The Roots of Obama's Rage (7 page)
Read The Roots of Obama's Rage Online
Authors: Dinesh D'Souza
Now let’s take up Obama’s attitude toward Europe and specifically toward those former colonial powers, the French and the British. Obama visited Europe for around three weeks in 1988, before joining his father’s family in Africa. For all its elegance and splendor, Europe didn’t impress Obama; on the contrary, it alienated him. “By the end of the first week or so,” he wrote in
Dreams from My Father
, “I realized that I’d made a mistake. It wasn’t that Europe wasn’t beautiful; everything was just as I’d imagined it. It just wasn’t mine.”
4
For Obama, Europe is a kind of distraction or delay from where he really wants to be, which is Africa. This may seem odd given that Obama’s mother is white and therefore he has just as much claim to a European heritage as to an African one. Yet for all its wealth and grandeur—or perhaps because of it—Europe annoys him while Africa continues to exert its irresistible appeal.
Dreams from My Father
, “I realized that I’d made a mistake. It wasn’t that Europe wasn’t beautiful; everything was just as I’d imagined it. It just wasn’t mine.”
4
For Obama, Europe is a kind of distraction or delay from where he really wants to be, which is Africa. This may seem odd given that Obama’s mother is white and therefore he has just as much claim to a European heritage as to an African one. Yet for all its wealth and grandeur—or perhaps because of it—Europe annoys him while Africa continues to exert its irresistible appeal.
By itself this admission may mean little, but now consider Obama’s June 2009 visit to Paris, where he was invited to dinner by the French prime minister Nicolas Sarkozy and his model wife Carla Bruni. The Obamas declined. Their refusal was odd, given that they were staying at the residence of the U.S. ambassador just yards from the Sarkozy residence in the Élysée apartments. The French press noted the snub, but there wasn’t much of a ruckus even among the usually prickly French. In fact, the Pew Research surveys show that the Europeans in general, and especially the French, remain enthusiastic about Obama.
5
How can this be explained if Obama has a streak that is anti-European and specifically anti-French?
5
How can this be explained if Obama has a streak that is anti-European and specifically anti-French?
The answer, of course, is that Obama has won over the French by criticizing his own country. The French are sensitive to snubs of their leaders, but this is a small price to pay for an American leader who comes to France and apologizes for American arrogance. It was in Strasbourg three months earlier that Obama delighted the French by saying, “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Much is forgiven in Paris for an American leader who kowtows in this way.
6
Thus Obama can bash neocolonial America and stiff the prime minister of the old colonialists while at the same time basking in their adulation—quite a rhetorical feat indeed.
6
Thus Obama can bash neocolonial America and stiff the prime minister of the old colonialists while at the same time basking in their adulation—quite a rhetorical feat indeed.
Obama’s cold shoulder toward the French prime minister, however, was nothing compared to his treatment of the British. On March 7, 2009, then British prime minister Gordon Brown visited the White House. Obama presented him with a set of wrongly formatted DVDs. This was hardly an adequate response to what Brown gave the Obamas: an ornamental pen holder carved from the timbers of a British anti-slave ship from the 1880s. This was not an isolated lapse; only three weeks later, on April 1, 2009, the Queen came to visit. Obama gave her an iPod. Reporting on the incident, the London papers pointed out that the queen already owns an iPod. Not that Obama is incapable of graciousness; he was more than gracious—some said positively sycophantic—in bowing from the waist to the king of Saudi Arabia.
But the ultimate insult to the English was when Obama, right upon assuming the presidency, came upon a bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office and promptly decided to return it. Churchill, of course, is routinely quoted by American presidents, and the bust had been loaned to America from the British government’s art collection. In a way it symbolized America’s special relationship with Britain. Somewhat shocked by Obama’s decision to remove the bust from the White House, British officials suggested that perhaps Obama could display it elsewhere. Obama declined. Chagrined, the British took it back, and the bust now sits in the residence of the British ambassador in Washington.
7
7
Bizarre? It is if you think of Obama as just another socialist (why would a socialist have such a violent reaction to a Churchill statue?) or remember Churchill solely as the fellow who guided the British to victory in World War II. But with his anti-colonial background, Obama probably remembers Churchill as an imperialist who soldiered for the empire in India and Africa. Churchill was opposed to India’s independence movement, and in 1942 famously said, “I have not become the king’s first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.” Even as late as 1954, when President Eisenhower raised with Churchill the idea of granting self-government to all remaining British colonies in Africa, Churchill responded that he was “skeptical about universal suffrage for the Hottentots.”
8
In the 1950s, Churchill was prime minister during Britain’s fight against the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, the native country of Obama’s father. So when we apply the anti-colonial hypothesis, we find that the inexplicable Churchill incident suddenly makes perfect sense.
8
In the 1950s, Churchill was prime minister during Britain’s fight against the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, the native country of Obama’s father. So when we apply the anti-colonial hypothesis, we find that the inexplicable Churchill incident suddenly makes perfect sense.
