by Victor Davis Hanson<\/p>\n
PJ Media<\/em><\/p>\n Where Are We Going?<\/strong><\/p>\n Abroad: I think the Europeans, who, remember, caught Obamania quite early, thought they were going to get more of the bipartisan American security shield, albeit with a charismatic multicultural veneer that would resonate with their citizens: no more Texas. No more Christianity. No more twang. No more nuculear. No more Iraq. But same old NATO. Same old bad cop to their good cop. Same old wide open Ami economy. Same old chance for triangulation. And?<\/p>\n As we are seeing in the Middle East, in the case of Israel, with Turkey, on the recent Iranian upheaval, and during the South America visit, Obama is clearly to the left of Europe. He sees himself more as multicultural prophet born out of the Third World, foe of colonialism, angry at past imperialism, skeptical of capitalism, eager to showcase his non-traditional ancestry and tripartite nomenclature. By coming from the West, but separating himself from the history of his own country, Obama has become a citizen of the world, who polls far higher, as intended, in the Middle East, than does his own country.<\/p>\n At no point does he suggest that the fact his father left Kenya for the U.S. and fathered at least one son who would grow up American rather than Kenyan was a great gift, as we see with the ordeal of many of the Obama half-siblings in Africa. Yes, he talks about change in America, but never tells the world exactly how an America of many races and faiths never descends into the hatred and violence we see most elsewhere in diverse societies. How, after all, does one apologize for success? (\u201dI am sorry we are not killing as in the Balkans; so sad we do not follow the Rwandan model; schucks, no Kurd-Shiite-Sunni troubles here.\u201d)<\/p>\n It used to be cute to talk about how \u201cBush turned off the Europeans.\u201d Perhaps. But beneath all the public demonstrations and burning effigies, the old guard knew that Bush, like Clinton, Bush, and Reagan (but not Carter), would be there should the Russians, Koreans, Chinese, the lunatic regimes in the Middle East, the al Qaedists and the rest threaten Western interests.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t see how they can assume such a thing any more.<\/p>\n From the trivial like the treatment of the Churchill bust or the DVD gift to Gordon Brown, to the profound like the serial apologies, voting present on Iran, and deer-in-the-headlights stance on Korea, they must assume that the \u201cEuropean Rapid Deployment Force\u201d is now their primary bulwark against the foes of civilization.<\/p>\n Bottom line: \u201cBe careful what you wish for.\u201d<\/p>\n It is neither caricature nor reductionism to suggest that the degree to which a country has expressed past hostility to the United States, the more it wins attention and apology from Barack Obama. In contrast, to the degree a country is constitutional and pro-American, the more likely it will be either ignored by Obama or its internal affairs \u201cmeddled\u201d with. Cf. the case with Iran, Venezuela, the West Bankers, Russia, etc. In contrast, woe to Israel! (And Iraq too).<\/p>\n Weird Iranian Politics<\/strong><\/p>\n There is a certain difficulty, unease really, that one sees among Leftist and liberal commentators on Iran. The demonstrations in Tehran are ideal topics of liberal anguish: hundreds of thousands in the streets, women, gays, students, all calling for freedom, human rights, and non-violent change \u2014 and opposed by religious fundamentalists, the gun-toting army, creepy police. It should be a no-brainer.<\/p>\n But there is often silence. Why and how?<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Obama is President. U.S. official policy is now liberal official policy, and there is a certain party line to embrace (we forget how right-wing radio went after Bush for the Dubai ports deal, the steel tariff, open borders, the deficits, No Child Left Behind, Prescription drug, etc.).<\/p>\n That means the President\u2019s heretofore Kissingerian realism \u2014 wait until one side wins, and then deal with the winner in terms of our own interest \u2014 gets a pass. Suddenly liberals, who called for the overthrow of everyone from the odious Pinochet to the even worse Somoza, are silent, offering Obama sound enough talking points that we must not play into the hands of this or that side, that both sides have anti-Americanism in common, that the bomb lurks large. Their realism may be clever and in the long run astute for the U.S., but it is realism nonetheless, and just the sort of realpolitik that they used to decry.<\/p>\n 2) The Iranian fascistic government \u2014 theocratic, anti-gay, anti-religious tolerance, anti-feminist \u2014 has always disguised its venom with Che-like popular anti-Americanism. Its theocrats don\u2019t wear ties. They mouth Hollywood-like anti-Americanism. They hate Bush as much as the Left does. In other words, the Iranians (cf. again Clinton\u2019s lunatic 2005 Davos remarks praising to the skies Iranian \u201cdemocracy\u201d) have always been given a sort of exemption given their Third-world fides, and refrain \u201cwe are the perpetual victims of a CIA-inspired coup over six decades ago.\u201d (Kermit Roosevelt did not prevent democracy in Iran from 1979 to 2009 any more than Pearl Harbor forced the United States to spend a lot on defense the next 60 plus years).<\/p>\n 3) Iraq looms large. The Iraqi elections were far more open, far more inspected than anything in the long history of Iran. Maliki is a more legitimate leader than any in Iraq. And yet we shun Maliki as tainted, while suggesting that Iranian thugs are somehow more authentic (note the large number of essays suddenly appearing arguing Ahmadinejad really won the election and the result should be respected.)<\/p>\n Here at Home<\/strong><\/p>\n We know the boilerplate: The President outlines the problem, punctuated with those awful \u201cthem\u201d and \u201cthey\u201d and \u201csome\u201d and \u201cothers\u201d who as extremists stand in the way of all good things and present \u201cfalse choices,\u201d but remain unnamed. (Sort of like the tropes in\u00a01984<\/em>).<\/p>\n Then the standard references come to \u201cthe mess we inherited,\u201d the \u201cprior administration,\u201d and \u201cwhat we found.