OBAMA: THE NEW LEFT TRIUMPHANT
Stanley Kurtz of NRO gets it.
I have been waiting for someone in the media to lay Obama low with the correct interpretation of the candidate’s radical associations. Many on the right have made the mistake of pegging Obama himself as a wild eyed radical determined to create some kind of Marxist state out of America. I believe this wildly overstates the case. The danger of Obama is in his “soft” radicalism - a squishy new leftism where he doesn’t have the political courage to annunciate his true agenda while hiding behind banal platitudes and sugary rhetoric.
Kurtz, in going after Ben Smith of Politico who quoted one of the co-founders of the New Party Joel Rogers saying that NP had “no members,” and subsequently was forced to retract based on Kurtz’s brilliant brief on Obama’s ties to the radical Maoist party, shows the true nature of Obama’s radical associations and how they informed and affected his political life:
The larger point is that the very existence of so many of these radical political partnerships (and that is what they are, significant political partnerships, not mere “marginal relationships,” as Smith would have it) reveals a systematic pattern–a pattern that shows Obama to be a man of the left–so far left that he long had one foot out of (but also one foot in) the conventional Democratic mainstream. It’s true that the McCain campaign has not effectively made this point. Yet my Corner colleague Andy McCarthy has eloquently complained about that. The most important point is what Obama’s many radical political partnerships reveal about his overall perspective, and how his radicalism ties in to, and helps explain, even his more conventional-seeming Democratic liberalism. I have written extensively about all of this.
Radical or liberal? It’s not an either/or. What’s certain is that Obama is not the post-ideological, post-partisan pragmatist he presents himself as. The press has shamefully colluded in that false presentation.
“[O]ne foot out of (but also one foot in) the conventional Democratic mainstream…” describes Obama to a “T.” I don’t think there is any doubt now, with the discovery of this tape of Obama from 2001 (soon, no doubt, coming to a McCain campaign commercial near you), that as a young politician, Obama flirted with radical ideas including a transformative “redistribution” of wealth that would radically alter the American economy and society.
Courtesy of STACLU, here’s a partial transcript:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. (HT: Michelle Malkin)
Huey Newton (or Jeremiah Wright for that matter) couldn’t have said it better.
Newton and Bobby Seale created the Black Panthers first as a self-defense organization concerned with stopping police brutality in black neighborhoods. But it wasn’t long before militant blacks, rejecting the mainstream civil rights approach of Dr. King and others, began to agitate for more direct political action, believing socialism and redistributive policies would do more for “equality” than the incremental changes sought by SCLC and NAACP.
Obama’s criticism of the mainstream civil rights movement echoes that of later day activists who believe the movement isn’t doing enough about Black poverty and economic “injustice.” This is the legacy of the Panthers and the “Black Power” movement of the 1970’s. In this way, Obama’s friendship with Wright and Father Pfleger (a great admirer of the Black Panthers), makes perfect sense. As does his association with William Ayers whose SDS leadership made him an ally with Newton and the Black Panthers back in the 70’s.
We know now that as late as 2001, Obama was flirting with radical redistribution as an engine of gaining Black equality. So the question is, when did Obama change his spots - or has he?
Obama was attracted to Wright, Pfleger, Ayers and the rest initially because of his flirtation with radicalism as a way to change the economic and social structure of the United States. It was why he became a community organizer. Changing the country one neighborhood at a time is straight out of the New Left playbook.
But it is equally apparent that there came a point where Obama rejected radicalism as a solution and thought to remake the Democratic party - to mainstream some of his ideas - by adopting the tactics of the New Left (framing social change and economic redistribution as questions of “fairness”). This is exactly what the New Party was attempting to do; pull the Democratic party further left by offering up candidates who believed not in Marxism but New Left ideas of “social justice.”
