The United Nations has always been a shining symbol of success for those on the Left and the transnational citizenry that see them as the world’s best hope for civilization. However, once again, the UN finds itself rendered impotent, incompetent, and ultimately corrupt with regard to its core value: human rights. And, much like the leading role it took in the debacle of Climategate, the once bastion of democracy is not only being held hostage by radical elements, but actually enabling these forces to gain power and prominence on the world stage.1
According to its annual report by Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization that “supports democratic change, monitors freedom, and advocates for democracy and human rights,” the UN has received “failing grades on its ability to respond to the world’s most pressing human rights issues.”2 Among the key findings of the report:
*The accreditation process for Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) has become appallingly politicized and is dominated by some of the world’s most aggressive opponents of universal standards on human rights, while democracies again fall short.
*The quality and reporting of the UN’s special reporters continue to bring the Council its highest marks, while pressure to eliminate country-specific experts and weaken other thematic mandates continues.
*The Council failed to issue a condemnatory resolution on Iran and on a number of countries with ongoing systematic abuses such as Belarus, China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria. It continued its disproportionate focus on Israel.
*Resolutions that urge countries to prohibit anti-Islamic or blasphemous speech continue to pass.
What emerges from the findings is clear and startling: the UN has become an international bureaucratic cover for political despotism, sacrificing the very individuals it supposedly cares so much about to the fires of political correctness. In its zeal to prove its “tolerance,” the UN has bent over backwards, indeed prostrated and humbled itself at all cost to supplicate the very terror organizations it purports to deplore.
It is not hyperbole to say both the United States and the world is being overrun with radical fundamentals, that we are institutionalizing, validating, and empowering despots and forces whose aim is to supplant rational thought and prosperity and replace it with a modern Caliphate and Sharia law. This radical wave has culminated in our present government and its international analogue embodied by the UN, each playing a new iteration of “useful idiots” in the propagation and dispersion of a twisted version of the Islamic faith. Ironically, it is this internal struggle of Islam the Left has turned blind eye to.3
Let’s put this in context for a moment. Barack Obama began his career as President of the United States by going on a world-wide apology tour, ostensibly to curry good will with the international community, but in reality emasculating our political gravitas and undercutting our leadership role, referring to us as “dismissive, even derisive.” He has bowed, scraped, and deferred both his person and his station to Middle Eastern and Muslim leaders, lest they are encouraged to not restrain terroristic elements in their control, something recently intimated by Imam Rauf of the controversial Park51 Project. 4
This is tantamount to the appeasement we saw during World War II, in which Neville Chamberlain placated Hitler and the Third Reich, thereby ensuring their rise to power. As was with Europe at the time, the whole world is being engulfed in this silent and subtle holocaust of words and ideas. Much like the Shakespearean play “Hamlet,” in which the characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern pretend to have Hamlet’s best interests at heart while attempting to carry out Claudius’s scheme to kill him, the UN feigns to protect the weak and innocent while they simultaneously install dictators, mollify terrorists, and stifle dissent.
More than 200 years ago, James Madison warned the American Public of the dangers of overlooking those who would seek to overthrow us: “Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.” (Federalists 41)
Americans and their international democratic counterparts should recoil in horror at this reality. This threat is not only imminent and widespread, but also skillfully concealed from public inspection. Even as it plants the seeds of propaganda for world consumption, the UN’s duplicitous nature is shrouded by a patina of pretentious piety.
It is time for the world media, the academic intellects, and all those who truly love peace and democratic principles to speak out and call the UN’s elite leaders to account for this malfeasance and perversion of truth and justice. It is time for United States citizens to reject Obama’s transparent attempt to destroy our sovereignty, and usurp our position as a global leader. It is time for appeasement of murderers to stop. If not, the proliferation of radicalism will ultimately consume all nations, and we will find ourselves living in a modern global dark age with no United States to provide the way out.
1.http://www.climategate.com/
2. http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1243
3. http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7263/my-fellow-muslims-we-must-wake-up
4. http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/i/19626716
Monday, September 27, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
America: Don't Lose Your Focus
Focus is the key to just about any successful endeavor. Life, in general takes focus, or we continually lose our way. So it is with great struggles, too. Had Hercules lost focus, his god-like virility would not have been enough to sustain him during his labors. Had Mozart, or da Vinci, or Galileo lacked focus, our world would have had its store of beauty and knowledge incomprehensibly diminished. And had Moses or Christ lost their focus during their trials, what then?
The same is true for politics. There is no doubt that Pastor Jones, the self-proclaimed defender of Christianity and Constitutionalism, is a fool, a whack-job, a nut-case, an extremist (pick your appropriate pejorative). I do not condone his intentions, belief system, or actions. He is a disgrace to mankind in general and Christianity in particular. I stand with true peace-loving Muslims in their outright condemnation of his intent and character.
However, let’s not lose our focus as a country. The assertion that Jones and his ilk are responsible for the animus directed at the U.S. is a pathetic and weak argument. While his action would no doubt stir up animosity and resentment in the Muslim world (and possibly put our troops in peril), the hatred itself was already there, and has been for a very long time. Nor should we take our eyes off Imam Rauf, the controversial Imam of the proposed Park51 project. In comparison to Rauf, an extremist disguised as a “moderate,” Jones is insignificant, a proverbial “blip” on the radar screen of history. Rauf, with his ties to the Moslem Brotherhood and The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is part of a larger stealth network of extremists who underhandedly promote political Islam while simultaneously pretending to be interested in peace and the advancement of democracy. In this context, Jones merely plays a hapless puppet Islamic extremists can use as an excuse to foment terror. However, they would do this regardless of Jones, or Bush, or anyone, in reality, because this is their belief system and their commandment to do so. By preying on our need to undeniably demonstrate tolerance, people such as Rauf and his underground associates create the synergy and façade needed to dupe both their Muslim counterparts as well as liberal Americans bent on proving their need to pay penance for being descendants of “oppressors.”
Unfortunately, you only get the surface level from the media. Radicals, again posing “compassionate moderates” now rule this country, and their figurehead is Obama. If this sound far fetched, consider this: When was the last time we as a country passed nearly 5,000 pages of legislation, but didn’t know its contents, or spent nearly one trillion dollars with absolute no ability to pay for it without enslaving our children and grandchildren with crushing debt? When was the last time we openly prosecuted a state for enforcing border security while turning our back on citizens whose very lives are in danger? Is that radical enough, or do we need more evidence?
Here is the reality:
We are at war with two ideas: one, based on the principles of individual freedom as enshrined in the Constitution, and the other on collective salvation, as enshrined in Das Kapital. There is little compromise here; they are incompatible for the most part.
One path leads to liberty and prosperity, the other to tyranny and oppression. Democracy and capitalism are by no means a perfect system, but therein lies the folly of those who espouse a utopian view of mankind, for neither mankind, nor the political structures he creates, are perfectible, and attempts to fashion such perfection lead to corruption, depravity, and untold suffering. The road of history is littered with the detritus of failed utopian attempts and paved with the bones of its subjects. From Marx and Lenin, to Mao and Castro, to Chavez, how many innocent people must give their lives and liberties to assuage the appetite of dictators promoting "social justice" and "equality" while perpetrating death and mayhem before we understand this system, no matter how noble its aim, is inherently evil in its consequences?
