E tînăr, inteligent, atrăgător şi un orator abil.

Copii şi adulţi îl omagiază în vers, cîntec şi proză, femei leşină la mitingurile lui şi intelectuali de toate culorile (intelectuale) se predau, cu justificări entuziaste sau savante, şarmului cuceritor şi promisiunilor irezistibile ale Alesului.

Presa e ca o fată mare amorezată de cel mai chipeş băiat din clasă şi face tot ce-i stă în putinţă să îl aleagă preşedinte. Ziua de 4 noiembrie este catalogată drept o formalitate care va consfinţi o nouă eră, pogorîrea Mintuitorului predestinat să conducă turma iubitoare şi docilă.

Stop cadru. Să pipăim puţin „noul” care stă să vină peste noi. Interesant. Aduce cu stofa veche scoasă din dulapul bunicii şi trecută prin presa curăţătoriei chimice, pentru lustru şi ştaif. Acest „nou” e la fel de nou ca moliile din dulapul bunicii.

Obama nu este „nou”

de Jonah Goldberg — Los Angeles Times, 28 octombrie 2008

O zicală veche spune: cel mai vechi cuvînt din vocabularul politic american este „nou”. Doar în acest sens se poate spune că ar fi ceva nou în privinţa lui Barack Obama.

Obama preferă caracterizarea de „progresist” faţă de „liberal”, deoarece îi permite să dea impresia că renunţă la vechile idei liberale. Însă, în acest caz, o face doar pentru a îmbrăţişa idei şi mai vechi.

America a luat cunoştinţă de viziunea adoptată de Obama de pe vremea lui Woodrow Wilson, primul preşedinte progresist şi primul care a discreditat deschis Constituţia, caracterizînd-o drept un obstacol în calea unei guvernări luminate. Ideea sa nouă a fost de a o înlocui cu o „Constituţie vie”, permiţînd guvernării să evolueze dincolo de constrîngerile constituţionale. Constituţia, se lamentau progresiştii, limitează drastic ceea ce guvernul poate face împotriva cetăţenilor, dar nu specifică ceea ce trebuie să facă pentru ei.

În cuvintele lui Wilson, vechiul concept al individualismului trebuie înlocuit cu un sistem nou, în care cetăţeanul îşi „uneşte interesele cu cele ale statului”. Acest lucru ar permite statului să se achite de promisiunea progresistă de a „redistribui prosperitatea în toate direcţiile”. Obama împărtăşeşte credinţa lui Wilson într-o constituţie vie şi a pledat în favoarea unei Curţi Supreme formată din judecători care să fie numiţi în funcţie de empatia lor faţă de cei „defavorizaţi”.

Într-un eseu important din ediţia curentă a revistei Claremont Review of Books, Charles Kesler observă că Obama îl mentionează pe Franklin Roosevelt, în volumul autobiografic „The Audacity of Hope”, de mai multe ori decît orice alt politician Democrat în viaţă. Nu este surprinzător, ţinînd cont de faptul că FDR — un veteran al administraţiei Wilson — a avansat viziunea progresistă de guvernare mult mai departe decît însuşi Wilson.

FDR propunea în 1944 o completare a Constituţiei cu o nouă „declaraţie de drepturi economice”, care nu definea libertatea drept libertate faţă de intruziunea guvernamentală, ci drept posedarea binefacerilor distribuite de guvern. „Oamenii nevoiaşi nu sînt oameni liberi”, proclama FDR. Este o afirmaţie cu care Obama desigur este de acord; consilierul său, Cass Sunstein, a scris o carte în care afirmă că „a doua declaraţie a drepturilor fundamentale” ar trebui să devină principiul definitoriu al politicii americane.