Let’s move from the symbols of European empire to those of American patriotism. If Obama is vehemently opposed to a world defined in America’s image, to Pax Americana, then we would expect him to be cagey and defensive about displays of patriotism that convey America’s leadership in the world. Sure enough, a
Time
photograph from the presidential campaign shows Obama at a fundraising event with several other Democratic politicians. The magazine noted that the national anthem was playing, but the photo shows that Obama does not have his right hand over his heart. And he’s the only one: everyone else does! Network video footage of the event confirmed that Obama was the lone holdout in this traditional display of patriotic allegiance.
Time
photograph from the presidential campaign shows Obama at a fundraising event with several other Democratic politicians. The magazine noted that the national anthem was playing, but the photo shows that Obama does not have his right hand over his heart. And he’s the only one: everyone else does! Network video footage of the event confirmed that Obama was the lone holdout in this traditional display of patriotic allegiance.
Once again, this could be dismissed as an isolated episode, and was so dismissed by Obama’s defenders. But a few months later, Obama announced that he would no longer wear a lapel pin with the American flag as had become customary for politicians and also many other public figures since the 9/11 attacks. “You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans,” Obama said. The pin, he contended, had become “a substitute for true patriotism.”
9
On the face of it Obama’s comments are nonsensical; how can an American flag somehow undermine genuine patriotism? What Obama means of course is that patriotism of this sort is morally objectionable to him because of its associations with American invasions and American power. Obama clearly prefers the kind of patriotism that is not associated with the 9/11 attacks and America’s subsequent actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Obama’s ideology, we show our love for our country not through jingoistic flag-waving and foreign expeditions, but rather by agitating for domestic policies that take from the haves and give to those who don’t have as much.
9
On the face of it Obama’s comments are nonsensical; how can an American flag somehow undermine genuine patriotism? What Obama means of course is that patriotism of this sort is morally objectionable to him because of its associations with American invasions and American power. Obama clearly prefers the kind of patriotism that is not associated with the 9/11 attacks and America’s subsequent actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Obama’s ideology, we show our love for our country not through jingoistic flag-waving and foreign expeditions, but rather by agitating for domestic policies that take from the haves and give to those who don’t have as much.
Obama’s anti-colonialism, however, takes him far beyond the rejection of mere symbols; in some cases, he supports the release of terrorists who claim to be fighting wars of liberation against American aggression. In July 2010, reports surfaced in the British press that the Obama administration favored the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber. This was an eye-opener, because when Scotland released Megrahi from prison and sent him home to Libya in August 2009, the Obama administration publicly protested the decision. Obama reaffirmed his position on Megrahi’s release when British prime minister David Cameron came to visit in July 2010. The president’s public sentiments seemed entirely appropriate: Megrahi, after all, had been convicted in connection with the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am Jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, most of them American.
But a few days after Cameron departed, the British press obtained a letter that the Obama administration had sent a year earlier to the Scottish government. The letter seems to show that Obama’s public outrage was contrived. In fact, the Obama administration took the position that releasing Megrahi on “compassionate grounds” was acceptable as long as he was kept in Scotland. This option, Obama said, would be “far preferable” to sending him back to Libya. Scottish government officials interpreted the letter to mean that U.S. objections to Megrahi’s release were “half-hearted.” So they let Megrahi go back to his own country, where he lives today as a free man.
While the American press has downplayed the story, the families of the Lockerbie victims now know about the Obama letter and want to see it. Yet the Obama administration refuses to make the letter public, probably because of its incriminating content. Now why would a U.S. president take such a benign view of a terrorist striking out against America? I cannot think of any possible explanation except one. On the anti-colonial explanation, it is because Obama views Megrahi as a resister who was striking out against U.S. imperialism. That is certainly how Megrahi portrayed himself at his trial.
10
10
Now let’s move to the issue of American exceptionalism and recall Obama’s statement that America is no more unique than Greece or Britain or any other country. Why, I asked earlier, would he say this? The reason becomes clear when we examine the content of American exceptionalism. A good source text here is Alexis de Tocqueville, as fervent a champion of American exceptionalism as anyone, who announced to the Europeans that “all eyes are therefore turned toward the United States” because America was in the process of creating “a distinct species of mankind.” Tocqueville’s American is unique in his entrepreneurial zeal. “Choose any American at random and he should be a man of burning desires, enterprising, adventurous and above all an innovator.” Tocqueville also finds that entrepreneurship produces a meritocratic society. “Natural inequality will soon make way for itself and wealth will spontaneously pass into the hands of the most capable.”
11
Probably most people think these are true and fine things to say about America, but not Obama. For him, economic enterprise and meritocracy are, at a gut level, neocolonial code words for subjugating and taking advantage of others. He wants nothing to do with an exceptionalism that encourages such attributes.
11
Probably most people think these are true and fine things to say about America, but not Obama. For him, economic enterprise and meritocracy are, at a gut level, neocolonial code words for subjugating and taking advantage of others. He wants nothing to do with an exceptionalism that encourages such attributes.
