Posted on 01/24/2010 1:19:33 PM PST by x
You don't have to be a Nazi or Marxist to "fundamentally change" or ruin a country.
Attlee's not as flashy as some of the other figures Obama's compared to, but there are a lot of real similarities.
Granted, flashiness counts for a lot. Some of the wilder comparison's are based on the what people saw as Obama's charisma. But one year in, just how charismatic is Barack Obama, anyway?
Of course, Obama's only Attlee if he gets what he's after. Otherwise, Jimmy Carter's a better comparison.
Anyway, I posted this because National Review doesn't put its articles on line, so a lot of people don't see them. Stuttaford may be wrong, but his idea deserves an audience.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
That’s a good point. Thanks for posting (and for providing more grist for the mill, as it were ;^) ).
As Churchill said about Atlee, “there’s a lot less there than meets the eye.”
Didn’t Churchill also describe Attlee as, “A sheep in sheep’s clothing?”
Can’t say I’m as still as worried about Democrats in the near term as I was, but this is still very relevant. Socialists (closet marxists) across the pond have long relied upon the welfare state, immigration, and union influence to keep a lock on power, the only real goal of marxism. The so-called Democrats over hear think the same way and couldn’t care less of the obvious effects their real agenda will have on the country. That’s never been so obvious as when Obama took charge of things, but it will always be the case with Democrats.
ping
An interesting piece of history, certainly, that many have forgotten. We remember the greatness of Winston Churchill and the heroism of the RAF, but we forget that promptly after the war England, in love with socialism, committed suicide.
The two world wars had weakened England, of course, but it was not until 1945 that they gave their heroic leader Churchill the boot and simply surrendered to the socialist dream.
But it doesn’t seem to me that Obama resembles Atlee much at all, except in his politics. And it doesn’t seem to me that the American people are yet worn down to the point that they want to simply give up and hand themselves over to the government, the way the Brits did in 1945.
One of Evelyn Waugh’s best works is his trilogy about the Second World War, “Sword of Honour.” Among other things, you can see this betrayal of what England once stood for even during the war years. Because as Waugh shows, the war was fought for the wrong reasons. They fought against Hitler, but they fought on behalf of Stalin, and they handed much of Europe—Yugoslavia in particular is shown—over to the Communists. So even the apparent heroism of the war years was not, as Waugh’s hero comes to understand, really a matter of honour. Nor was it fought for what western civilization had stood for up to that time.
Anyway, definitely worth a read for those who don’t remember the truly forgettable Mr. Atlee. But I don’t think it’s a good parallel to Obama, because I don’t think the American people have yet abandoned their principles. Or, maybe only a third of them have.
One big difference, though: Attlee was not elected by his nation’s media like Zero was. The sheeple here are now starting to realize that.
“his intrusive regulatory and planning regime (not to speak of the crippling taxes he promoted) distorted the economy and retarded development for decades;”
retarded - that word’s certainly the right fit in an Atlee/Obama article.
"A modest man with much to be modest about"
The author sounds like he is soothing his readers into believing nothing can change.
America was built; wasn’t it?
During the war, Churchill depended on his cabinetmember Attlee to handle a lot of domestic affairs and then he was surprised that Attlee could pull the rug out from under him and the Tories when the war ended. Churchill was in his element as a military leader and an international statesman because of his character, intelligence, and decades of experience. But he stumbled around blindly with domestic politics like GOP leaders often do, and so he lost to Attlee. Remember the victories of the Gulf War, the Cold War, the Iraq War, and the wars against Al Qaeda? The historical importance of those victories is undeniable, but the electorate is likely to forget the GOP’s victories whenever economic hardship and a statist political agenda hold sway at home.
Interesting.
In 2004, he was voted the greatest British prime minister of the 20th century in a poll of 139 professors organised by MORI.
Sounds typical -- ask a bunch of professors who was greater, Churchill, Thatcher, or Attlee and they'll say Attlee.
Like Britain after the second world war, it needs to be re-built. Creative destruction is good, but Churchill with all of his rhetorical gifts and good sense was either too preoccupied or just unable back then to make a convincing case for the UK rebuilding itself. And so war-weary Brit voters went with what they perceived to be a known quantity: Attlee. American voters were a little more carefree and went with the incumbent (Truman) until he wore out his welcome (just like Attlee did but for different reasons).
I see two big things to keep in mind:
America has traditionally NOT been a socialist leaning country. Not to say we don’t have certain areas where the direction has been problematic, but we haven’t historically been a HUGE section of the population clamoring for it. As anyone who has read “A Road To Serfdom” England DID have a large number of people who thought socialism was a good thing, and had been clamoring for it since The Great War.
Obama is a Marxist in the Alinsky mode through and through, and just because comparisons made to other socialist/marxist/communists make people uncomfortable, it doesn’t make the comparison wrong!
Another difference is Britain’s Parliamentary system where the winner of an election literally takes all; an elective dictatorship. Britain does not have a written constitution.
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.