Where Did These Guys Come From? The Origins of Obamism [Victor Davis Hanson]

pajamasmedia.com ^ | December 23, 2009 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

The Origins of Obamism

I do not think it will be easy to delay Obamism. It is not just that both houses of Congress are under liberal leadership with ample majorities, with a White House and captive media egging them on. The problem is that now the entire engine of the federal government is harnessed in the most unapologetic way to pushing through a far left agenda. There is no shame, no hesitancy in using the full powers of the state.

How does that work out? Without qualification (remember we are in a new age of transparency and ethical reform) votes are bought with hundred-million-dollar earmarks; the attorney general predicates judicial action on the political ramifications of indicting or not indicting; federal bureaucracies (watch the EPA if cap and trade stalls) are devoted to the new Caesar rather than the letter of the law.

Such a strange scenario we have found ourselves in—a clear majority of Americans is opposed to almost everything Obama has to offer; congressional representatives know they are acting against the will of the people, but know too that they are offered all sorts of borrowed money for their districts to compensate for their unpopular actions. And a charismatic commander in chief believes that he can charm even the angriest of critics, and that anything he promises (Iran’s deadlines, closing of Guantanamo, new transparency, no more lobbyists, etc) means zilch and can be contextualized by another “let me be perfectly clear” speech spiced with a couple of the usual “it would have been impossible for someone as unlikely as me to have become President just (fill in the blanks) years ago”

No, I would not count Obama out. So what drives his agenda? What are its origins?

Here are the three most prominent catalysts.

Equality of Result

What Barack Obama advocates is as old as Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics, the agenda of the classical dêmos and Roman turba.

It is why the French Revolution emphasized égalité and fraternité, while the Founding Fathers instead championed the freedom of the individual from the despotism of the state. In short, equality of result doctrine ignores the role of markets, of skills, of tragedy itself that renders some of us ill, others in perfect health, some born gifted, others less so, some evil by nature, others good, and instead promises that the state can even us all out through its power of material redistribution. Give us all the same amount of money and perks at the end of the day, and then utopia reigns under the benevolent watch of Ivy-League professors and organizers.

It is a given that what we make is not our own, but predicated on the liberality of society. Thus, for those who were too greedy, too conniving, or even too lucky, the state must step in to ensure that we end up the same.

In its most benign form, we know this as progressivism or communitarianism, a big government, high tax philosophy that co-exists within democracy. Its more pernicious strains are socialist, in which the state ensures, through bureaucratic fiat and a labyrinth of laws that curb free expression, that redistribution is institutionalized. And the virulent form (thankfully with the fall of the Soviet Union and the transformation of China not so global-threatening any more)  is, of course, a murderous communism, in which any means necessary are justified to ensure the desire ends and the rule of anointed apparat. Remember, history’s greatest killers (Stalin and Mao) do it all “for the people.”

Multiculturalism

But there is another element to Barack Obama besides progressive statism. A number of contemporary –isms and –ologies (multiculturalism, moral equivalence, utopian pacifism, post-modernism) also help to explain Obamism, especially in cultural terms. Our universities subscribe to race/class/gender theory of exploitation, in which much of the unhappiness of today’s women, of today’s nonwhite, and of today’s poor originates with the privileges of the white Christian Western male that are predicated on oppression.

It works like this: The ghetto resident, the denizen of the barrio, the abandoned and divorced waitress with three young children, can all chart their poverty and unhappiness not to accident, fate, bad luck, bad decisions, poor judgment, illegality or drug use, or simple tragedy, but rather exclusively to a system that is rigged to ensure oppression on the basis of race, class, and gender—often insidious and unfathomable except to the sensitive and gifted academic or community organizer.

So Obama combines the age-old belief that the state is there to level the playing field (rather than protect the rights of the individual and secure the safety of the people from foreign threats), with the postmodern notion that government must recompensate those by fiat on the basis on their race or class or gender. Remember all that, and everything from the Professor Gates incident, to the dutiful attendance at the foot of Rev. Wright to Van Jones become logical rather than aberrant. Michelle Obama could make $300,000 and she will always be more a victim than the Appalachian coal miner who earns $30,000, by virtue of her race and gender.

The Chicago Way

A third and final ingredient to Obamism is the Chicago way. Here we see an interesting updated version of the old big-city, Daley thuggery. Rahm Emanuel threatens recalcitrant congressmen with reminders of the long Obama memory. The Axelrod/Jarrett clique ensures that the government channels stimuli to blue-states, that key Congress people are bought off with tens of millions of government largess, that every campaign promise—from no lobbyists and airing on C-span health care debates to posting impending legislation on the Internet for set durations and “reaching across the aisle”—is simply cynical fluff that no sane person would take seriously.

