Obama and Post-Modern Rascism

A thoughtful article yesterday by Shelby Steele in the Wall Street Journal suggests that the Emperor has no clothes. Steele says:

I think that Mr. Obama is not just inexperienced; he is also hampered by a distinct inner emptiness - not an emptiness that comes from stupidity or a lack of ability but an emptiness that has been actually nurtured and developed as an adaptation to the political world.

The nature of this emptiness becomes clear in the contrast between him and Ronald Reagan. Reagan reached the White House through a great deal of what is called "individuating" - that is he took principled positions throughout his long career that jeopardized his popularity, and in so doing he came to know who he was as a man and what he truly believed.

He became Ronald Reagan through dissent, not conformity. And when he was finally elected president, it was because America at last wanted the vision that he had evolved over a lifetime of challenging conventional wisdom. By the time Reagan became president, he had fought his way to a remarkable certainty about who he was, what he believed, and where he wanted to lead the nation.

Mr. Obama's ascendancy to the presidency could not have been more different. There seems to have been very little individuation, no real argument with conventional wisdom, and no willingness to jeopardize popularity for principle. To the contrary, he has come forward in American politics by emptying himself of strong convictions, by rejecting principled stands as "ideological," and by promising to deliver us from the "tired" culture-war debates of the past. He aspires to be "post-ideological," "post-racial" and "post-partisan," which is to say that he defines himself by a series of "nots" - thus implying that being nothing is better than being something. He tries to make a politics out of emptiness itself.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Smarter Security, not More Money

The Heritage Foundation published an article this morning regarding how our bloated Federal bureaucracy is responding to the recent foiled terror attack. Read the article; here's a tidbit from it:

"The Flight 253 attack was the 28th foiled terror plot against the United States since 9/11. What is notable is that of the 28 failed plots, 26 were stopped by intelligence, military, and law enforcement agencies. Only two were stopped by citizens on the scene - Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in 2009, and Richard Reid in 2001. In both these cases, America just got lucky - the plots were clumsy and the passengers and crew responded bravely and quickly. There are many valuable lessons to be learned from the failed Christmas attack on a Detroit-bound airliner; throwing more money at airline security is not one of them."

"What Were You Thinking?"

Tiger and Barack

Lisa Schiffren wrote an article on the American Thinker back on December 8 titled "Tiger, Barack, and the Law of Transitivity." It's quite interesting in its premise: the squeaky-clean image of Tiger Woods was a creation of businesses interested in extracting money from the public, and is very similar to the image created for Barack Obama leading up to the election of 2008. In both cases the image that was created, and widely believed, was significantly different from the personal reality of the individual. Give it a read.

"If I were watching the public's disgust with the newly revealed Tiger Woods from an office in the West Wing, I'd be concerned. Because Barack Obama is about as completely manufactured a political character as this nation has seen. His meteoric rise, without the inconvenience of a public record or accomplishments, and the public's willing suspension of critical evaluation of his résumé allowed his handlers and the media to project whatever they wanted to on his unfurrowed brow."

"What Were You Thinking?"

Hentoff: America under Obama

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute conducts an interview with Nat Hentoff, of whom Whitehead says, "he has angered nearly every political faction and remains one of a few who has stuck to his principles through his many years of work, regardless of the trouble it stirred up."

Hentoff speaks to many of the issues of the day, including government health care, unemployment, public education, and the Fourth Amendment.

"What Were You Thinking?"

An Overdue Debunking

Cal Thomas's column in today's paper carried the title indicated above. In the archives, it's titled "The Flathead Society." Either way, if you have an interest in joining the debate over global warming you would do well to give it a read.

Cal cites an essay by Dr. Leonard Weinstein, a NASA research scientist with over 30 years of experience.

Attack on America Redux

"What Were You Thinking?"

American History, as mis-told by Harry Reid

There's no shortage of lunacy and outright lies coming from the left side of the political spectrum. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) recently mis-represented the women's suffrage and emancipation movements as having been blocked by Republicans. In fact, it was members of his own party that blocked and obstructed such advances.

Read John Fund's story in the Wall Street journal, setting the record straight.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Mr Independant

Mr. Lieberman notes that the public option serves no other purpose: "It doesn't help one poor person get insurance who doesn't have it now. It doesn't compel one insurance company to provide insurance to somebody who has an illness. And . . . it doesn't do anything to reduce the cost of insurance."

Mr. Lieberman dismisses Democratic arguments that it is necessary to keep insurers honest. "Sometimes the private sector does things that are wrong, and when they do, you regulate—sometimes you litigate," he says. "But never in the history of America . . . have we tried to keep one industry honest by having government go into that business to compete with the industry."

Read Joe Lieberman's article in the Wall Street Journal.

"What Were You Thinking?"