Tocqueville’s observations are updated in a more recent book,
American Exceptionalism
, by sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset. In it the author lists several features of contemporary America that are unique. Americans, he writes, are very patriotic—much more so than Europeans—and tend to view their country as superior to every other country. Moreover, Americans, almost uniquely, believe that the rest of the world would be much better off if it adopted the American way. Americans also think they are a providential nation, with God on their side. If this were not bad enough, from Obama’s point of view, Lipset also remarks that Americans tend to agree with Calvin Coolidge when he said that “the business of America is business.” In addition, Americans tend to look favorably on the rich because the rich are the ones who buy things and run companies and thus create jobs for the rest of society. Lipset says that while there have been vigorous socialist parties in Europe, socialism has never found a strong appeal in the United States. He observes that this may be because the ordinary guy has it pretty good in America. Lipset cites Werner Sombart’s dictum that in America “all socialist utopias have come to grief on roast beef and apple pie.”
12
Given Obama’s hostility to what he regards as American militarism, as well as his antipathy to concentrations of wealth, it is easy to see why Obama decided to distance himself from American exceptionalism, even though his success in America is a clear illustration of it.
American Exceptionalism
, by sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset. In it the author lists several features of contemporary America that are unique. Americans, he writes, are very patriotic—much more so than Europeans—and tend to view their country as superior to every other country. Moreover, Americans, almost uniquely, believe that the rest of the world would be much better off if it adopted the American way. Americans also think they are a providential nation, with God on their side. If this were not bad enough, from Obama’s point of view, Lipset also remarks that Americans tend to agree with Calvin Coolidge when he said that “the business of America is business.” In addition, Americans tend to look favorably on the rich because the rich are the ones who buy things and run companies and thus create jobs for the rest of society. Lipset says that while there have been vigorous socialist parties in Europe, socialism has never found a strong appeal in the United States. He observes that this may be because the ordinary guy has it pretty good in America. Lipset cites Werner Sombart’s dictum that in America “all socialist utopias have come to grief on roast beef and apple pie.”
12
Given Obama’s hostility to what he regards as American militarism, as well as his antipathy to concentrations of wealth, it is easy to see why Obama decided to distance himself from American exceptionalism, even though his success in America is a clear illustration of it.
So far, we have been exploring the little incidents that show the relevance of Obama’s anti-colonial ideology. Now let’s use our theory to explain Obama’s stance on some bigger issues. Here is the cover story from the June 26, 2010,
New York Times
: “In Deal, New Authority Over Wall Street.” The article reports that the Obama administration has succeeded in convincing Congress to impose “an overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system” that will “vastly expand the authority of the federal government.” The legislation “imposes new rules” and also “levies hefty fees on the financial services industry, essentially forcing big banks and hedge funds to pay the projected $20 billion, five-year cost of the new oversight they will face. In addition, it empowers regulators to liquidate failing companies, fundamentally altering the balance between government and industry.”
13
Now this can be read as a typical liberal or socialist-style attempt to redistribute the wealth, but that’s not a very good explanation, because there’s no redistributing going on here. This is about power, control, and bringing the money industry under the thumb of the federal government. This is about the federal government nailing the fat cats and making them cover the cost of the operation.
New York Times
: “In Deal, New Authority Over Wall Street.” The article reports that the Obama administration has succeeded in convincing Congress to impose “an overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system” that will “vastly expand the authority of the federal government.” The legislation “imposes new rules” and also “levies hefty fees on the financial services industry, essentially forcing big banks and hedge funds to pay the projected $20 billion, five-year cost of the new oversight they will face. In addition, it empowers regulators to liquidate failing companies, fundamentally altering the balance between government and industry.”
13
Now this can be read as a typical liberal or socialist-style attempt to redistribute the wealth, but that’s not a very good explanation, because there’s no redistributing going on here. This is about power, control, and bringing the money industry under the thumb of the federal government. This is about the federal government nailing the fat cats and making them cover the cost of the operation.
Two examples provide further evidence that this anti-colonial reading is on the right track. According to news reports, Obama took particular pleasure in personally approving the firing of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner. This was the first time in American history that the president of the United States had essentially booted out the head of a private company. Sure, Obama had a pretext for doing so: GM was doing poorly, and the government had injected a big dollop of bailout money. I am not saying that Wagoner didn’t deserve the boot. I am saying that the firing was a demonstration of Obama’s desire to show big corporate CEOs in America who’s boss. How exhilarating for an anti-colonialist to exercise such power against the regnant bigwigs! Another example: in the past year, several banks have attempted to pay back their stimulus money. But in some cases the Obama administration said no, we are not going to take it. Obama announced a “stress test” for banks in which he, not the banks, would decide whether they were financially sound and thus eligible to give the money back. In effect, Obama was saying: I want to maintain my control over you even when there is no reason to do so, even when you are ready to return the bailout money.
Other books
Cursed! by Maureen Bush
The Truest Pleasure by Robert Morgan
Allison (A Kane Novel) by Steve Gannon
The Tsunami Countdown by Boyd Morrison
Punk and Zen by JD Glass
Blood Rules by John Trenhaile
A Week in the Woods by Andrew Clements
Seduced by the Wolf by Bonnie Vanak
Dreams Made Flesh by Anne Bishop
Crazy for Love by Victoria Dahl