Contrary to what some believe, the New Left is not specifically a “socialist” movement although it has many members who are open socialists. The idea is not to have the “people” take over the means of production or to outlaw profit but rather use the government to enforce utilitarian and Utopian schemes of “fairness” and “equality.” They seek the Leveling” of America - with them at the top of the economic and political heap as sages who know what is best for the rest of us. This is evident in the left’s constant caterwauling about ordinary Americans “voting against their own interests” in electing Republicans. Well, if people aren’t smart enough to know what they want, Obama and the liberals will tell them.
Even Obama haters out there have to admire the way he has obscured this message with a combination of liberal boilerplate and soothing nostrums about an American paradise where there is no argument, no bitter partisanship, only peace and harmony.
Steve Chapman correctly understands that this is a message that cuts across religious, racial, and even party lines. But he misses the big picture by failing to see beyond the pretty words and banal solipsisms to discover the hard edge of New Left advocacy.
The America Obama wishes to recreate - even revolutionize - is not based on Constitutional principles or even tradition (which classical liberals like Hubert Humphrey always acknowledged as a source for change) but rather on the far more problematic ideas of social democracy espoused by late-19th and early 20th century “progressives” who believed that government could be “perfected” using scientific principles found in sociology and psychology.
One foot in and one foot out of the Democratic mainstream - that’s Obama. And he has used his associations with radicals his entire political life as stepping stones in his very liberal district. He may not have entirely abandoned his flirtation with these radicals. Indeed, he appears to have used some of their ideas to flesh out his squishy ideology. But does he share the “communist” (small “c” he calls it) views of Ayers or the radical black theology and political ideas of the Black Panthers with Wright-Pfleger?
I think clearly he does not. Obama does not seek to overturn America as much as he wants to alter the parameters of the social contract between the people and the government. He doesn’t want to do away with this compact and replace it with something else. He wants to nibble around the edges and “reform” the way that the American people interact with their government. This means more dependence, less freedom of action for the individual, an imposed sense of “community,” more strictures on the economy, and a war against “greed.”
This may seem radical enough to many. And indeed, with a Democratic Congress more ideologically in tune with the radicals, it is possible that they will push him further to the left than he wishes to go. But whatever occurs, there is little doubt that if he wins, it will be a triumph for the New Left and a reward for their patient undermining of the American experiment for more than 40 years.
The corrupt two party system is amerika’s number one problem. If anyone thinks for one moment that McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden are the best this country has to offer deserves what they are going to get.
The two party system has taken the presidential debates from the Women’s league of voters to eliminate viable third party candidates. The two party system is owned by the banking elites who really run the country.
Take your pick - neo-con fascism or liberal socialism.
Comment by DrKrbyLuv — 10/27/2008 @ 8:52 am
Good post Rick.
Comment by Andy — 10/27/2008 @ 9:11 am
nice… right on track
Comment by jambrowski — 10/27/2008 @ 9:22 am
Obama was attracted to Wright, Pfleger, Ayers and the rest initially because of his flirtation with radicalism as a way to change the economic and social structure of the United States. It was why he became a community organizer. Changing the country one neighborhood at a time is straight out of the New Left playbook.
Nonsense.
If Obama is to be judged solely by the politics of a portion of his “associates” from years past, then shouldn’t he logically be judged by his current associations? Warren Buffet, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker? Why cherrypick? Why do some associates count and others don’t?
Obama does what he does for ambition, not radicalism. He used Rev. Wright to get ahead, to establish a place in Chicago politics.
But this is becoming a pointless debate. In a month or so Obama will begin to announce his cabinet. I offered to bet you a while back that you’d come around to recognizing that Obama is not radical but ruthless. You essentially conceded that point in an earlier post.
So I’ll bet you this: Obama’s cabinet will be a lot closer to Rubin and nowhere near Ayers politically. And then we’ll have some actual data and we’ll begin to see whether you’re right.
You are correct about the cabinet.
It is the 3,000 other jobs the president gets to fill that will trouble us. That’s where if there is any radicalism in him, we will see it manifested in how he fills out the bureaucracy.
