by Victor Davis Hanson<\/p>\n
PJ Media<\/em><\/p>\n Such a Strange Malady<\/strong><\/p>\n A strange thing, this Obama worship (cf. the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0op-ed on Sunday where the columnist imagined having sexual relations with Obama) and Bush hatred (cf. the Will Farrell Broadway show trashing Bush, and showing images of his purported penis). They are flipside manifestations of the same sickness that has taken hold of a large subset of the population. Millions seems to think by demonizing A and worshipping B, then once intractable problems (that transcend both A\u2019s faults and B\u2019s merits) suddenly, magically will disappear. But the apocalyptic style is quite dangerous, and the 20th century should have told us that answers are not found through fixating evil on \u201cthem\u201d and seeking a \u201cHe\u201d to address it. In the meantime, civility is prized, and one should criticize Obama in a spirit and tone that are the exact opposites of the way in which Bush was demonized.<\/p>\n That said, stranger, read on.<\/p>\n Change You Can Imagine<\/strong><\/p>\n Americans know that Obama announced his candidacy on certain principles and positions on the issues that are now, well, \u201cproblematic\u201d \u2014 1) campaign financing reform, 2) coal burning, 3) nuclear power, 4) off-shore drilling, 4) NAFTA, 5) hand-gun control, 6) capital punishment, 7) the surge, 8) withdrawal from Iraq, 9) FISA, 10) the Patriot Act, 11) renditions, 12) talking with Iran, 13) Jerusalem, 14) lobbyists and ethics and on and on. Most are silent about this metamorphosis, since the change from his initial positions was in many cases for the good. I agree that the newer Obama is far more realistic than the 2006-7 version. Some welcomed common sense I guess trumps the charge of hypocrisy.<\/p>\n Three observations about such flexibility:<\/strong><\/p>\n a) Yes, all primary candidates shift positions in the general elections and then often shift back in the first year or two of office (until they get burned and need to return to triangulation). So even Obama\u2019s breath-taking flip-flop-flips have some historical precedents. (Still, I do not understand why Obama didn\u2019t Morris-like triangulate against the Congressional Democrats and the Republicans \u2014 something like \u201cx gave you this mess, and y wants the same old, same old pork rather than my z-way out.\u201d)<\/p>\n b) That said, I think a number of Americans are not quite sure what the current Obama position is on tax cuts, the future of publicly financed Presidential elections, rendition, ethics in government \u2014 or really on anything. Everything, in contrast, seems in play on any given day. Any position can be hoped and changed with soaring cadences, so the question is what position will fit today, but perhaps not tomorrow?<\/p>\n c) That said again, I think from the first three weeks in office, and the rhetoric of the base, and a few solid facts, we can assume there are about five areas in which Obama really will break from the past, and these issues will prove contentious in the next year or so. Here are examples.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0Big Brother.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0In the past eight years there was great acrimony about \u201cshredding the Constitution\u201d. Some of us did not think the Patriot Act, FISA, renditions, or Guantanamo had, by historical measures during the exigencies of war, damaged the civil liberties of Americans, but\u00a0in toto<\/em>\u00a0had made it much more difficult for radical Islamists to repeat 9\/11.<\/p>\n Many disagreed. But recently Obama has mentioned a number of things that suggest the government or private concerns might in other areas be quite intrusive \u2014 and they will be so without the watchdog Left that was once keen to any perceived intrusion of Mr. Bush\u2019s administration:<\/p>\n A) We hear that the President wants \u201ceyes and ears\u201d to monitor the stimulus bill, as in reporting those to a website who supposedly stray from proper conduct (do we really want a nationally-sanctioned, electronic vigilante group reporting to the White House each time a nebulous \u201cthey\u201d purportedly takes away their \u201cfair share\u201d of government \u201cstimulus\u201d hand-outs?);<\/p>\n B) Did you have a strange cough in 1978? We are told that our health records, which of course are blueprints to how our lives were lived, will become part of a national data base (do we really wish some clerk in HHS or a regional office, with instant access to the details of 300 million Americans, leaking (cf. Joe the Plumber and leaks about his post-marriage problems) information that candidate X, critic Y, or political opponent Z had a positive TB test once, or took some meds for some unmentionable disease, or tried an anti-depressant for a month or so?);<\/p>\n C) Then there are a number of internet companies like Google that are developing technologies that allow retrieval of information in quite unprecedented fashion (e.g., I am amazed that we spend hours beating ourselves up over the FISA acts about wiretapping terrorists\u2019 phone calls, but are unworried about the ability, in just a few seconds, to find out what the backyard patio, or the condition of the roof, of any American looks like through Google Earth.)<\/p>\n D) Obama is fixated on talk radio \u2014 serially mentioning Limbaugh and Hannity, the two top draws. I remember talk radio in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Yes, many of you remember? \u2014 it was sort of \u201cOK, let\u2019s discuss the local sewer plant\u201d, or \u201cAliens have been among us since 1951\u201d or \u201cCall in to vote on your favorite heavy metal band.\u201d So do not believe that the \u2018fairness\u2019 doctrine\u2019 is dead \u2014 it isn\u2019t and the argument won\u2019t be made that we need \u201cfree\u201d speech, but rather we need \u201ckind\u201d and \u201ccivilized discourse\u201d so that the \u201cselfish\u201d and \u201chate-mongers\u201d don\u2019t drown out the chance for a small, occasional \u201cprogressive\u201d \u201cresponse\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2)\u00a0Israel.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0If Netanyahu is elected in Israel, and if the Obama team feels that the key to historic \u201cprogress\u201d in the Middle East lies in rehabilitating Hamas, or in forcing 99.9% withdrawal from the West, or hinges on normalization with Iran, then look for a fundamental recalibration of our relationship with Israel, as we lock horns with our traditional ally. I\u2019ll leave it at that. (Note well: one of Obama\u2019s first acts was to allot $20 million for help in settling refugees from Gaza, apparently (?) in the United States. That seems to be unwise, especially given the Palestinian clapping to news of 9\/11 on the West Bank. E.g.,<\/p>\n