Wilson, Roosevelt şi în prezent Obama — toate ideile lor provin din gîndirea lui John Dewey, cel mai important filozof liberal al secolului 20. Dewey considera că „drepturile şi libertăţile naturale există doar în mitologia zoologiei sociale”; mai mult, „controlul social organizat” printr-o „economie socializată” este singura modalitate de a crea indivizi „liberi”. Dewey a cerut ca modelul de economie planificată și dirijată de stat sa fie predat ca un fel de religie civică în şcolile noastre, astfel încît americanii să fie educaţi în ideea acceptării guvernului drept soluţie la toate problemele lor.

Dewey trăieşte şi în ideile lui Bill Ayers — fostul membru al organizaţiei teroriste The Weathermen — despre reforma educaţională. Ayers, în prezent profesor pe probleme de educaţie la Universitatea Illinois din Chicago, îl invocă adesea pe Dewey pentru a justifica propriul program de îndoctrinare a elevilor din şcolile publice printr-un curriculum de „justiţie socială”. Obama nu scuză atentatele teroriste ale lui Ayers din anii 1970, însă subscrie fără rezerve la viziunea educaţională a lui Ayers. De fapt, munca lui Ayers în domeniul educaţional este principala apărare a candidatului prezidenţial în faţa acuzelor de asociere cu un terorist care nu regretă nimic.

S-a comentat din plin despre remarca lui Obama din conversaţia cu „Joe the Plumber”, anume că lucrurile merg mai bine cînd cineva „redistribuie bogăţia în toate direcţiile”. Campania Obama, cu sprijinul complicilor obişnuiţi din presă, a respins indignată acuzaţiile de „socialism” şi „radicalism”.

Însă cuvintele lui Obama din acea zi în Ohio se potrivesc perfect cu alte afirmaţii din trecut.

Un interviu recent descoperit şi acordat în 2001 postului public de radio din Chicago, revelează continuitatea şi consecvenţa gîndirii lui Obama. Pe atunci legislator în statul Illinois şi instructor la catedra şcolii de drept, Obama a oferit o acuzaţie elocventă la adresa Curţii Warren [Curtea Supremă de Justiţie condusă în anii 1950 – 1960 de către Earl Warren] pe motiv că nu a fost suficient de radicală. Cu toate că forul suprem de justiţie a acordat negrilor drepturi tradiţionale, faptul că nu s-a aventurat în problemele „redistribuirii de bogăţie” a fost o „tragedie”, în opinia lui Obama. „Din păcate”, spune Obama, „Curtea nu s-a descătuşat de constrîngerile esenţiale impuse de părinţii fondatori şi Constituţie”.

Oficial, Obama declară că nu sprijină un sistem de stat de asigurări medicale. Ar părea prea nemoderat. Dar, în 2003, Obama a declarat în faţa federaţiei sindicatelor americane că „sînt un susţinător al unui sistem universal de sănătate… Şi asta aş vrea să văd. Însă, aşa cum ştiţi cu toţi, s-ar putea să nu ajungem acolo imediat. Mai întîi trebuie să luăm înapoi Casă Albă, Senatul şi Congresul.”

Notă: dacă Obama cîştigă alegerile de săptămîna viitoare, toate precondiţiile enumerate mai sus se vor fi împlinit; colegii săi din Senat şi Congres de abia aşteaptă un „New Deal”. Numai într-o ţară de amnezici ar putea cineva să afirme că sănătatea socializată ar putea fi o „idee nouă”.

Mărfurile vechi nu sînt înnoite la curăţătoria de praf şi pînze de păianjen. În afară de culoarea pielii, Obama nu reprezintă nimic nou. Mai degrabă, simbolizează intoarecerea la o viziune veche despre SUA, care a fost considerată drept „valul viitorului” în urmă cu opt decenii.

Eu unul nu doresc să mă întorc la acel viitor.