It’s how Reagan conducted his revolution in 1980 and I believe Obama will do the same.
ed.
Comment by michael reynolds — 10/27/2008 @ 9:41 am
Yes! Thank you for drawing this connection. You hit the nail on the head. This is what I’ve been trying to explain to my liberal friends. It’s not that I believe Obama is a socialist or out to destroy America (although I’m sure he will make plenty of naive mistakes). And I don’t hate Obama either. It’s just that I don’t agree with his premise that America needs to be more “fair”. Most of my friends, whether they are white or not, are of the opinion that everything they have is the result of hard work. This is the American spirit and it is what makes us so great. I do have a few progressive/socialist types friends, however, and they are of the view that many ethnic groups in America are poor because of racial economic inequality that was never “fixed” by our government after the freeing of the slaves and even after the Civil Rights movement. So in their opinion, it is fair and necessary to take away some of the natural economic advantage of other groups and give it to those on the bottom of the economic scale. So it doesn’t surprise me that Obama in that tape directly addresses this issue and voices his concern that the Supreme Court never delved into redistribution of wealth. When I heard that tape, I knew exactly what he was talking about. It is about race. It is a progressive idea that the Civil Rights movement did not address economic inequality among racial groups.
My question is this: say Obama wins, and these ethnic groups are finally given a “leg up” on their disadvantage. What then? Will it solve the problem? Or will Obama be touted as a hero, as usual, when his plans have done little if anything to help? Just look at the apartment complexes in Chicago that his funding was supposed to help. They are in total disrepair. And that’s what bugs me about trying to swallow Democrat’s ideas. I don’t think they are concerned with whether or not they WORK, I think they just enjoy feeling like saviors who finally tax America “fairly”.
Comment by Shelby — 10/27/2008 @ 9:56 am
“The corrupt two party system is amerika’s number one problem. If anyone thinks for one moment that McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden are the best this country has to offer deserves what they are going to get.
The two party system has taken the presidential debates from the Women’s league of voters to eliminate viable third party candidates. The two party system is owned by the banking elites who really run the country.
Take your pick – neo-con fascism or liberal socialism.”
Well, you’ve established one thing with your post: you would have voted National Socialist “for a change” back in 1932.
Comment by MarkJ — 10/27/2008 @ 10:07 am
An imposed sense of “community”?
Well, no one is elected President by getting LESS electoral votes than their opponent. So you mean that this sense of community will be imposed on those who voted for McCain? It’s an odd complaint, since the idea is that counting votes is a good way for folks to decide what to “impose” on all of us. You can certainly argue against the policy, but saying that it’s being imposed on you by a majority of the electorate is weak.
Comment by Postagoras — 10/27/2008 @ 10:18 am
Obama wasn’t a young politician when he espoused these ideas in 2001, he was forty years old. I guess there was good reason that Abby Hoffman and the hippies and yippies said don’t trust anyone over 30! Obama was 47 years old when he repeated his socialist credo, SPREAD THE WEALTH to Joe the Plumber. He knows it might well be political suicide to tell the US voters what he truly feels and believes, but its in the video for all to hear.
I truly hope McCain understands the devil he is dealing with and that Obama must be defeated at all costs. Obama plus a democrat Congress will be an evil that may never be undone in our lifetime or our children’s lifetimes.
Comment by eaglewingz08 — 10/27/2008 @ 10:18 am
It is the 3,000 other jobs the president gets to fill that will trouble us. That’s where if there is any radicalism in him, we will see it manifested in how he fills out the bureaucracy.
You may have a point there. Especially at Justice and Education. I guess we’ll see.
Comment by michael reynolds — 10/27/2008 @ 10:25 am
that Obama is not radical but ruthless.
