David Tomlin, in a comment to my item, makes the very useful point that whatever the main US narrative about imperialism may be, some religious communities may think of imperialists as Christians spreading the faith to the masses.
Steve M. thinks that I was wrong to frame the D'Souza discussion as I did, because Republicans "all now sincerely agree that Obama's a left-wing radical who hates America, Israel, and the West, as well as a pure economic redistributionist indistinguishable from any card-carrying communist." I disagree, I guess; I think Conor Friedersdorf has this one right when he says most conservative movement elites don't really believe the junk they say, but that alas not everyone is in on the gag.
Tomlin's comment was substantive and interesting and all, but I really had to quote this gem (also from comments) from Geoff G.:
Huck gives every impression that he has not spent a whole lot of time reading briefing books trying to bone up on the substantive stuff a president needs to know, but he's had time to read D'Souza's hit job. It's kind of like an internist deciding to make a mid-career change to cardiology and the first thing she does is read a book by Michael DeBakey's valet about how rudely DeBakey treated his staff.Nice.
Yes, of course Huckabee meant to talk about the Mau Mau uprising in Indonesia.
ReplyDeletePeter Wehner, of all people, had a good piece on this today: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/02/the-dangers-of-demonization-and-the-conspiracy-temptation/
"How about starting today, Republicans and conservatives accept the following two propositions: Barack Obama was born in the United States and he’s a Christian. He may be wrong on a vast array of public policy issues, as I believe he is; and his animating philosophy (contemporary liberalism) may be defective in all sorts of ways. But he not an alien, nor is he a Muslim, nor can his views be explained by Kenyan anti-colonialism. To argue otherwise, or even to hint otherwise, is irresponsible. It’s also politically discrediting.
We live in an era in which it is fashionable in some quarters not simply to question the policies of an Obama, a Bush, or a Clinton; one has to call into question their very legitimacy. It is a cast of mind that allows one’s grievances to find refuge in conspiracy theories (Bush knew in advance about 9/11 and purposely lied about WMDs in Iraq; Bill Clinton was behind the “murder” of Vince Foster and a drug-smuggling operation at the Mena Airport; Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Africa).
Entertaining these myths and giving them wings is dangerous stuff. The reason is obvious: our nation depends on its citizens accepting the legitimacy of democratic outcomes, including ones that don’t go our way. If people believe without supporting evidence that our president is not just wrong but illegitimate, that he’s not simply misguided but malevolent, essential bonds of trust are ripped apart.
This is not to say that presidents should be immune to tough, even fierce criticisms. That is perfectly appropriate, and sometimes it’s even necessary. But criticism is one thing; demonization and embracing wild conspiracy theories is quite another. If we get to the point where we assume that our political differences can be explained only by some deeper, hidden evil in our opponents, then self-government itself is trouble."
Thanks for the shout out.
ReplyDeleteSmith is confused about the bust story, as one of his commenters points out (with a link).
'But the British Embassy in Washington has now confirmed that it sits in the palatial residence of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald, just down the road from Vice President Joe Biden's official residence. It is not clear whether the ambassador plans to keep it in Washington or send it back to London.'
Misspoke? Indonesia was a Dutch colony, not British. If he knew Obama spent time in Indonesia all along, why would he think the president was raised to be resentful of Churchill and British imperialism, and not those clog-stompin' Hollanders?
ReplyDeleteBesides the points that have been brought up already (Mau-Maus in Indonesia?), something else in the disclaimer also caught my attention:
ReplyDelete"The Governor would however like to know more about where President Obama's liberal policies come from"
Maybe his so-called liberal policies come from the fact that he's, well, a liberal? Why isn't that answer sufficient? I don't believe I've ever heard this type of remark applied to any previous Democratic candidate or leader. Past figures like Dukakis or Clinton were attacked as liberals, even un-American liberals, but there was never this constant call to "find out" where their liberalism "comes from." Underlying statements like this is an assumption that Obama's philosophy is not just a retread of past failures, but something completely alien to anything we've seen before, to the point that its ominous origins must be exposed in order to discredit the policies they're allegedly fueling.
Huck's remarks are stitched from the same cloth as the critics who go out of their way to pronounce Obama's middle name. It's the idea that we must distrust Obama purely because of his "exotic" family background. That's what makes this type of thing different from the run-of-the-mill conspiracy theories Wehner cites: it's the undercurrent of racial paranoia, something you didn't see in the Vince Foster or 9/11 truther theories. I am sure the right would have engaged in ridiculous attacks against any Democrat who rose to power, but the level of racism and xenophobia that Obama's ascendancy has provoked is a sight to behold.
JB, you made my day. Thanks! The other day in the Dish, Andrew linked to an item in Vox Nova analyzing whether culture war rhetoric is "bound to or divorced from a concern for proof." The author found, not surprisingly, that truth is irrelevant to culture war rhetoric because its aim is not to persuade people to your side with facts and reason, but to destroy the other side. Huck is probably smart enough that he knows he's lying, and also smart enough that he could find plenty of ways to attack Obama without making stuff up. But, making stuff up appeals because it inhibits consensus, making the "enemy" seem more implacable and unreasonable. The effect of the rhetoric on true believers is, I assume, what one would expect - it gets them riled up. A lot of non-believers get riled up too, of course, and to the extent that they engage in the issue, it serves the culture warriors' "all conflict, all the time" agenda. Considering that Obama's approval rating is pretty high for a guy presiding over a piss-poor economy who's viciously attacked day after day, and the low popularity of the The Sage of Wasilla and Mother of All Culture Warriors, the non-believers may be winning. But's it's gonna be ugly, and it's going to be a long two years.
ReplyDeleteIt gets even better...
ReplyDeleteHuck:
"But what I have never done is taken to position that Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia or anywhere other than Hawaii where he claims to have been born. Frankly Bryan, that is not a popular position with conservatives..."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=03&year=2011&base_name=huckabee_obama_born_in_the_us
Very funny... Wonder if he'll take some heat for throwing the GOP under the bus.
On the Africa angle, there's still a bit of "white man's burden" and mission civililatrice floating around in some missionaries' psyche.
ReplyDelete