Never has there been a worse time to be a US ally.
– Daniel Hannan finally admits that he was wrong to have backed Barack Obama for President
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
15 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I’m only baffled by why a reasonably sensible Conservative should aver have thought that it was a good idea to support the most left wing man ever to become President of the USA. What did he think was going to happen?
What drivel. Hannan is sliding in my estimation. At times he had seemed like a type of Thatcherite.
One can (just) understand him trying to give his candidate for Prime Minister credibility, but these statements from him would seem to indicate wilfull perfidity.
He must know that Obama is not simply making “mistakes”. He is better informed than that.
He should know that Obama is doing exactly what he and his team want to do to achieve their objectives.
I think people who vote for leaders like Blair or Obama know exactly what they are doing at the time.
Before the election they get to sound all positive and idealistic about humanity and everything else by advising everyone to vote for a politician who is not like all the others, can really make a difference and really cares.
Then later they can claim to have been let down or even betrayed in the way that good, trusting, positive, idealistic people often are.
The whole process is an exercise in self-promotion.
Of course it’s self-promotion; that’s what politicians do. What’s more interesting is to ask who it is that he thinks he is promoting himself to, and what his deep game really is.
Clearly, Obama’s endorsement by an obscure member of the European Parliament (not many people over here even know there is such a thing) would have zero impact on the US election. Furthermore, at that point (roughly 3 weeks before the election) the result was a foregone conclusion. The endorsement can be seen as simply backing the winning side once it was certain who that would be. Now, Obama’s star has burned out so fast that he’s basically a lame duck even before the mid-term elections, so it’s safe to “pile on” and join the chorus in opposition. Again, this is just joining the winning team as time expires. There’s no “leadership” here; it’s “followership” of the first order.
So why do it? Well, the meaningless Obama endorsement allows Hannan to present himself as a nuanced, “thoughtful” politician, one willing to dispassionately weigh all the factors and, where necessary, go against his party in the name of pure reason. This might play well to a certain sector of the electorate (the sort of person who applauds “bipartisanship” as an unalloyed virtue and an end in itself, regardless of the issue). And the “repudiation”, early as may appear (even though in truth the handwriting is already on the wall) allows Hannan simultaneously to safely perform a public mea culpa (that earns points in some quarters these days) and to ingratiate himself with those conservatives with short memories. Hannan appears to be a bright man. My suspicion is that he expected the Obama meltdown back in 2008, and that this entire episode is a carefully thought out political gambit.
So on the one hand my respect for Hannan as the crafty, Machiavellian politician goes up, while on the other my esteem for him as a principled conservative takes a hit. Frankly, I’m not sure which effect is greater. But since I don’t get to vote for him I suppose that doesn’t much matter.
First of all Mr Hannan is a brave man to admit he was wrong – this is a very hard thing to do in politics, especially British politics (for example in one of her works Mrs T. explains why the Single European Act of 1986 was a terrible thing – but can bring herself to write “and therefore I was wrong to support it”, and this is a normal British political thing not just a Mrs T. thing).
However, even in his new article Mr Hannan shows the same fault as in his original article – lack of knowledge of Barack Obama. Both articles are very superficial – vague and lacking in understanding.
On policy the first article showed no knowledge of even Barack Obama’s voting record in the Senate – and the new article does not cover things like the 800 billion Dollar “stimulus” madness, or the health care take over.
These things are hardly state secrets (unlike Mr Obama’s university writings).
Even in 2008 there was no excuse what so ever for Mr Hannan not to know of Mr Obama’s voting record in the United States Senate – how he supported every wild spending and regulating proposal.
And what of Mr Obama’s books?
For example, the establishment has been pushing “Dreams from my Father” (which I always think of as “Tales from my Father” – as inside the book “dreams” are not really mentioned, also almost all the book is about Barack himself, not his father – it is a weird book in many ways, but perhaps it is not actually meant to be read).
This book is on many shelves and has won all sorts of prices – and is still being pushed (at least in Britain) by the leading bookseller (“2 for 1” and so on – as it has been for years).