I’d say he’s both, to be perfectly honest with you. Remember in college he sought out certain aspects of collegiate culture due to his teachings from “Uncle Frank.” He graduates, goes into the whole community organizing thing, but it fails to both bring about substantive effects or build his ego. Screw it, I’ll go for the power and then make myself the cause. Goes to Harvard Law, but then finds a problem when he has to choose corporate sell out to pay back his loans, where he’d be “just another attorney” or the dead end financial aspect of activist law.
Where can I be the revolution, get the credit and the money?
Politics.
Comment by Hawkins — 10/27/2008 @ 11:21 am
>>I truly hope McCain understands the devil he is dealing with and that Obama must be defeated at all costs. Obama plus a democrat Congress will be an evil that may never be undone in our lifetime or our children’s lifetimes.>>
No offense, but it is exactly this kind of dire prognostication that has me wanting to vote for Obama. The fear mongering by the right makes me sick to my stomach, despite the fact I don’t agree with the New Left or wealth redistribution. Obama isn’t what the country needs right now, but evil? Give me a freaking break.
Comment by Ryan — 10/27/2008 @ 11:26 am
> Even Obama haters out there have to admire the way he has
> obscured this message
Not really. It takes no particular skill to obscure the message when the media is in your pocket.
Comment by Alan — 10/27/2008 @ 12:11 pm
I second Ryan. I don’t like that crap anymore than I like explaining to my Mom every four year years that if the Republican is elected she really won’t lose her social security.
Comment by Bel Aire — 10/27/2008 @ 12:44 pm
Why not take Obama at his word? He said the above in 2001 and again just a few weeks ago. Take the man at his word. He believes in redistribution of wealth. Is he a soft Marxist? Probably. Will the Democratic Party go down in flames with him in 2010? Probably. I think the larger issue is what he said about the Warren Court, which he didn’t find “radical.” That goes to the heart of governance vs. ideology. I can accept a soft Marxist who governs as a left-wing Democrat. I cannot abide a left-wing Democrat who will govern as a soft Marxist. That day draws nigh.
You have grossly underestimated how dangerous this man could be. The Democratic establishment has as well. Throw in a messiah complex and you have a Hugo Chavez wannabe here.
Comment by jackson1234 — 10/27/2008 @ 1:20 pm
Obama is a marxist, socialist, extreme left winger who hates America.
Gad, you guys are desperate
Comment by ksecus — 10/27/2008 @ 1:34 pm
Michael Reynolds,
I agree with you completely. All of his machinations are due to his ambitious nature. How does someone who was raised secular suddenly join what is essentially an evangelical Christian church? He is a politician. His involvement with the more radical leftists shows his forsight. The Democrats were making a shift from central left to almost full left. Despite, the fact I dislike his policies I have to admire his ability to work the political machine.
Comment by Faustus1500 — 10/27/2008 @ 2:04 pm
[...] Rick Moran: I think clearly he does not. Obama does not seek to overturn America as much as he wants to alter the parameters of the social contract between the people and the government. He doesn’t want to do away with this compact and replace it with something else. He wants to nibble around the edges and “reform” the way that the American people interact with their government. This means more dependence, less freedom of action for the individual, an imposed sense of “community,” more strictures on the economy, and a war against “greed.” [...]
Pingback by Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Obama in 2001: How to bring about “redistributive change” — 10/27/2008 @ 2:17 pm
>>>>No offense, but it is exactly this kind of dire prognostication that has me wanting to vote for Obama. The fear mongering by the right makes me sick to my stomach.
Obama wants to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution” in order to venture into “the issues of redistribution of wealth.”
You only have yourself to blame if Obama decides to shred the Constitution and institutes “redistributive change.”
Comment by Roy Mustang — 10/27/2008 @ 3:07 pm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDFkMGE2MmM1M2Q5MmY0ZmExMzUxMWRhZGJmMTAyOGY=#more
Comment by samantha — 10/27/2008 @ 3:53 pm
I occassionally read this blog because the host seems basically decent, though terribly misguided politically.