Rauf will gladly trod this path to supremacy, and use our institutions of democracy to achieve his ultimate objective. Jones’s skull and the skeletons of the academic elite will serve as stepping stones to this altar, though they are too blind to see how they are being used. Ironically, Muslim extremists, who have hijacked a religion and are using it to propel their own nightmarish vision, are incompatible with the liberal networks they are manipulating. Religion by its essence is about God and his relationship to his people, and God is antithetical to those who believe government should fill this void. So in the end, those who are bending over backwards to accommodate will put the nails in their own coffins. This is what happens when you focus on the wrong things.
The same is true for politics. There is no doubt that Pastor Jones, the self-proclaimed defender of Christianity and Constitutionalism, is a fool, a whack-job, a nut-case, an extremist (pick your appropriate pejorative). I do not condone his intentions, belief system, or actions. He is a disgrace to mankind in general and Christianity in particular. I stand with true peace-loving Muslims in their outright condemnation of his intent and character.
However, let’s not lose our focus as a country. The assertion that Jones and his ilk are responsible for the animus directed at the U.S. is a pathetic and weak argument. While his action would no doubt stir up animosity and resentment in the Muslim world (and possibly put our troops in peril), the hatred itself was already there, and has been for a very long time. Nor should we take our eyes off Imam Rauf, the controversial Imam of the proposed Park51 project. In comparison to Rauf, an extremist disguised as a “moderate,” Jones is insignificant, a proverbial “blip” on the radar screen of history. Rauf, with his ties to the Moslem Brotherhood and The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is part of a larger stealth network of extremists who underhandedly promote political Islam while simultaneously pretending to be interested in peace and the advancement of democracy. In this context, Jones merely plays a hapless puppet Islamic extremists can use as an excuse to foment terror. However, they would do this regardless of Jones, or Bush, or anyone, in reality, because this is their belief system and their commandment to do so. By preying on our need to undeniably demonstrate tolerance, people such as Rauf and his underground associates create the synergy and façade needed to dupe both their Muslim counterparts as well as liberal Americans bent on proving their need to pay penance for being descendants of “oppressors.”
Unfortunately, you only get the surface level from the media. Radicals, again posing “compassionate moderates” now rule this country, and their figurehead is Obama. If this sound far fetched, consider this: When was the last time we as a country passed nearly 5,000 pages of legislation, but didn’t know its contents, or spent nearly one trillion dollars with absolute no ability to pay for it without enslaving our children and grandchildren with crushing debt? When was the last time we openly prosecuted a state for enforcing border security while turning our back on citizens whose very lives are in danger? Is that radical enough, or do we need more evidence?
Here is the reality:
We are at war with two ideas: one, based on the principles of individual freedom as enshrined in the Constitution, and the other on collective salvation, as enshrined in Das Kapital. There is little compromise here; they are incompatible for the most part.
One path leads to liberty and prosperity, the other to tyranny and oppression. Democracy and capitalism are by no means a perfect system, but therein lies the folly of those who espouse a utopian view of mankind, for neither mankind, nor the political structures he creates, are perfectible, and attempts to fashion such perfection lead to corruption, depravity, and untold suffering. The road of history is littered with the detritus of failed utopian attempts and paved with the bones of its subjects. From Marx and Lenin, to Mao and Castro, to Chavez, how many innocent people must give their lives and liberties to assuage the appetite of dictators promoting "social justice" and "equality" while perpetrating death and mayhem before we understand this system, no matter how noble its aim, is inherently evil in its consequences?
Rauf will gladly trod this path to supremacy, and use our institutions of democracy to achieve his ultimate objective. Jones’s skull and the skeletons of the academic elite will serve as stepping stones to this altar, though they are too blind to see how they are being used. Ironically, Muslim extremists, who have hijacked a religion and are using it to propel their own nightmarish vision, are incompatible with the liberal networks they are manipulating. Religion by its essence is about God and his relationship to his people, and God is antithetical to those who believe government should fill this void. So in the end, those who are bending over backwards to accommodate will put the nails in their own coffins. This is what happens when you focus on the wrong things.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Park 51: A Battle for the Future of Islam
Let me get this out there right from the start: I have serious misgivings about the nature and intentions of the people behind the proposed mosque and cultural center, known as Park 51, to be built near ground zero. Still, as a conservative, I find myself asking for this establishment to be given the green light.
Constitutionally speaking, there is no doubt that a denial of permission to build would be a direct violation of our founding principles of freedom of expression and religious tolerance. Anyone taking this tact is historically, legally, and foundationally under water—it’s simply indefensible. Sensitivity has also been cited as a moral or ethical underpinning. There is some merit here. Families and friends of those who lost their lives in 9-11 should have their voices heard. And if we’re honest, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has shown little evidence of sensitivity thus far on this issue. One cannot both argue vociferously for sensitivity and understanding while demonstrating neither.
However, the argument with the most merit raises questions about ties Rauf has to shadowy individuals and terrorist organizations. This is no small matter. Despite protestations that overall, Islam is a peaceful religion, we are left with the reality that the overwhelming majority of terroristic events have been perpetrated by people acting directly in the name of Islam and in accordance with jihadist creeds. This does not make all Muslims guilty by association; but it is an undeniable correlation we must come to grips with as a society.
However, to fully grasp this situation, we have to understand there is an internal war within the Moslem religion itself. Two faces of Islam are vying for the future of Islamic society, and the outcome of this conflict will decide not only the fate of the Muslim people, but the overall prospects for relative global peace and prosperity. According to Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), “until anti-Islamist Muslims wage the intellectual battle against Islamism within the Muslim consciousness, we will make no headway against ‘the narrative.’” The narrative Dr. Jasser is referring to is the assumption that the U.S. and its allies are waging war against the Muslim world in general, rather than fighting the same radical elements that have made life unbearable not just in the free world, but for Muslim people in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan, where the Taliban, has a track record of intimidation and violence amongst it own populace.
The other face of the Muslim people, the traditions and tenets that Jasser grew up with, is the genuine deal, a truly tolerant religion that promotes love and the brotherhood of man, much like its modern counterparts: Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism. Our failure to grasp this struggle is tantamount to ultimately sticking the proverbial knife in the back of the Muslims who struggle against this tyranny. Rauf may proclaim he is “moderate” or “tolerant,” but this is nothing but a façade, a clever, yet apparently effective amalgamation of Constitutional principles and political correctness designed to stifle dissent and paint opposition with the broad brush of racism, or more succinctly, Islamaphobia. But as Jasser points out, the term “moderate” has become synonymous with being “non-violent” or anti-terrorism.” Jasser asserts this gross oversimplification blinds people to the very political ideologies — which he identifies as “Islamism” — that are the mechanisms that propel and expand terrorism.
This theme is echoed by Rauf in his advocacy for and promulgation of Shariah law as set forth in his Shariah Index project. The idea that Shariah law somehow dovetails with the American Constitution is preposterous at best, and outright dangerous at worst. Although there are tenants of Sharia theology that aspire to equality and justice, the overall thrust is one of submission to Allah, a fact that is irreconcilable with principle of separation of church and state, so conveniently abandoned by those who are ardently advocating for this building. Moreover, whatever the intent of Shariah law may be, its interpretation has often been malicious, time and again resulting in systematic repression of women’s and children’s rights, domestic brutality, and even honor killings. No, these acts are not the global norm for Muslims; but neither are they an isolated dynamic. They are, however, another indicator of the spiritual and political schism facing Muslims.