O.K. the book goes all over the place – and we do not get to the bit implying that the Mau Mau were noble (and the British were the bad guys in Kenya) till quite late.
Let us say that Mr Hannan only got up to pages 43-44 – what would he find?
He would find the Indonesian coup of 1966 discussed.
The whole thing is presented as a CIA plot against the innocent President of Indonesia.
The fact that the Communists actually launched the first coup effort (killing several high ranking military officers) is ignored.
Indeed the fact that there are any Communists at all is ignored – the “military” kill “supposed Communist sympathisers”.
In fact Indonesia had the largest Communist party outside the Communist world – and the peasants (totally ignored in the book) who chopped up the Communists after their failed effort to take power in 1966 were indeed acting with the aid of the military – but what did the military tell them to unleash the counter killings?
The military told the peasants that the Communists were in favour of collectivising the land and killing anyone who resisted – TRUTHFUL statements.
The Indonesians (military and peasant – and most of the military were from peasant familes) knew that the Communists were planning to do the same thing in Indonesia as they were doing in China (and later in much of IndoChina such as in Cambodia).
It was either wipe out the Communists (as many of them as could be hunted down – yes many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thouands) or be wiped out (in the TENS OF MILLIONS) by them.
Kill or be killed.
None of the above would one know by reading Barack Obama’s account.
On the contrary (as stated above) the whole thing is presented as an evil American plot.
Young Barack is presented living in Indonesia with his adoptive father hating evil Texan oil barons (no I am not making this up – the sterotyped divil reminds me of the broacasts of “Radio Moscow” that I heard as a boy, accept that it is more crude) who commit such dreadful crimes as “slap him on the back” (whilst boasting of their corrupt deal making, they are all like “JR” from the television series Dallas, you see) whilst their wives complain about the quality of the servants.
“They are not my people” Barack’s mother reminds her new husband – of course not, these people are Americans and Barack’s mother is a noble, civilized person (like Barack) and THEREFORE hates Americans
“But Paul – the book was really ghost written by Bill Ayers”.
Even if that is true how does it get Barack Obama off the hook?
“I did not really write this Communist agitprop work – my friend, the Communist terrorist, wrote it”.
Is that the defence?
I repeat that one only has to get to pages 43-44 to read all this. Stuff on “univeralism” (including a implied slap at Jack Kennedy for only being a “myth” of universalism hiding evil Americanness) comes long before this.
One does not have to do any background research (for example finding out that “Frank” is Frank Marshall Davis – another Communist).
“But Paul” (Daniel Hannan might say) “I did not read Dreams from my Father”.
I see – so yet another person who has not read it.
This is a best selling work that seems to have won every price in the universe – but I can never find any Obama supporter who has actually read it. This is rather odd.
So no background reseach.
But also no reading of even of the man’s published works (not the university writings – the stuff that is on the shelves of every book store, that was too difficult to look at was it?).
And not even a look at the man’s political activity (the PUBLIC record of it) – either in Chicago, or in the State Legislature, or in the United States Senate).
Just “I support him for President”?????????
And now – “I wish I had not” (for minor policy reasons – presented in vague language).
I repeat that Mr Hannan is a brave man for admitting his error of judgement – but this still will not do.
It is absurdly CASUAL.
The whole attitude seems to be I-could-not-really-care-less who is President of the United States, at least I will not bother to make the slightest effort to find out anything about them.
I hope that Mr Hannan does not treat other matters with this lack of seriousness.
If you think BP should not pay liabilities then you are saying the taxpayer. Obama is merely stating common sense: BP created a mess, they should clean it all up, and pay for it.
Or do you think when someone holds a party and ruins your house, you should just smile and clean up their crap?
According to the principles of the free market, BP has failed, and must face the consequences of failure.
And spare me the emotional drivel about pensioners, if you invested your pension in BP you knew the risks, tough.
BP hired Halliburton, a company which defrauded the US taxpayer and electrocuted and poisoned US soldiers…what were BP thinking?