The rest of the audience, and Rick’s misguided part, are just plain wrong. The past eight years of ‘conservative’ government have been a disaster. The previous six with Gingrich leading the House was nearly as much a disaster. And Reagan’s time was filled with mistakes, errors, and generally lazy work. It seems to me that the Conservative/Republican movement/party has little to be proud of. We are deeper in debt, engaged in pointless war, at odds with the world, and home to a vastly over wealthy financial elite that appears to care little for trickling anything down to anyone. How is this American? Are we to stand on cold street corners watching out wealth go by in limosines as peasants used to watch the king? Too many want to cling to a wealth they likely do not have but dream of and too few remember that ‘the poor are always with us’–no economy has figured out a way to bring the poor along. And this is not to their credit. Why claim that being unfair is the right thing to do? I am astounded at the fundamental heartlessness of the position.
Comment by bboot — 10/27/2008 @ 6:08 pm
Greetings:
Social justice like Lenin and Stalin wanted to bring to the Russian people.
Social justice like Mussolini wanted to bring to the Italian people.
Social justice like Hitler wanted to bring to the German people.
Social justice like Mao wanted to bring to the Chinese people.
Etc, etc, etc.
Do you think that incipient despots admit to themselves that it’s the power that’s the lure? The social justice is just the marketing spin.
Comment by 11B40 — 10/27/2008 @ 7:01 pm
You are at least honest, bboot, even if hopelessly naive and misguided.
If only Sen. Obama would be as candid about his embrace of socialism and Marxism. I have been in some of the same legal and educational circles as he, and these philosophies are not considered outside the mainstream at all there. Unfortunately, Americans who embrace economic and personal liberty and who largely don’t share these views will discover, all too late, they have elected a man who is anathema both to them and to a democratic republic. With a dumbed down electorate and socialist-leaning and largely ignorant media, McCain never really had a chance. Yet even the ignorant sheep who will flock to Obama probably wouldn’t go there if they realized what he envisions for the future. He won’t tell them, the media won’t tell them, and they are basically too illiterate to discover for themselves they are about to elect a latte-sipping communist.
Comment by obamathered — 10/27/2008 @ 8:50 pm
Let me make a historical point here. Lots of people seem to think that “spreading the wealth” or “redistributive economics” is somehow alien to America. It’s not. And it has its origins in the very earliest settlements in Puritan New England and later in Jeffersonian Virginia. In fact, Thomas Jefferson - the American Locke - believed firmly in restricting industrial development so as to prevent the division of Americans into rich and poor (his ambivalence on slavery underscores his hesitancy about capitalism). His land expansionism in Louisiana was a massive governmental effort to provide equal land to white settlers (many former indentured servants).
The Jacksonian Democratic Party destroyed the banks so they could keep the wealth more equitably distributed among the small farmers and workers (whites). And Jackson and Polk furthered the territorial expansionism under the rubric of providing the common man a piece of land.
Radical Republicans hoped to remake Southern society after the Civil War by putting the “bottom rail on top” and introducing an egalitarian sort of yeomanry in the old plantation belt.
The Populists fought against concentration of wealth in the hands of Eastern industrialists and bankers.
Progressives, like John McCain’s hero Teddy Roosevelt, radically expanded the scope of government to regulate governmental excess and put the economy on the sides of the “people.” The crowning achievement of the Progressive Era - the Food and Drug Act and the 17th Amendment allowing the Income Tax - introduced Federal regulation and progressive taxation into American life. To call that socialism is to ignore 100 years of history.
We all know about the New Deal and the Great Society.
The point here is that redistributionist economic policy is as old as America itself. There has always been a counter-argument, obviously. But it is hardly alien or unprecedented.
Barack Obama will, undoubtedly, move the country to the left. Yes, some of his ideas draw from the New Left of the 1960s. But that just may be where the political winds are blowing now after 28 years of the Reagan Revolution. It’s cyclical.