So?

In short, we have a traditional statist bent on redistribution (Obama’s words, not mine), updated with the postmodern belief that race/class/gender oppressions require government affirmative reactions (which also abroad explains why we reach out to enemies and shun allies), all energized by an ends justify the means Chicago bare-knuckles apparat.

And?

These true believers, then, don’t really care that the Blue Dogs (if such really exist) bite the dust in 2010, if Harry Reid goes up in smoke, or indeed, if Barack Obama is reelected. Instead, they will institutionalize an agenda that will affect America for generations, move it sharply to the left, and earn a spot in the academic pantheon of American heroes.

Asking why would Obama & Co. be so self-destructive to push through an array of proposals that have no more than 45% of the public’s support is like asking whether the English Prof who teaches incomprehensible Foucauldian theory worries whether he has only 2 students, or whether the well-off union boss is all that upset that membership has sunk to  30% of the workforce, or multimillion-dollar-earning  Sarah Palin-interviewing Katie Couric is worried about her sinking ratings, or whether the New York Times columnists are upset that their mother paper is broke with subscription and readership down, and laying off thousands of blue-collar employees.

Instead, for the true believer, it is all about the self, and the sense of the self—and damn all other considerations. (We saw that with Jimmy Carter as well; that he destroyed liberal Democrat politics for a generation meant nothing; that he won prizes and jet-setted the world for thirty years meant everything. For these people, it is always about them—all the time. Let us eat cake as they end up liberal icons  for the duration).

What Are We Left With?

The most blatant cynicism in recent American political history—a man who ran as a bipartisan who is the most partisan we’ve seen, a healer whose even flippant comments are designed to offend, a statist who assumes that the sheared sheep cannot stampede somewhere else, a reformer who trusts his honey-laced rhetoric can disguise Daley style-corruption.

On that happy note.

Everything, as my dear late mother lectured me, happens for a reason, or at least presents a sort of logic—irony, paradox, karma, and nemesis being the best ways of interpreting our unfathomable existences. It took messianic narcissistic Barack Obama to expose the full extent of the mess that a once noble tradition of 19^th-century liberalism had devolved into. Only he could have rammed it down the throats of the American people, and when he is done, we will suffer, but also sicken of it for quite a while.

Otherwise, Merry Christmas! And thanks again to the most informed, articulate, and outspoken commentators in the blogosphere!

[junta]

The toxic word to all that VDH mentions is “Responsibility.”
These creatures of the self loathe the word and the concept.
But most respectable conservatives do not want to destroy the Left they want to make a living catching the crumbs and so this wonderful tool will sit idle while all the time we have to digest idle speculation about abstract polemics.

[Interesting Times]

VDH gets to the heart of the matter. Thanks for the ping.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Love VDH, but even he is operating under the assumption that when we sicken of this totalitarian regime, we'll just be able to trade it in.

I assure you, that will not be the case.

Absolutely right! They have fought too long, most of it under the radar, and too hard to not hold on to it now. They have been seeding the path to success for several years by using groups like ACORN to sign up illegal and phony voters, voters still on the rolls, and they will be adding more. If that somehow fails they will then go to the courts and have as many recounts as it takes, "finding" new votes along the way, to eke out a victory.

If that fails, or if pre-election polls show the likely hood of losing, there will be a crisis requiring federal intervention with martial law or somesuch.

We are no longer in the realm of politics as usual.

[dennisw]

VDH and Charles Krauthammer are two giants who are always right....except for minor things

[CPT Clay]

Amen

Bookmark this thread!

[The Pack Knight]

I'm actually trying to figure out what he means by "19th-century liberalism." I'm assuming he's referring to the liberal movement of in early 19th century Europe which was largely a reaction to the Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath.

I usually think of it as "18th century liberalism", though, particularly in the American context. The traditions that informed liberalism in the 19th century were largely set forth by 17th and 18th century thinkers like Locke, Smith, and Kant. The United States had, of course, adopted this tradition in the late 18th century, and it continues to serve as its first and greatest expression in the world.

I'm hoping he isn't talking about late 19th century Progressivism, which is where modern American "liberalism" has its roots. I'm pretty sure he isn't, though - Hanson is pretty Euro-centric in his history and knows the difference between liberalism and progressivism, so I'm pretty sure he was referring to the 18th-early 19th century thought that forms one of the foundations of modern American conservatism.

[rockrr]

Unfortunately I took his meaning to be the latter. It is uncharacteristic of VDH to be so imprecise in his verbiage and is the reason for my unease. Either way (and thank you for defining them so well) it presents a troubling (mis)characterization of players and events.