Spare a thought for the fishermen whose lives are ruined, rather than greedy old baby boomers.
WTF??
Who here ever said otherwise? And what has that to do with this thread, anyway?
Go back under your bridge.
I just like the picture. Obama, wet behind the ears with his nose stuck up, and Bush the grizzled veteran.
As I said to a European friend that told me how happy he was that Obama was elected, “Of course, you like him; he hates America as much as Europe does.”
The current regime is a symptom of the utter bankruptcy of the political class in the US in particular, and the west in general.
They promise everything to everyone, they claim authority over everything, they demand an endless stream of money, and an unlimited expanse of power, in order to remake the world and everyone in it.
Look around the world, after decades of believing in and operating under the idea that a small group of experts can run everything—it is a complete and total fiasco, a shambles.
The economic life of the entire globe is now in danger of collapse because the political operatives of the overarching state financial structures had no idea that giving loans to people with no resources to pay them back was a bad idea which would have very bad consequences.
The social and cultural lives of expansive, multi-faceted nations are being strangled by a constricting python of rules and pc timidities that, while claiming to expand freedom, actually stifle any meaningful expression of it.
And, most damaging of all, an inverted morality composed of double-speak, double-think, and double-talk has left decent, productive people around the world defenseless in the face of unrelenting attacks by theologically motivated fascists and their allies in the global socialist movement, as evidenced by the recent alliance between the mullahs and the chavezistas.
The terrible dilemnas we are now facing are nothing more than the foul smelling chickens of decades of intellectual and moral corruption coming home to roost, but also nothing less than an existential battle for the path of future human society.
We have collapsed into a modern, international form of feudalism, in which political connection is more important than productive genius, and the mystics of muscle see a real chance to control the mystics of the spirit, and vice-versa.
And, as always, the ordinary person, trying to live and raise a family, and provide for their well-being, and plan for a pleasant future with a modest collection of amenities, is caught between the promises and the endless failure to deliver.
Finally, people are beginning to realize that the experts know very little, the benevolent leaders are anything but, and the house of cards that the endless lies and phony promises have built might be blown over by a loud fart.
We are at a great and terrible crossroads. The critical moment, which comes periodically in the course of human events, may soon be at hand.
If this is the kind of thing Hannan writes in the Telegraph then I say he should just stop all such writing immediately and take his oh-so-clever-Machiavellianism off to the hills of Northumbria and become a harmless monk.
Anyone who backed Obama, when there was plenty of evidence on the table as to his hard-left ideological leanings, deserves no sympathy.
MPs should read Paul Marks. It would save them a lot of trouble later.
and veryretired.
It won’t save them a lot of trouble, but at least they have a chance of being correct
ADE
A few MPs did read my stuff – JP, but only a few.
On BP – I am bit confused why this comment is on this thread. However…..
I NEVER supported the liability cap – I am not an American citizen, let alone a member of Congress, but I certainly would not have voted for it back 1990’s.
However, it is the law – signed into effect by President Clinton.
By the way – BP did not want to drill in mile deep water (very expensive).
And the State of Louisiana was quite happy with them drilling in shallow water (where is it much less difficult to deal with a well blow out).
Who decided that BP could only drill in absurdly deep water?
Oh yes – the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Does not sound very “free market” to me.
“We were running out of places to drill” (Barack Obama last night – explaining why BP was drilling in mile deep water and how this means there must be a move to a carbon free economy REGARDLESS OF THE EXPENSE).
Only because you Feds FORBID drilling in shallow water, and in much of Alsaka, and in large areas of lots of other States…….
Sit in the Oval Office – look straight into the camera.
And LIE YOUR HEAD OFF.
Indeed LIE so much that even your devoted fans (at MSNBC and so on) feel that they can not defend you on this one.
Do people really want to carry on discussing this matter?
If so I am happy to do so.
Posted by Paul Marks at June 17, 2010 02:40 PM
I concur, the level of hysteria is…hysterical.