Comment by Elrod — 10/27/2008 @ 8:52 pm
“If Obama is to be judged solely by the politics of a portion of his “associates” from years past, then shouldn’t he logically be judged by his current associations? Warren Buffet, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker? Why cherrypick? Why do some associates count and others don’t?”
I keep hearing this again and again - Michael, we could very easily turn back the question and ask why do you brush away his associations with Wright, Ayers et al as merely poltical ?
What exactly gives you the confidence about a person who has now been exposed twice in the last 2 weeks calling for “redistributive” justice and “spreading the wealth” around ?
Saying that Buffet,Volcker support Obama does not mean a thing when you cannot refute the fact that he believes in socialist redistribution - it does not mean anything if he is going to sign card check into law - increasing the power of unions and creating more problems between management and labor.
Support of these men does not mean a thing when he is retarded enough to increase capital gains taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes.. and that too in this economy. After all some one needs to pay up for those middle class handouts already on top of the reduction in tax rates Bush implemented.
If any one thinks that the worst will be over when the Bush admn is out of office, you aint seen nothing yet.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 10/28/2008 @ 12:12 am
Why do we need to use new words for old things. Why call it “New Left” and then claim it’s not socialism. This definition of socialism from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
“Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.”
“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.”
Reading the entire article, it seems inescapable that Obama, the New Left, or even the Newer Left is just a matter of best to implement socialism. Reality is the West practices a form of Social Democracy as defined in the cited article.
The US, in fact, practices socialism through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, taxation and other forms of “targeted” redistribution programs (such as Pell grants). There are few non-socialist US politicians: Bush, McCain, Kerry, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are all socialists. Libertarians, for example, may fit into but they are a splinter off a splinter off a twig as far as impact.
Thus, the real issue should be towhat extent McCain or Obama will drag the nation toward communism?
It should be obvious each candidate would implement a dramatic move toward communism. After all is said and done about who will tax the least/most and expand welfare the least/most, each favor some form of AGW laws. McCain favors cap-and-trade from his sponsorship of bills in the Senate. Like all other things about Obama, no one really knows but whatever it is one must presume he would favor something no less heinous than McCain.
The fact that few seem to understand or even care how socialized just shows how far the mythical “center” has moved.
I strongly disagree about trying to distinguish Obama as a socialist since both parties practice socialism. One should just skip to the end and decide which form of socialism works for you - McCain’s version or Obama’s version. Clearly, Obama’s version would grease the skids more than McCain, but both are carrying buckets of grease.
Comment by cedarhill — 10/28/2008 @ 5:57 am
Rick, you write: I believe in the inviolable rights of private property as the guarantor of American liberty.
Yesterday, in response to a comment, you added: You are correct about the cabinet.
It is the 3,000 other jobs the president gets to fill that will trouble us. That’s where if there is any radicalism in him, we will see it manifested in how he fills out the bureaucracy.
I wonder what you think of this piece by someone that evidently agrees with your first point and whether you might temper your fear of the coming admnistration’s appointments.
The point being that it is quite easy to find appointees doing bad, stupid and wrong things or pursuing policies that you don’t support. The more interesting question is how are these appointees managed by the executive when they become manifestly unfit for the office which they hold.
Comment by milo — 10/28/2008 @ 9:21 am
Shelby Said:”the natural economic advantage of other groups”
this sounds more than a little racist.
Comment by r.shakespeare — 10/28/2008 @ 10:08 am
The New Left does not want the government to own all means of production. They are not complete socialists. They understand economics at least to that level. However, many of those dinks are be Keynsesians. Even many Republicans claim to be a Keynes disciples (Richard Nixon), this is a strange belief. A view that the government should have interventionist policies in the economy is flawed. The government should interfere for regulatory purposed, however with the Democrats in complete power expect to see a lot of government interference in industry. If I was you guys, I would keep an eye on what they plan to do with the Detroit auto industry. It could get ugly.
Comment by Faustus1500 — 10/28/2008 @ 1:03 pm