Americans would be wise to examine our own history to discover similar themes, for this was the same dynamic the United States found itself in during the late 1940’s and early 1950s, as exemplified by Walter Reuther. Despite being labeled as soft on communism, Reuther worked tirelessly to expunge radical communist elements from American labor unions, and was supportive of America’s role in labor movement specifically, and the Democratic Party in genral. While one path was genuinely concerned with civil rights and creating opportunity for all Americans, the other was moving toward towards full-out Marxism. This same tension, a dichotomy between true moderation and tolerance on one hand, and extremism cloaked in pretentious piety on the other, is now pressing Americans, including our Muslim brothers and sisters, to see the forest beyond the trees.
Moreover, a crucial factor has been left out of the debate. Conservatives need to understand that Muslims, in general, are traditional in their philosophy and behavior. They value family, worship, and are grateful patriotic citizens, many whom have served with honor in our armed forces. Their children tend to be respectful, top-notch students, and parents are typically unabashed supporters of teachers. What they do object to is the same thing non-Muslim conservatives find fault with: the tawdry, selfish, and superficial traits of popular culture that result in, or at the very least are reflective of, broken families, drug addiction, gangs, and the general malaise that colors much of our youth.
Yet, the plans to build Park 51 must go forward. If plans to derail the mosque are successful and our darker beliefs about Rauf are true, then we will end up driving him and his network underground. This portends badly for all of us, especially Muslim Americans who want to assimilate and take part of the American dream. To know the truth means there must be transparency and accountability, and the best guarantee of these democratic principles as well the public good is the vigilance of We the People. It is New Yorkers who must hold Raufe and his associates responsible. They can do this by taking his invitation to multiculturalism seriously. They should gather in masses at the proposed center for fellowship, take classes and attend seminars, actively attend meetings, and even pray in the mosque during regular and inter-faith services. If, as he has stated, he is about bridge building, than Rauf and his colleagues should embrace this approach. Nothing bad can come as a result. Over time, either we will learn that that we have been induced by a consuming and ill-conceived paranoia, or the Imam and his co-leaders will be exposed as the frauds many believe them to be. Regardless, justice will be served, and truth will be known. Our future depends on it.
G.L.
Constitutionally speaking, there is no doubt that a denial of permission to build would be a direct violation of our founding principles of freedom of expression and religious tolerance. Anyone taking this tact is historically, legally, and foundationally under water—it’s simply indefensible. Sensitivity has also been cited as a moral or ethical underpinning. There is some merit here. Families and friends of those who lost their lives in 9-11 should have their voices heard. And if we’re honest, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has shown little evidence of sensitivity thus far on this issue. One cannot both argue vociferously for sensitivity and understanding while demonstrating neither.
However, the argument with the most merit raises questions about ties Rauf has to shadowy individuals and terrorist organizations. This is no small matter. Despite protestations that overall, Islam is a peaceful religion, we are left with the reality that the overwhelming majority of terroristic events have been perpetrated by people acting directly in the name of Islam and in accordance with jihadist creeds. This does not make all Muslims guilty by association; but it is an undeniable correlation we must come to grips with as a society.
However, to fully grasp this situation, we have to understand there is an internal war within the Moslem religion itself. Two faces of Islam are vying for the future of Islamic society, and the outcome of this conflict will decide not only the fate of the Muslim people, but the overall prospects for relative global peace and prosperity. According to Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), “until anti-Islamist Muslims wage the intellectual battle against Islamism within the Muslim consciousness, we will make no headway against ‘the narrative.’” The narrative Dr. Jasser is referring to is the assumption that the U.S. and its allies are waging war against the Muslim world in general, rather than fighting the same radical elements that have made life unbearable not just in the free world, but for Muslim people in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan, where the Taliban, has a track record of intimidation and violence amongst it own populace.
The other face of the Muslim people, the traditions and tenets that Jasser grew up with, is the genuine deal, a truly tolerant religion that promotes love and the brotherhood of man, much like its modern counterparts: Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism. Our failure to grasp this struggle is tantamount to ultimately sticking the proverbial knife in the back of the Muslims who struggle against this tyranny. Rauf may proclaim he is “moderate” or “tolerant,” but this is nothing but a façade, a clever, yet apparently effective amalgamation of Constitutional principles and political correctness designed to stifle dissent and paint opposition with the broad brush of racism, or more succinctly, Islamaphobia. But as Jasser points out, the term “moderate” has become synonymous with being “non-violent” or anti-terrorism.” Jasser asserts this gross oversimplification blinds people to the very political ideologies — which he identifies as “Islamism” — that are the mechanisms that propel and expand terrorism.
This theme is echoed by Rauf in his advocacy for and promulgation of Shariah law as set forth in his Shariah Index project. The idea that Shariah law somehow dovetails with the American Constitution is preposterous at best, and outright dangerous at worst. Although there are tenants of Sharia theology that aspire to equality and justice, the overall thrust is one of submission to Allah, a fact that is irreconcilable with principle of separation of church and state, so conveniently abandoned by those who are ardently advocating for this building. Moreover, whatever the intent of Shariah law may be, its interpretation has often been malicious, time and again resulting in systematic repression of women’s and children’s rights, domestic brutality, and even honor killings. No, these acts are not the global norm for Muslims; but neither are they an isolated dynamic. They are, however, another indicator of the spiritual and political schism facing Muslims.
Americans would be wise to examine our own history to discover similar themes, for this was the same dynamic the United States found itself in during the late 1940’s and early 1950s, as exemplified by Walter Reuther. Despite being labeled as soft on communism, Reuther worked tirelessly to expunge radical communist elements from American labor unions, and was supportive of America’s role in labor movement specifically, and the Democratic Party in genral. While one path was genuinely concerned with civil rights and creating opportunity for all Americans, the other was moving toward towards full-out Marxism. This same tension, a dichotomy between true moderation and tolerance on one hand, and extremism cloaked in pretentious piety on the other, is now pressing Americans, including our Muslim brothers and sisters, to see the forest beyond the trees.
Moreover, a crucial factor has been left out of the debate. Conservatives need to understand that Muslims, in general, are traditional in their philosophy and behavior. They value family, worship, and are grateful patriotic citizens, many whom have served with honor in our armed forces. Their children tend to be respectful, top-notch students, and parents are typically unabashed supporters of teachers. What they do object to is the same thing non-Muslim conservatives find fault with: the tawdry, selfish, and superficial traits of popular culture that result in, or at the very least are reflective of, broken families, drug addiction, gangs, and the general malaise that colors much of our youth.
Yet, the plans to build Park 51 must go forward. If plans to derail the mosque are successful and our darker beliefs about Rauf are true, then we will end up driving him and his network underground. This portends badly for all of us, especially Muslim Americans who want to assimilate and take part of the American dream. To know the truth means there must be transparency and accountability, and the best guarantee of these democratic principles as well the public good is the vigilance of We the People. It is New Yorkers who must hold Raufe and his associates responsible. They can do this by taking his invitation to multiculturalism seriously. They should gather in masses at the proposed center for fellowship, take classes and attend seminars, actively attend meetings, and even pray in the mosque during regular and inter-faith services. If, as he has stated, he is about bridge building, than Rauf and his colleagues should embrace this approach. Nothing bad can come as a result. Over time, either we will learn that that we have been induced by a consuming and ill-conceived paranoia, or the Imam and his co-leaders will be exposed as the frauds many believe them to be. Regardless, justice will be served, and truth will be known. Our future depends on it.