\u201d These are the prefaces to his reluctance to \u2026 (fill in the blanks: run the private sector, spend massive amounts of money, take over health care, raise taxes, etc.). Then he pauses, takes a deep breath, and in fact outlines ways to take over GM, regulate compensation, run up massive deficits, nationalize health care, and plan record tax hikes.<\/p>\n Then he finishes with variations on the old campaign formula \u201cthis is the moment,\u201d \u201chope and change,\u201d \u201cyes, we can,\u201d \u201cwe will not be deterred.\u201d<\/p>\n No one can quite believe that one has just heard Obama deny that he\u2019s going to do exactly what he then outlines he is going to do \u2014 but at least for the last six months this deception sounded good.<\/p>\n Historically Challenged?<\/strong><\/p>\n In a recent column I suggested that almost all Obama\u2019s historical references were wrong or distorted: Berlin airlift, death camps, Inquisition, Muslim contribution to the European Renaissance and Enlightenment, Muslim discoveries of breakthroughs in science, math, printing, etc., suggesting that as a postmodernist he (and\/or\u00a0 his speechwriters) does not really believe in absolute truth, but rather relative competing narratives predicated on race\/class\/gender. And the means of magnifying the accomplishments of those \u201cwithout power\u201d justifies the ends of diminishing those \u201cwith power.\u201d The list of other inaccuracies in his Cairo speech could be expanded from the contemporary Middle East to his references to John Adams and Islam.<\/p>\n Apparently that list of inaccuracies brought the following dismissal (but not corrections or interest in correcting the record) from Robert Gibbs:<\/p>\n WND AT THE WHITE HOUSE Robert Gibbs, the spokesman for President Barack Obama, today questioned who is [1]\u00a0Victor Davis Hanson<\/a>\u00a0and what does he know, when WND correspondent Les Kinsolving asked Gibbs about \u201cmistakes\u201d Hanson has pointed out in Obama\u2019s speeches.<\/p>\n Hanson, a nationally syndicated columnist and historian, wrote just one day earlier about \u201cOur Historically Challenged President.\u201d<\/p>\n He noted Obama\u2019s reference during the presidential campaign to when his great-uncle \u201chelped liberate Auschwitz, and that his grandfather knew fellow American troops that had entered Auschwitz and Treblinka.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBoth are impossible. The Americans didn\u2019t free either Nazi death camp,\u201d Hanson said.<\/p>\n Then came Obama\u2019s gaffe during his Victory Column speech in [2]\u00a0Berlin<\/a>\u00a0in 2008.<\/p>\n \u201cHe began, \u2018I know that I don\u2019t look like the Americans who\u2019ve previously spoken in this great city.\u2019 He apparently forgot that for the prior eight years, the official faces of American foreign policy in [2]\u00a0Germany<\/a>\u00a0were Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza [2]\u00a0Rice<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 both African-Americans,\u201d Hanson said.<\/p>\n Hanson continued, citing Obama\u2019s reference to the Berlin airlift, when the \u201cworld had come together to save Berlin.\u201d<\/p>\n Only, Hanson pointed out, the fact is that \u201cit was almost an entirely American and British effort \u2014 written off by most observers as hopeless and joined only by a handful of Western allies.\u201d<\/p>\n Then in Cairo recently, Obama\u2019s historical allusions \u201cwere even more suspect.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAlmost every one of his references was either misleading or incomplete. He suggested that today\u2019s Middle East tension was fed by the legacy of European colonialism and the Cold War that had reduced nations to proxies,\u201d Hanson said. \u201cBut the great colonizers of the Middle East were the Ottoman Muslims, who for centuries ruled with an iron fist. The 20th-century movements of Baathism, Pan-Arabism and Nasserism \u2014 largely homegrown totalitarian ideologies \u2014 did far more damage over the last half-century to the Middle East than the legacy of European colonialism.<\/p>\n \u201cObama also claimed that \u2018Islam . . . carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe\u2019s Renaissance and Enlightenment,\u2019\u201d In fact, Hanson wrote, medieval Islamic culture \u201chad little to do with the European rediscovery of classical Greek and Latin values.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cObama also insisted that \u2018Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of [2]\u00a0Andalusia<\/a>\u00a0and Cordoba during the Inquisition.\u2019 Yet the Spanish Inquisition began in 1478; by then Cordoba had long been re-conquered by Spanish Christians, and was governed as a staunchly Christian city,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n And to Obama\u2019s claim that it was \u201cnot violence\u201d that ended slavery, Hanson mentioned the Civil War.<\/p>\n In today\u2019s news briefing, Kinsolving asked, \u201cHistorian Victor Davis Hanson cites what he terms, \u2018The president\u2019s politically correct canard that the Renaissance was fueled by Arab learning, and the president\u2019s statement that abolition of slavery and civil rights in the U.S. were accomplished without violence,\u2019 as two of seven presidential errors. Question: Does the White [2]\u00a0House<\/a>believe Dr. Hanson is wrong? Or do you believe your speechwriters and the president made some mistakes?\u201d<\/p>\n Said Gibbs, \u201cLester, I have to hand it to you that you have in only one question covered some five or six centuries of world history.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNo. No. Just mistakes \u2026 White House mistakes,\u201d said Kinsolving.<\/p>\n \u201cWell I \u2026 Should I ask you a question and you respond, or should I give a\u2026,\u201d Gibbs said.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019d be delighted anytime,\u201d Kinsolving said.<\/p>\n
\nWho\u2019s Victor Davis Hanson and what does he know?
\nPresident\u2019s spokesman puts money on Obama speechwriters
\n(Posted: June 16, 2009, 9:48 pm Eastern, \u00a9\u00a02009\u00a0WorldNetDaily)<\/p>\n