Jonah Goldberg este un publicist şi autor conservator care scrie pentru revista National Review. Articolul original poate fi citit aici.
icon-anchor

Interviul din 2001 acordat de Barack Obama postului de radio public din Chicago:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
DISTRIBUIȚI
Articolul precedentTentaţia Obama
Articolul următorŞi al 44-lea preşedinte american este…
Emil Borcean
În 1985 am absolvit facultatea de geologie din București. După trei ani de stagiatură la mina de cărbune din Anina, în Banat, am renunțat la geologie și am învățat să fiu programator software. Am plecat din România în 1990, toamna. Am trăit patru ani în Anglia, 19 ani în Canada și aproape doi ani în Germania. M-am întors nu demult în țară. În 2007 am creat blogul Patrupedbun.net, care în 2010 a fuzionat cu blogul Dreapta.net. Din această fuziune s-a născut ILD.

12 COMENTARII

  1. De ce crede Fjordman ca vestul a pierdut razboiul rece si motivele pentru care fenomenul Obama reprezinta Triumful Marxismului in occident.
    Lungut dar foarte informativ. Merita putin de efort.

    Barack Hussein Obama and the Triumph of Marxism
    From the desk of Fjordman on Mon, 2008-10-27 17:08

    One of the recurring themes in my essays is the realization that the West didn’t win the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. A generation after we „defeated” Marxism, Marxist-inspired groups control much of the Western education system as well as Western media and form alliances with our enemies, especially Islamic ones. I have concentrated on Europe, but this is a problem in North America as well. Barack Hussein Obama represents the triumph of cultural Marxism; or perhaps we should simply say Marxism. One generation after Ronald Reagan led the USA to „victory,” a person with Marxist sympathies could be about to be elected President of the USA. When the Nazis were defeated they were seen as evil, as they should be. When the Communists were „defeated,” they were not seen as evil; they are misguided individuals with good intentions, a bit like Santa Claus with a bad hair day.

    Journalist Stanley Kurtz has done an excellent job at tracking the many ties to radical organizations in Obama’s personal history. Dr.Daniel Pipes lists some of the indirect ties he has to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Nation of Islam. Pipes states that „Obama’s multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. Islamic aggression represents America’s strategic enemy; Obama’s many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America’s commander-in-chief.”

    In my view, it’s insane that the United States can even contemplate electing a person such as Obama. Americans will look like a defeated nation to the rest of the world if they pick an individual who has for a generation been a member of an organization dedicated to hating the majority population of the country. That’s exactly why so many of their enemies want him elected. Meanwhile, 7 years after Saudi Arabian Muslims staged Jihadist attacks against the United States, the Saudis are systematically infiltrating the Western education system at all levels with pro-Islamic propaganda. Americans are outsourcing their industry to China, their education system to Saudi Arabia and their breeding to Mexico. This is not a wise strategy followed by a country that wants to remain a superpower, or simply continue to exist.

    A person with such a radical background should never have been close to nomination. The only reason why Obama got so far is because the media deliberately downplayed much of the most troubling information about him. The mass hysteria whipped up in favor of Obama in the press is disturbing. A person who had been a member of an openly anti-black or anti-Asian congregation for a couple of decades would never have been seriously considered for presidency, but being a member of an anti-white congregation is apparently OK. This tells us much about the cultural climate in the West at the moment.

    The term „Fascist” is so misused that people no longer remember its original meaning. A „Fascist” is now any person to the right of Hillary Clinton, especially if he’s white and doesn’t like Multiculturalism. However, the personality cult surrounding Obama is a traditional hallmark of Fascist and Communist societies. When an average voter dared to ask a few critical questions about Obama’s Socialist sympathies, he was virtually ambushed by members of the mainstream media. This is the kind of behavior one expects to see in authoritarian societies when someone questions the Divine Wisdom of the Great Leader. It is disappointing and not very reassuring to see it in the land of the free, home of the brave.As journalist Nidra Poller put it: „The chance encounter between Barack Obama and a commoner—Joe the Plumber—not only exposed the Hope & Change candidate’s plan for redistribution of wealth, it also revealed his attitude toward the ordinary guys he has pledged to serve. Leftists everywhere love the wretched of the earth…as long as the poor stay poor and the downtrodden downtrodden.”