G.L.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Obama vs. McChrystal: A Dichotomy of Archetypal Proportions
The man who promises everything is sure to fulfill nothing, and everyone who promises too much is in danger of using evil means in order to carry out his promises, and is already on the road to perdition. ~Carl Jung
Our economy remains mired in a deep recession as unemployment swallows the saccharine hope proffered by our President. Oil gushes from the floor of the Gulf while our ill-chosen Nero fiddles 1 and shoots the back nine. Parents shudder as our national debt, compounded manifold by Obama’s failed stimulus 2, compromises their children’s future. We watch as a thin-skinned 3 amateur forces the masses to submit and bend to his will and we ask: “Can this get any worse?” And then it happens, all at once. The commander-in-chief, a fraud who has mocked and betrayed every traditional American institution in his quest to undermine American exceptionalism, has given General Stanely McChrystal his walking papers.
While I understand that General McChrystal’s comments and those of his aides were out of line, and ultimately President Obama was in his rights to hold him accountable, there is something greater at stake than modus operandi: the unyielding dichotomy of character between the general and the commander-in-chief.
Ultimately, this was more than mere observation of military protocol. Rather, this is a deeply symbolic act, an expression of archetypal proportions that resonates on a profoundly spiritual level. Obama is Jung’s shadow 4, “a moral problem that challenges the whole ego personality, for no one can become conscious without considerable moral effort.”1 It is this lack of awareness, his inability to see beyond his own self-imposed concoction of utopia, his unwillingness to admit his fallibility, which defines the President in his megalomaniacal march towards monarchy. And it is the very opposite of these dynamics that characterize General McChrystal. Whereas Obama represents the impulses of political expediency, McChrystal symbolizes constancy of character. Whereas Obama agitates in order to aggrandize his persona and need for hero worship, McChrystal shuns the public light despite being a hero 5.
This list goes on and on. One destroys, while the other builds. One dithers in the face of crises, while the other takes charge of an insurmountable situation. One sacrifices 6 those who no longer serve his needs, while the other makes the daily sacrifice of duty to his country. One apologizes to those who would cut our throats in the night, while the other confronts the Taliban7 head on. One uses his country to advance his career; the other forfeits his career for his country. One is an intellect, an academician who twists reality to fit theory; the other endures a reality of blood and death to prevent us from the same fate. It is a contrast so stark and severe that the dichotomy is unbearable for those who see it, and seemingly oblivious to those who have been duped by our President’s political persona 8.
And although this dichotomy has culminated in McChrystal falling upon the proverbial sword, this drama has been in the works for some time. General Stanley McChrystal was set up for failure by President Obama from the beginning.
First, as history will show, he was given an unwinnable war. Despite slaughtering more than one-half million Afghans in its failed conquests, the Russian military was sent packing by the Mujahideen 9. The same fate befell the British in the late 19th century. Yet, all throughout his presidential campaign, Obama made the distinction between a “war of necessity” (Afghanistan) and a “war of convenience (Iraq),” positioning himself as just warrior, as opposed to John McCain, who supported an “unjust” war.
Moreover, McChrystal was shortchanged in his request 10 of troops, further jeopardizing the overall mission, if there is one any more. Ironically, McChrystal, ostensibly to win approval with the local Afghan populace, hampered his own efforts by embracing rules of engagement 11 that limit our soldiers’ capacity to respond, expose them to greater danger, and cobble their ability to carry out their orders. Finally, the overall tone of ambivalence and half measures 12 has made success in Afghanistan all but impossible.
For Obama, this is a potentially winning situation, for he is able to muster enough jingoism to cast himself as strong military leader, while simultaneously undermining our ability to win. This will allow Obama and his ilk to castigate, eviscerate, and ultimately dismantle the military so he can replace them with some socialistic analogue of “a civilian national security force.” In the end analysis, McChrystal was a pawn in a much larger scheme that has its roots in Harvard and Berkley, rather than West Point and Annapolis.
And so we have reached a low point in the United States. The warrior, a man who has endured pain and hardship, who has always followed rules and put the needs of his own men above his own, has been toppled by the trickster, by the fool, by the community organizer whose disdain for authority and privilege know no bounds, save for the authority and privilege he wields. And behind it all, decisions have been made based upon the claims of a magazine not taken seriously by anyone above the age of 30. God help us all.
1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/17/capital-capitulation/
2. http://reason.com/archives/2009/02/13/why-the-stimulus-plan-wont-wor
3. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/27/obama-the-thin-skinned-president/
4. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9X2-eXfmGIgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA95&dq=the+shadow+archetype&ots=fAo43s2Zvu&sig=fxGp0aBmQjxXpXpAdaTixK3jeqM#v=onepage&q=the%20shadow%20archetype&f=true
5. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/gates-and-mullen-on-mcchrystal-and-civilian-control/
6. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37208439/
7. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37244
8. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/18/does_he_lie_98363.html
9. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29sebestyen.html?_r=2
10. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/dont_blame_mcchrystal_blame_ob.html
11. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/mcchrystals-real-offense-96873364.html
12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-blankley/too-few-troops-too-much-s_b_385852.html
13.
For detailed information about Jung’s theories regarding archetypes, see:
Jung, C.G. (1990). The archetypes of the collective unconscious. Hull, R. F. C. (Trans.). Bollingen Series XX. The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, 9 (1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. First published in 1959.
Our economy remains mired in a deep recession as unemployment swallows the saccharine hope proffered by our President. Oil gushes from the floor of the Gulf while our ill-chosen Nero fiddles 1 and shoots the back nine. Parents shudder as our national debt, compounded manifold by Obama’s failed stimulus 2, compromises their children’s future. We watch as a thin-skinned 3 amateur forces the masses to submit and bend to his will and we ask: “Can this get any worse?” And then it happens, all at once. The commander-in-chief, a fraud who has mocked and betrayed every traditional American institution in his quest to undermine American exceptionalism, has given General Stanely McChrystal his walking papers.
While I understand that General McChrystal’s comments and those of his aides were out of line, and ultimately President Obama was in his rights to hold him accountable, there is something greater at stake than modus operandi: the unyielding dichotomy of character between the general and the commander-in-chief.
Ultimately, this was more than mere observation of military protocol. Rather, this is a deeply symbolic act, an expression of archetypal proportions that resonates on a profoundly spiritual level. Obama is Jung’s shadow 4, “a moral problem that challenges the whole ego personality, for no one can become conscious without considerable moral effort.”1 It is this lack of awareness, his inability to see beyond his own self-imposed concoction of utopia, his unwillingness to admit his fallibility, which defines the President in his megalomaniacal march towards monarchy. And it is the very opposite of these dynamics that characterize General McChrystal. Whereas Obama represents the impulses of political expediency, McChrystal symbolizes constancy of character. Whereas Obama agitates in order to aggrandize his persona and need for hero worship, McChrystal shuns the public light despite being a hero 5.
This list goes on and on. One destroys, while the other builds. One dithers in the face of crises, while the other takes charge of an insurmountable situation. One sacrifices 6 those who no longer serve his needs, while the other makes the daily sacrifice of duty to his country. One apologizes to those who would cut our throats in the night, while the other confronts the Taliban7 head on. One uses his country to advance his career; the other forfeits his career for his country. One is an intellect, an academician who twists reality to fit theory; the other endures a reality of blood and death to prevent us from the same fate. It is a contrast so stark and severe that the dichotomy is unbearable for those who see it, and seemingly oblivious to those who have been duped by our President’s political persona 8.
And although this dichotomy has culminated in McChrystal falling upon the proverbial sword, this drama has been in the works for some time. General Stanley McChrystal was set up for failure by President Obama from the beginning.