Classic Liberalism hasn’t devolved into a mess and there is nothing noble about Progressivism.

[cookcounty]

In the 1920's, Progressivism gave us Recall, Referendum and Initiative, in many states. Which many conservatives consider good things.

Though from a pure Republican point of view (and this is Free Republic), these were not steps forward.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

If you mean that “The Divine One” and his apostles will not voluntarily surrender their offices, then I agree that there is a good possibility that this will be so. It is time for Americans to start thinking about “keeping their powder dry.” The coming election will be a good test. If it is as corrupt as I think it will be then the current crowd will maintain power signaling to the rest of us what must be done.

[rockrr]

The cynic in me sees them as anti-ethical shortcuts to good governance. The pragmatist in me recognizes them as as a natural reaction to poor governance. In an ideal world where we actually looked past the immediacy of our own interests and elected representatives who possessed integrity none would be necessary.

Unfortunately it is far from an ideal world.

[Tolik]

Yes, and I’d like to add Sowell and Steyn to VDH and Krauthammer. Rush also. And Prager. It’s hard to call Jonah Goldberg a giant, but he stepped up very strongly lately.

From the tier of last knowns, Bill Whittle is amazing. He writes less and speaks more lately (PJTV) - and that makes FR posts of his videos much less popular - many freepers prefer reading over watching.

All IMHO of course

[b4its2late]

Hanson’s so good at what he does.

[wintertime]

“19th-century liberalism.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Personally, I call these people the “19th century Utopian Progressives”.

[jazusamo]

Excellent article!

Merry Christmas, All.

[Blind Eye Jones]

“It took messianic narcissistic Barack Obama to expose the full extent of the mess that a once noble tradition of 19th-century liberalism had devolved into. Only he could have rammed it down the throats of the American people, and when he is done, we will suffer, but also sicken of it for quite a while.”

America has been moving to the left for quite a while now and this may be the culmination of years of effort. 19th-century liberalism looks optimistically toward truth and freedom — universities wouldn’t ban funding for Marxist profs because they might have some truth to impart and people should have the freedom to pursue the truth — thinking that these are noble goals. What it failed to realize is that the Marxist prof was actively conspiring against 19th-century liberalism, capitalism and democracy. (Frankfurt School, Marcuse, etc.) On top of that, the Marxist prof was actively recruiting for his cause within the student body. The parable here is the story of the frog swimming the scorpion across the river. The frog does so because he naively thinks the scorpion won’t kill him. In the same way liberalism believes that Marxism has, like itself, the same noble ideals and that it won’t seek liberalism’s destruction — especially, after liberalism has been so kind and good to it by allowing Marxism to be taught on campuses. The scorpion does kill the frog (because that’s what scorpions do) and Marxism will kill liberalism because that’s what Marxism wants to do. The logic of their nature determines it. In the frog and the scorpion parable the scorpion dies and maybe Marxism will usher in its own death and destruction — a nuclear nightmare scenario of civil war comes to mind. Marxism is like a virus that becomes more active at certain times and then recedes into a dormant state. It’s like a cold sore on the body politic but that cold sore can change and becomes more virulent if the body is weaken. Liberal democracy and freedom needs constant vigilance and was expressed a long time before.

[TEXOKIE]

bumping your post 8

[zot]

Thanks for the ping.It remains to be seen whether America will ever be free of the results of Obamaism.

[metesky]

Good column. VDH bump.

Merry Christmas, T and thanks for all you do around here.

[BroJoeK]

"I wish I knew the answer to this mess - I do not. I have prepared as best I can for the the natural consequence of 0baminism - the collapse of civil order. I won't say how or to what extent because I know that we are being monitored. I also decline to say how I will react should a state (or my state) rebel for the same reason...

"...Keep your powder dry..."

It is senseless to hint darkly of violence or illegal revolt, when nothing like that is going to happen -- certainly not at this point.

Indeed, as of today, the most likely future scenario is something along the lines of repeating the mid-term elections of 1994 under Bill Clintoon. Then voters rose up, asking Republicans to restore fiscal sanity, bury Hillary-care, and begin investigating the Clintoons' misbehavior.

And as of today, the numbers for November 2010 look even better than they did a the same time in 1993. So there is plenty of reason for optimism.

We will see no violence, no revolt or secession by Conservatives. So forget about "keeping powder dry" for that reason. What you really need to do is purchase long lengths of rope -- with which lasso your neighbors and drag them to the polls next November. ;-)

Merry Christmas!

[RaceBannon]

If that’s what you believe then you aren’t paying attention.