous television programs, including the Today Show, Nightline, The News Hour, O’Reilly Factor, Moneyline, and Hannity and Colmes.
Bookmark
Wrong! 0bama is a hardcore Marxist. His policies are Euro-socialist because there are limits on how far can go with his opening gambits.
Well, it sure doesn’t look good, which is why conservatives must hand RINO’s their pink slips elect true conservative representatives.
“Wrong! 0bama is a hardcore Marxist.”
Exactly.
So am I. But here's mine anyway.
I think D'Souza's argument is good but I think he puts too much stock in "Dreams of..." Obama, in my mind, didn't write that book. Bill Ayers did. Secondly, Obama doesn't have integrity. That suggests a flaw rooted in narcissism. If there is a real country Obama is concerned about it is the state of "I." The state of I is not concerned about a post colonial power in Africa. The state of I is concerned about colonizing America, winning America for Obama. The father didn't give him a political cause but a neurosis. It's not political theater as played out with other actors for the good or bad of the country -- it's personal acquisitions to his own glory and, more important, to expand and fill the insatiable imperialistic state of I. Obama is the fawn playing Hamlet with no country of his own -- yes, there is a ghost of the father in Hamlet -- but that is not where Hamlet's or Obama's true motives come from. The father starts him off, it starts with deceit, with mother problems, with acting, with wanting to usurp the king. Ultimately, both want to fill their appetites and longs -- become complete and whole as a person -- and the tragedy is they can't.
There is a problem in the state of Denmark I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.