First, as history will show, he was given an unwinnable war. Despite slaughtering more than one-half million Afghans in its failed conquests, the Russian military was sent packing by the Mujahideen 9. The same fate befell the British in the late 19th century. Yet, all throughout his presidential campaign, Obama made the distinction between a “war of necessity” (Afghanistan) and a “war of convenience (Iraq),” positioning himself as just warrior, as opposed to John McCain, who supported an “unjust” war.
Moreover, McChrystal was shortchanged in his request 10 of troops, further jeopardizing the overall mission, if there is one any more. Ironically, McChrystal, ostensibly to win approval with the local Afghan populace, hampered his own efforts by embracing rules of engagement 11 that limit our soldiers’ capacity to respond, expose them to greater danger, and cobble their ability to carry out their orders. Finally, the overall tone of ambivalence and half measures 12 has made success in Afghanistan all but impossible.
For Obama, this is a potentially winning situation, for he is able to muster enough jingoism to cast himself as strong military leader, while simultaneously undermining our ability to win. This will allow Obama and his ilk to castigate, eviscerate, and ultimately dismantle the military so he can replace them with some socialistic analogue of “a civilian national security force.” In the end analysis, McChrystal was a pawn in a much larger scheme that has its roots in Harvard and Berkley, rather than West Point and Annapolis.
And so we have reached a low point in the United States. The warrior, a man who has endured pain and hardship, who has always followed rules and put the needs of his own men above his own, has been toppled by the trickster, by the fool, by the community organizer whose disdain for authority and privilege know no bounds, save for the authority and privilege he wields. And behind it all, decisions have been made based upon the claims of a magazine not taken seriously by anyone above the age of 30. God help us all.
1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/17/capital-capitulation/
2. http://reason.com/archives/2009/02/13/why-the-stimulus-plan-wont-wor
3. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/27/obama-the-thin-skinned-president/
4. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9X2-eXfmGIgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA95&dq=the+shadow+archetype&ots=fAo43s2Zvu&sig=fxGp0aBmQjxXpXpAdaTixK3jeqM#v=onepage&q=the%20shadow%20archetype&f=true
5. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/gates-and-mullen-on-mcchrystal-and-civilian-control/
6. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37208439/
7. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37244
8. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/18/does_he_lie_98363.html
9. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29sebestyen.html?_r=2
10. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/dont_blame_mcchrystal_blame_ob.html
11. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/mcchrystals-real-offense-96873364.html
12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-blankley/too-few-troops-too-much-s_b_385852.html
13.
For detailed information about Jung’s theories regarding archetypes, see:
Jung, C.G. (1990). The archetypes of the collective unconscious. Hull, R. F. C. (Trans.). Bollingen Series XX. The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, 9 (1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. First published in 1959.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Cap and Trade: Corporatism at Its Worst
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.
~James Madison
As we watch our banks, automobile companies and health-care sectors co-opted by a contemptuous executive branch, an elitist Congress, and parasitic lobbyists, American citizens have to wonder what new trick President Obama has up his sleeve to deprive the taxpayers of their wages. Thanks to the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, it appears the President is circling his wagons to launch his next offensive on the free market: climate legislation, also known as “cap and trade,” is looming in the shadows as the next decimator of economic prosperity. It is curious that Obama, whose campaign highlighted the theme that he was above the fray of self-seeking corporate and lobbyists’ interests, is at the epicenter of a form of corporatism that threatens to undermine any sense of fair business practice.
Although Obama’s rhetoric promised to usher in a new era of transparency and responsibility, the President and his charges have become entangled with corporations in a way that fundamentally and irrevocably perverts the relationship of corporate entities and our government. Obama and Congress are using the hazy concept of a “green economy” to push an agenda of political thuggery on par with the Chicago Daley machine or Tammany Hall.
His nomination victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota alluded to his intentions regarding climate change legislation when he said, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Obama’s soaring hyperbole resonated deeply with both environmentalists and the general populace, positioning him as a global prophet sent to save the world from environmental apocalypse. However, his rhetoric ultimately morphed into a cloaked collusion between corporations, lobbyists, and Washington elites who conspire to fleece the American public of their money while simultaneously lining their pockets with the ill-gotten booty. As scientist Bjorn Lomborg, an established and respected environmentalist, pointed out in the Wall Street Journal: “Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.” It is this central piece, the idea of carbon regulation, that is most disturbing, because it is an unholy alliance with the very people that are supposedly polluting our planet to begin with. As Tim Carney, a columnist of the Washington Examiner explains, “cap-and-trade is a corporate welfare porkfest of nearly unprecedented proportions.” 1
What Carney is pointing out is the corporatist nature of the Obama administration. Of course, many Americans point the finger of corporatism directly at Big Oil, and rightfully so. Big Oil has enjoyed a “special” relationship under both Democratic and Republican administrations alike, contributing to campaign funds of various presidential and congressional candidates while extracting tax-payer funded subsidies, and as the oil “spill” in the Gulf would suggest, lax regulations via sympathetic cronies. There is no denying this link. However, according to the Science and Public Policy Institute, which scrutinized government spending records, “The U.S. government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” The reality is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), big government, and “pro-environment” big business have formed a muscular juggernaut that flattens its opponents, demonizes its skeptics, and sucks up revenues in the form of subsidies.
Unfortunately, many people labor under the illusion pedaled by Washington that big business has conspired in a concerted effort to hold down wages, fix the market, and rob the individual of his soul while simultaneously destroying the planet. Conversely, people have been propagandized to believe that our government works tirelessly in some abstract, morally superior, selfless manner to uplift the downtrodden and safeguard our civil rights from the rapacious march of corporations. And while corporations are certainly not saints, it is laughable to overlook the 800-pound gorilla. Our government, in conjunction with lobbyists and the supposed malicious corporations, have underwritten each other’s fates and stuffed the profits in their pockets. As Congressman Ron Paul (TX) so aptly states: “…there is an agenda behind this silly comic-book version of history: to make people terrified of the ‘unfettered’ free market, and to condition them to accept the ever-growing burdens that the political class imposes on the private sector as an unchangeable aspect of life that exists for their own good.” 2
As the old maxim goes, if you want to know the truth, just “follow the money.” In the case of cap-and-trade and a “green economy,” the money trail leads directly to Obama and Congress, and to the energy companies decried for causing global warming, including “king coal.”
According to Public Citizen, a social justice and pro-environment watch-dog organization, “the Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed the House in June (and a very similar Senate Environment Committee-passed bill) are cap-and-trade schemes [that] hand billions of dollars to corporate utilities, gift Wall Street with a lucrative $2 trillion derivatives market, relies on offsets to achieve false emission reduction targets and raises costs to working families - while bestowing windfall profits to utilities like Exelon.” So once again, big business along with their attendant lobbyists and government shack up to financially and politically enrich each other, and the American citizen gets stuck with the bill twice: once in the form of hidden taxation, and again through increases in the cost of energy use. Carney also points out that other players have gamed the system as well, including agri-giant Monsanto, Alcoa, and…drum roll please, Goldman-Sachs. The Wall-Street bail-out recipient is waiting with baited breath to jump into the carbon-trading market, a dynamic that will set loose a feeding frenzy as traders swap derivatives in a dizzying rush to cash in before the next inevitable bubble burst, splattering the American public with the economic entrails. 3
And these economic implications are far reaching. As Robert Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and a cofounder of the US Climate Task Force stated in an interview with MotherJones: "We are on the verge of creating a new trillion-dollar market in financial assets that will be securitized, derivatized, and speculated by Wall Street like the mortgage-backed securities market.” Of course, our government, in their predictable hubris, promises regulation to prevent such an occurrence.