    The Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, author of the book Understanding Muhammad, comments on the dark sides of Obama’s personality:

    Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer

    „Never did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and hyping his audience with hope. It’s only his words, not his achievements that is causing this much uproar. When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult. The cult of personality is often created when the general population is discontent. A charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and project himself as an agent of change and a revolutionary leader.”

    „If Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama’s detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades.”

    I don’t agree with everything Sina says, but I am pretty sure an Obama presidency would dramatically increase racial and ideological tensions within the USA; I cannot see him „heal” anything. I agree that such displays of personality cult are always a sign of dark ideological undercurrents. Jimmy Carter was one of the worst presidents in American history. I don’t recall that there ever was a „Carter Youth” movement in the 1970s or people claiming that he was the Messiah, but we do have an „Obama Youth” movement. This is unprecedented, a disturbing indication that the world’s most powerful state no longer thinks in rational terms. Obama represents everything the American Founding Fathers tried to avoid when they wanted to make their young nation a constitutional Republic, not a mass democracy.

    The dilemma is that both major parties ended up with arguably the worst possible candidates. The choice is between John McCain, an open-border fanatic with an anger management problem who isn’t a real conservative, and Barack Hussein Obama, who has for a generation been a member of a church which is explicitly hostile to the majority population of his country, who has Socialist sympathies and ties to anti-American and Islamic radicals. As in the rest of the Western world, the radical Left has largely succeeded in moving politics to the left. The Republican candidate is now what the Democratic candidates used to be like, and the Democratic candidate comes from a background where open shows of hostility to one’s own country are commonplace.

    In 2007, a proposed immigration bill hundreds of pages long and supported by the Bush Administration would have amounted to the greatest changes in US immigration policies since the 1960s and de facto legalized millions of illegal aliens. As writer Matthew Spalding said at the National Review Online, „the devil is in the details. This legislation is long and complicated, with lots of details — and lots of devils.” Yet its supporters were keen to have it implemented as soon as possible. „We all know this issue can be caught up in extracurricular politics unless we move forward as quickly as possible,” said Senator John McCain, a key architect of the bill. The bill was stopped after massive popular resistance, but there is reason to fear that a future President McCain will support it in 2009 or 2010 as well.

    There are both left-wing and right-wing Globalists. They have different agendas, for instance with left-wing Globalists putting emphasis on silencing free speech and promoting „international law” through the United Nations and similar organizations while right-wing Globalists concentrate more on the free flow of people across borders, just as they want free flow of goods and capital across borders. The presidential election campaign in the USA in 2008 between Obama and McCain is a race between a left-wing and a right-wing Globalist. Both want open borders, if only for slightly different reasons, and tend to think of countries as ideas, not as entities populated by distinct peoples with shared values and a common history.

    This does of course not mean that President Obama and President McCain would follow the exact same policies in all areas. For instance, I fear that President Obama would be more aggressive in weakening the freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment than President McCain, although I could be wrong in this. Obama would most likely also be more active in pushing Socialist economic programs. When it comes to mass immigration, legal and illegal, I see little difference between them.

    An Obama presidency would be bad for the United States but also bad for the world. Many Europeans seem to like Obama. I’m not one of them. Here in Western Europe, we are faced with increasingly aggressive Islamic colonization. How would the American political elites react if native Europeans suddenly grew a backbone and implemented serious policies aimed at halting and reversing Islamization? I don’t think we should expect much sympathy from President Obama or the mainstream media. Since Americans are indoctrinated from birth with the idea that any person of European origins defending his cultural heritage is a white supremacist and a Nazi, I suspect we would be viewed as something along those lines. By that point it wouldn’t be America Alone, as Canadian writer Mark Steyn says, it would be Europe Alone. Leftists have complained about virtually all American military campaigns except the NATO bombing against Serbs on behalf of Muslims.