However, if the savings and loan bailout of the 80s, the dot.com bust of the 90s, our current housing bust, and the BP fiasco are reliable barometers, government regulation is an impotent tool at best. Impotent, unless you’re a company with a vested economic interests and enough financial heft to lobby the living hell out of Washington, or lucky enough to be the political figure showered with corporate largess. And the deeper you dig, the more grotesque the truth becomes: a conglomeration of shady alliances between corporate pimps, lobbyist pushers and political propagandists rolling in a giant bed of taxpayer money—a menage et trois of Machiavellian proportions. Except the taxpayer is the only one who will be screwed in this sick love affair.
1. Carney, Timothy. Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses. Washington, D.C. Regnery Press, 2009.
2. Paul, Ron. The Revolution: A Manifesto. New York. Grand Central Publishing, 2008.
3. Carney, 2009.
~James Madison
As we watch our banks, automobile companies and health-care sectors co-opted by a contemptuous executive branch, an elitist Congress, and parasitic lobbyists, American citizens have to wonder what new trick President Obama has up his sleeve to deprive the taxpayers of their wages. Thanks to the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, it appears the President is circling his wagons to launch his next offensive on the free market: climate legislation, also known as “cap and trade,” is looming in the shadows as the next decimator of economic prosperity. It is curious that Obama, whose campaign highlighted the theme that he was above the fray of self-seeking corporate and lobbyists’ interests, is at the epicenter of a form of corporatism that threatens to undermine any sense of fair business practice.
Although Obama’s rhetoric promised to usher in a new era of transparency and responsibility, the President and his charges have become entangled with corporations in a way that fundamentally and irrevocably perverts the relationship of corporate entities and our government. Obama and Congress are using the hazy concept of a “green economy” to push an agenda of political thuggery on par with the Chicago Daley machine or Tammany Hall.
His nomination victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota alluded to his intentions regarding climate change legislation when he said, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Obama’s soaring hyperbole resonated deeply with both environmentalists and the general populace, positioning him as a global prophet sent to save the world from environmental apocalypse. However, his rhetoric ultimately morphed into a cloaked collusion between corporations, lobbyists, and Washington elites who conspire to fleece the American public of their money while simultaneously lining their pockets with the ill-gotten booty. As scientist Bjorn Lomborg, an established and respected environmentalist, pointed out in the Wall Street Journal: “Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.” It is this central piece, the idea of carbon regulation, that is most disturbing, because it is an unholy alliance with the very people that are supposedly polluting our planet to begin with. As Tim Carney, a columnist of the Washington Examiner explains, “cap-and-trade is a corporate welfare porkfest of nearly unprecedented proportions.” 1
What Carney is pointing out is the corporatist nature of the Obama administration. Of course, many Americans point the finger of corporatism directly at Big Oil, and rightfully so. Big Oil has enjoyed a “special” relationship under both Democratic and Republican administrations alike, contributing to campaign funds of various presidential and congressional candidates while extracting tax-payer funded subsidies, and as the oil “spill” in the Gulf would suggest, lax regulations via sympathetic cronies. There is no denying this link. However, according to the Science and Public Policy Institute, which scrutinized government spending records, “The U.S. government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” The reality is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), big government, and “pro-environment” big business have formed a muscular juggernaut that flattens its opponents, demonizes its skeptics, and sucks up revenues in the form of subsidies.
Unfortunately, many people labor under the illusion pedaled by Washington that big business has conspired in a concerted effort to hold down wages, fix the market, and rob the individual of his soul while simultaneously destroying the planet. Conversely, people have been propagandized to believe that our government works tirelessly in some abstract, morally superior, selfless manner to uplift the downtrodden and safeguard our civil rights from the rapacious march of corporations. And while corporations are certainly not saints, it is laughable to overlook the 800-pound gorilla. Our government, in conjunction with lobbyists and the supposed malicious corporations, have underwritten each other’s fates and stuffed the profits in their pockets. As Congressman Ron Paul (TX) so aptly states: “…there is an agenda behind this silly comic-book version of history: to make people terrified of the ‘unfettered’ free market, and to condition them to accept the ever-growing burdens that the political class imposes on the private sector as an unchangeable aspect of life that exists for their own good.” 2
As the old maxim goes, if you want to know the truth, just “follow the money.” In the case of cap-and-trade and a “green economy,” the money trail leads directly to Obama and Congress, and to the energy companies decried for causing global warming, including “king coal.”
According to Public Citizen, a social justice and pro-environment watch-dog organization, “the Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed the House in June (and a very similar Senate Environment Committee-passed bill) are cap-and-trade schemes [that] hand billions of dollars to corporate utilities, gift Wall Street with a lucrative $2 trillion derivatives market, relies on offsets to achieve false emission reduction targets and raises costs to working families - while bestowing windfall profits to utilities like Exelon.” So once again, big business along with their attendant lobbyists and government shack up to financially and politically enrich each other, and the American citizen gets stuck with the bill twice: once in the form of hidden taxation, and again through increases in the cost of energy use. Carney also points out that other players have gamed the system as well, including agri-giant Monsanto, Alcoa, and…drum roll please, Goldman-Sachs. The Wall-Street bail-out recipient is waiting with baited breath to jump into the carbon-trading market, a dynamic that will set loose a feeding frenzy as traders swap derivatives in a dizzying rush to cash in before the next inevitable bubble burst, splattering the American public with the economic entrails. 3
And these economic implications are far reaching. As Robert Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and a cofounder of the US Climate Task Force stated in an interview with MotherJones: "We are on the verge of creating a new trillion-dollar market in financial assets that will be securitized, derivatized, and speculated by Wall Street like the mortgage-backed securities market.” Of course, our government, in their predictable hubris, promises regulation to prevent such an occurrence.
However, if the savings and loan bailout of the 80s, the dot.com bust of the 90s, our current housing bust, and the BP fiasco are reliable barometers, government regulation is an impotent tool at best. Impotent, unless you’re a company with a vested economic interests and enough financial heft to lobby the living hell out of Washington, or lucky enough to be the political figure showered with corporate largess. And the deeper you dig, the more grotesque the truth becomes: a conglomeration of shady alliances between corporate pimps, lobbyist pushers and political propagandists rolling in a giant bed of taxpayer money—a menage et trois of Machiavellian proportions. Except the taxpayer is the only one who will be screwed in this sick love affair.
1. Carney, Timothy. Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses. Washington, D.C. Regnery Press, 2009.
2. Paul, Ron. The Revolution: A Manifesto. New York. Grand Central Publishing, 2008.
3. Carney, 2009.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Obamanalysis: The Origins of Neurosis and the Unraveling of an Image
President Obama is a psychological mess, and it’s not his fault. Unfortunately, it is his responsibility, and his lack of corrective introspection has led him to be a prisoner of his ideological trappings. This ideological straightjacket is the very phenomenon decried by liberals in their unrelenting assails of President Bush. So much for intellectual consistency. Regardless of the charges of ineptness and deceit of the former administration (some of which are valid), Obama cannot, or will not, escape his troubled youth, nor the psychogenic effects on his attitude and behavior.