    For that matter, it isn’t self-evident that President McCain would be wholly sympathetic, either. It is a great irony that the USA is vilified for its „anti-Islamic” policies. What anti-Islamic policies would that be? The American political establishment is dedicated to making the world safe for sharia. Muslim immigration to the US has increased since 9/11. The Bush Administration has sponsored the eradication of non-Muslim communities of Iraq, supports Turkish membership of the European Union and together with the EU awarded the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo by granting Muslim Albanians their very own Jihadist state.

    I’m not going to blame Europe’s problems on Americans; we made our own mess and should deal with it ourselves. Besides, it is quite possible that the Americans will soon have their hands full with problems of their own and will be in no position to assist anybody even if they wanted to. Europeans can and should maintain good relations and cooperate with ordinary North American citizens, who live under the same Multicultural regime as we do, but we cannot and should not rely on aid from the American elites.

    Barack Hussein Obama hasn’t been elected President yet, and it is quite possible that the polls we are shown in the media do not accurately reflect the popular support he has, but the very fact that he has come this far represents an unprecedented triumph for radical Leftism in the heart of the largest state in the Western world.

    Anti-Western ideologies have penetrated the very core of our societies at the same time as we are under siege from outside. This is clearly not a sustainable situation and it will need to be resolved if our civilization is going to survive this century. Regardless of who wins this November, the West is in for a bumpy ride.

  2. Tiberiu, e demential! Man, I’m laughing my socks off! In timp ce citeam articolul si priveam clipul japonezului (imi pare rau ca nu pot sa il „embed” aici) si rideam, mi-am amintit ca acum doua sau trei zile am citit o stire despre un japonez care stringe semnaturi pentru o petitie in care cere parlamentului japonez sa adopte un amendament la legea mariajului. Nu e vorba despre legalizarea casatoriei intre homosexuali. Omul vrea legalizarea casatoriei dintre un japonez si un personaj de benzi desenate – „cartoon character”. Tipul spune ca se simte mult mai atras de lumea bidimensionala si ca ar dori sa se realizeze intr-un mariaj cu mindra lui dintr-un serial de benzi desenate. A strins deja citeva mii de semnaturi…. japonezul obama si japonezul cu nevasta de la pagina 5 din revista de benzi desenate 🙂
    Reproduc linkul tau:
    Meet the Japanese Obama

    Si asta, de acum citeva saptamini. Campanie electorala tensionata in Brazilia:
    ‘Barack Obama’ contests Brazil elections against ‘Chico Bin Laden’

  3. Mai în glumă, mai în serios…

    Results 1 – 10 of about 213,000,000 for obama. (0.07 seconds)

    Voi vă daţi seama în cât de puţin timp a ajuns să se vorbească atât de mult de Barack Obama? Oricât de interesată ar fi presa din America, NU e vorba numai de asta… Pur şi simplu, oamenii au luat-o razna şi presa/site-urile/blogurile, inclusiv eu şi voi, am servit ştiri, glume, osanale sau diatribe în consecinţă.

    Incredibil cum s-a putut dezvolta comunicarea dintre oameni şi ce putere a ajuns să aibă tehnologia! Mă întreb câtă lume realizează că asta e opera capitalismului şi nu a „împărţitului bogăţiei împrejur”.

  4. daca nici asta nu va schimba parerea americanului de rand, pe cuvant daca stiu ce ar mai putea-o face…

    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/

    In another clip from the same January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in which Barack Obama promised to bankrupt anyone foolish enough to build coal-burning power plants, he also made an interesting admission about his entire energy plan. Obama told the editors that his policies would make energy prices “skyrocket” as the energy industry passed along the exorbitant costs of his cap-and-trade policy:

    „The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.
    You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
    They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.
    If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.”

    deci va dau ajutoare sociale si va trantesc o factura la energie de nu o puteti duce.

LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here