So what is behind Obama’s cool and collected exterior? What belies his sense of self-aggrandizement and narcissism? In order to peel back the layers of the psyche and probe the genesis of our President’s belief system, I will use the psychological theory of Karen Horney. Horneyan Theory, which focuses on the dynamics of neurosis by examining inner conflicts, has its roots in Freudian theory. Although Freud has often been dismissed in modern psychiatric circles, his fundamental proposition that humans are inherently in some type of conflict remains germane. If not, the great canons of literature, ranging from the Bible to Shakespeare, to Steinbeck and even popular modern texts, would not have conflict at the center of their literary substrate. It is undeniable that the human condition is rooted in conflict; growth, prosperity, and peace come only when we attempt to resolve this conflict in mature ways. Thus we have gangs, war, terrorism, and domestic violence, even as we strive to make the world safer and more humane. The dichotomy of this struggle is inescapable.
So what does Horneyan theory have to say about President Obama and his behavior? To understand this we have to understand what Horney believed about the basic nature of human beings. Horney posited that people strive to develop our unique potentials, and that pathological behavior occurs when this innate drive is thwarted by external, social forces. Horney believed that “man has the capacity to as well as the desire to develop his potentials and become a decent human being, and that these deteriorate if his relationship to others, and hence himself is, and continues to be, disturbed.” 1
It is not difficult to see how this fits with Obama’s childhood. Early on, Obama was severed from his father, who abandoned him for intellectual pursuits in the name of perpetuating Marxist ideology. This left Frank Marshal Davis to become his psychological paternal surrogate. Davis was indisputably an adamant and radical supporter of communism throughout his career, as evidenced by his writings and actions. Unfortunately for Obama, his mother was an inconsistent force in his life, providing no mechanism for intellectual or psychological counterbalance, ultimately leaving Obama to be raised by his grandparents and, through a sort of mentorship, Davis. This is key, for a underlying communism is the implicit dynamic that government itself is a surrogate for parents, and an appropriate substitute for spirituality. So early on, Obama was “sold out” by the very people who are supposed to build the psychosocial foundation upon which he was to fashion a positive self-concept. In short, he was discarded to the state, establishing the milieu for his personal and socio-political development. Obama himself wrote of his inner conflict in his struggle to find his cultural identify in his book, “Dreams of My Father,” in which he stated:
"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." 2
Here, we can see the genesis of Obama’s neurosis, as he is forced to identify who he is while simultaneously rejecting his white heritage. This orphaning, by his biological parents, and his didactical split from his bi-racial origins, left him vulnerable to establish the belief that the State, the all powerful and omnipotent entity, could become the parental force he was so lacking. Davis capitalized and preyed on this vulnerability.
Furthermore, Horney’s premises can explain Obama’s behavior with regard to the causes of his anxiety, which she believed was the central mechanism underlying all neuroses. As Horney expressed: “As a result (of not being loved and accepted as an individual), the child does not develop a feeling of belonging, of “we,” but instead a profound insecurity and vague apprehensiveness…” 3
Again, we see how Obama’s commitment to collectivistic tendencies are driven by his need for self-actualization and acceptance, as the State becomes the stand-in for absent parents. In his own words: “We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.” 4
But how can one feel alienated and abandoned without a resultant insecurity? There are only tow responses to feelings of alienation; utter withdrawal, or a form of lashing out in order to compensate emotionally. Horney believed that people adopt one of three psychological coping mechanisms in response to this alienation: moving toward people, moving against people, or moving away from people. Obama seems to embrace moving towards people as he grapples to establish identity and security.
According to Horney, moving towards people is characterized by seeking safety, protection and affection of others. In moving towards people, individuals seem to care substantially about the welfare of others, to have an abundance of empathy and solicitude toward those perceived as being weak or maligned by others. However, according Horney, this is a mask, a cover for true feelings which in fact represent a callous lack of interest in others, leading to ‘defiance, unconscious parasitic or exploiting tendencies, {and} propensities to control or manipulate others.” 5
This was exhibited quite clearly in policy coming from the Obama administration. The health-care legislation, which any careful and thoughtful research will show was a massive subsidization of the health-care insurance industry, the very entity derided by Obama, as a prima fascia culprit. Early on, Representative Dennis Kucinich, a bastion of liberalism, pointed out the hypocrisies of the health-care legislation, decrying it as give-away to insurance companies and big Pharma, and that the only true reform was to establish universal health-care through a government-run, single payer system. It was not until very late in the hour that Kucinich relented under the pressure from the Obama administration, selling out by voting for an unprecedented corporate entitlement. After strong-arming, or persuading Kucinich through bribery, Obama and his cronies went on a back-door, arm-twisting manipulation rampage, bringing us the likes of the “Cornhusker” deal and the “Louisiana Purchase.” Psychologically, it was at once a pathetic and grandiose attempt to delude the public about his love for mankind, a masquerade of selflessness covering his need to control in order to resolve his feelings of alienation, rejection, and ineffectiveness.
This psychological dynamic is an indisputable corollary of his sociopolitical view: Collectivism is by nature prone to move toward people, as individuals are submerged in the drive to unify society and give up their uniqueness and self-determination in deference to the needs of the masses and it’s statist apparatus. But it is all a ruse, as the leader enervates society, usurps natural law, and grabs and sustains power at the expense of individualism, making the citizen the puppet of the state, thereby satisfying the need to feel effectual despite the gaping holes of inadequacy.
In the end, Horney believed this neurosis to consume individuals as they seek they develop an idealized image, a flattering, yet hollow self-concept that promises “unattainable standards that either bring about eventual defeat, or cause the sufferer to shrink from the acid test of reality.” 6 This is clearly evident in how Obama has dealt with the oil–leak crises in the Gulf. His grandiose rock-star image, so carefully honed during the campaign season, shed its patina of pretension and exposed Obama for what he really is: weak, unresolved, insensitive, and ultimately, incapable of true leadership. Much like when the Wizard, from the movie The Wizard of Oz, was revealed to be a fraud, so Obama has shown himself for the empty suit he is—empty save for a small child whose protestations are growing fainter, no longer aided by the amplification which was also stripped from the Wizard.
1Horney, K. Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosis. New York: Norton, 1945.
2 Obama, Barack. Dreams for my father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004.
3 Horney, K. Neurosis and human growth: The struggle towards self-realization. New York: Norton, 1950.
4 Obama, Barack, 2004.
5 Horney, K., 1945
6 Ewen, Robert B. An introduction to theories of personality: Third edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1988.
So what is behind Obama’s cool and collected exterior? What belies his sense of self-aggrandizement and narcissism? In order to peel back the layers of the psyche and probe the genesis of our President’s belief system, I will use the psychological theory of Karen Horney. Horneyan Theory, which focuses on the dynamics of neurosis by examining inner conflicts, has its roots in Freudian theory. Although Freud has often been dismissed in modern psychiatric circles, his fundamental proposition that humans are inherently in some type of conflict remains germane. If not, the great canons of literature, ranging from the Bible to Shakespeare, to Steinbeck and even popular modern texts, would not have conflict at the center of their literary substrate. It is undeniable that the human condition is rooted in conflict; growth, prosperity, and peace come only when we attempt to resolve this conflict in mature ways. Thus we have gangs, war, terrorism, and domestic violence, even as we strive to make the world safer and more humane. The dichotomy of this struggle is inescapable.
So what does Horneyan theory have to say about President Obama and his behavior? To understand this we have to understand what Horney believed about the basic nature of human beings. Horney posited that people strive to develop our unique potentials, and that pathological behavior occurs when this innate drive is thwarted by external, social forces. Horney believed that “man has the capacity to as well as the desire to develop his potentials and become a decent human being, and that these deteriorate if his relationship to others, and hence himself is, and continues to be, disturbed.” 1
It is not difficult to see how this fits with Obama’s childhood. Early on, Obama was severed from his father, who abandoned him for intellectual pursuits in the name of perpetuating Marxist ideology. This left Frank Marshal Davis to become his psychological paternal surrogate. Davis was indisputably an adamant and radical supporter of communism throughout his career, as evidenced by his writings and actions. Unfortunately for Obama, his mother was an inconsistent force in his life, providing no mechanism for intellectual or psychological counterbalance, ultimately leaving Obama to be raised by his grandparents and, through a sort of mentorship, Davis. This is key, for a underlying communism is the implicit dynamic that government itself is a surrogate for parents, and an appropriate substitute for spirituality. So early on, Obama was “sold out” by the very people who are supposed to build the psychosocial foundation upon which he was to fashion a positive self-concept. In short, he was discarded to the state, establishing the milieu for his personal and socio-political development. Obama himself wrote of his inner conflict in his struggle to find his cultural identify in his book, “Dreams of My Father,” in which he stated:
"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." 2
Here, we can see the genesis of Obama’s neurosis, as he is forced to identify who he is while simultaneously rejecting his white heritage. This orphaning, by his biological parents, and his didactical split from his bi-racial origins, left him vulnerable to establish the belief that the State, the all powerful and omnipotent entity, could become the parental force he was so lacking. Davis capitalized and preyed on this vulnerability.
Furthermore, Horney’s premises can explain Obama’s behavior with regard to the causes of his anxiety, which she believed was the central mechanism underlying all neuroses. As Horney expressed: “As a result (of not being loved and accepted as an individual), the child does not develop a feeling of belonging, of “we,” but instead a profound insecurity and vague apprehensiveness…” 3
Again, we see how Obama’s commitment to collectivistic tendencies are driven by his need for self-actualization and acceptance, as the State becomes the stand-in for absent parents. In his own words: “We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.” 4
But how can one feel alienated and abandoned without a resultant insecurity? There are only tow responses to feelings of alienation; utter withdrawal, or a form of lashing out in order to compensate emotionally. Horney believed that people adopt one of three psychological coping mechanisms in response to this alienation: moving toward people, moving against people, or moving away from people. Obama seems to embrace moving towards people as he grapples to establish identity and security.
According to Horney, moving towards people is characterized by seeking safety, protection and affection of others. In moving towards people, individuals seem to care substantially about the welfare of others, to have an abundance of empathy and solicitude toward those perceived as being weak or maligned by others. However, according Horney, this is a mask, a cover for true feelings which in fact represent a callous lack of interest in others, leading to ‘defiance, unconscious parasitic or exploiting tendencies, {and} propensities to control or manipulate others.” 5
This was exhibited quite clearly in policy coming from the Obama administration. The health-care legislation, which any careful and thoughtful research will show was a massive subsidization of the health-care insurance industry, the very entity derided by Obama, as a prima fascia culprit. Early on, Representative Dennis Kucinich, a bastion of liberalism, pointed out the hypocrisies of the health-care legislation, decrying it as give-away to insurance companies and big Pharma, and that the only true reform was to establish universal health-care through a government-run, single payer system. It was not until very late in the hour that Kucinich relented under the pressure from the Obama administration, selling out by voting for an unprecedented corporate entitlement. After strong-arming, or persuading Kucinich through bribery, Obama and his cronies went on a back-door, arm-twisting manipulation rampage, bringing us the likes of the “Cornhusker” deal and the “Louisiana Purchase.” Psychologically, it was at once a pathetic and grandiose attempt to delude the public about his love for mankind, a masquerade of selflessness covering his need to control in order to resolve his feelings of alienation, rejection, and ineffectiveness.
This psychological dynamic is an indisputable corollary of his sociopolitical view: Collectivism is by nature prone to move toward people, as individuals are submerged in the drive to unify society and give up their uniqueness and self-determination in deference to the needs of the masses and it’s statist apparatus. But it is all a ruse, as the leader enervates society, usurps natural law, and grabs and sustains power at the expense of individualism, making the citizen the puppet of the state, thereby satisfying the need to feel effectual despite the gaping holes of inadequacy.
In the end, Horney believed this neurosis to consume individuals as they seek they develop an idealized image, a flattering, yet hollow self-concept that promises “unattainable standards that either bring about eventual defeat, or cause the sufferer to shrink from the acid test of reality.” 6 This is clearly evident in how Obama has dealt with the oil–leak crises in the Gulf. His grandiose rock-star image, so carefully honed during the campaign season, shed its patina of pretension and exposed Obama for what he really is: weak, unresolved, insensitive, and ultimately, incapable of true leadership. Much like when the Wizard, from the movie The Wizard of Oz, was revealed to be a fraud, so Obama has shown himself for the empty suit he is—empty save for a small child whose protestations are growing fainter, no longer aided by the amplification which was also stripped from the Wizard.
1Horney, K. Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosis. New York: Norton, 1945.
2 Obama, Barack. Dreams for my father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004.
3 Horney, K. Neurosis and human growth: The struggle towards self-realization. New York: Norton, 1950.
4 Obama, Barack, 2004.
5 Horney, K., 1945
6 Ewen, Robert B. An introduction to theories of personality: Third edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1988.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Haiti: A Mirror for Our Souls
Recent comments from Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson prove two things: One, ignorance and callousness is alive in America, and two, the equally vitriolic response from liberals to censor these men is myopic and off-target. I won’t delve into First Amendment rights; that corollary seems obvious, because we live in a democracy that guarantees this right, no matter how odious its examples may be. The more important issue is the deeper psychological reality of Haiti and the Haitian people. Long beset by violence and corruption, both from within and without, Haiti is a mirror of our collective dark side. Much like Katrina and its devastation upon New Orleans, the earthquake in Haiti serves as a stark reminder of the lack of prosperity for certain peoples. The reason the earthquake caused such tragedy in Haiti (and correspondingly, Katrina, in New Orleans) is precisely because of the poverty in Haiti, and its resultant lack of infrastructure and human and material resources to handle a natural disaster of such proportion and magnitude. We have sat by and watched the past few decades as Haiti has devolved into lawlessness and a squalor that is unacceptable. Our response has been misguided and intermittent, resulting in little, if any positive, sustainable change. We can no longer just send tax dollars their way, because these monies flow down a drain of corruption and never reach the intended people at the bottom of the economic ladder. We have, however, an unprecedented opportunity, to rebuild Haiti and enable this nation to find a purchase in the 21st century. The antidote, in the long run, is to help them create an economic infrastructure based on their resources. We should re-allocate existing monies in the form of low or no-interest loans, both micro and macro, to budding Haitian entrepreneurs, who are starved for capital. Our business sector can also help out by making future investments in the people of Haiti. This is a win-win situation for Americans, because an economically viable Haiti is more likely to become a free and prosperous Haiti, making them not only feasible trading partner to bolster our own economy, but also ensuring that future Haitians work toward independence and self sustenance rather than the degradation and associated vices. Yes, Limbaugh and Robertson are insensitive, if not potentially cruel blowhards, but ironically, they not only help call attention to and define this catastrophe, but point out our hypocrisy of our failure to use the engine of capitalism to provide the Haitian people with a brighter future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)