From my new VDARE.com column:
The good news about Obama and his radical past: he can probably be deterred. Barack Hussein Obama is more Hussein than Osama, an opportunist rather than a fanatic.
While his heart may be black, his head is quite white, the epitome of the small-town Midwest where his maternal grandparents originated. He's conflict-averse, cautious, polite, eager-to-please, sensitive, and insecure, with a Sally Field-style need to be liked.
So, Obama's radical principles have repeatedly pushed him left … right up to the point where he starts worrying that if he goes any farther to the left, not everybody will like him anymore, and that could endanger his amazing rise to power. Thus, he compromises and accepts promotion to the next level in return for selling out.
Up through now, Obama has been focused on attaining more power for himself rather than on actually using the power he already has to benefit the people in whose name he has promoted himself. He's kept his eyes on the prize: the White House.
For example, … Obama got a lot more out of the Harvard Law Review than the Harvard Law Review got out of Obama.
Once he makes the White House, though, it will be put up or shut up time for Obama. All those compromises he has made to maintain his political viability within the system will have paid off. Now it will be time for him to redeem some of those promises he made to himself, to his wife Michelle, and to his Rev. Wright.
That's a frightening picture … especially when you realize that Obama is not some run-of-the-mill political talent like Jimmy Carter or even Bill Clinton. He might well be a once-in-a-generation superstar, like Huey Long.
The good news, though, is that politics never ends. Much to the disappointment of Obama cultists, January 20, 2009 would not mark Day One of the Year Zero. Obama's inauguration would merely be a brief lull before mundane struggles over seeming minutia such as appointments to federal agencies, struggles in which Obama can be tied up … if enough of the public understands who he really is.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
32 comments:
The reality of Obama & Clinton is a major reason why I'm not too concerned about who wins this November's election. Americans have spent the last 7 years getting acquainted with the worst elements of modern (mostly neo-) conservative thought while conservatives have also been getting the blame for policies of George W Bush that are in no way conservative at all. A 2-4 year reacquaintance with the worst of the modern left will remind Americans of why they've rejected the radical left so many times.
If Obama or Clinton behave in office as they'd like to we'd soon see a repeat of 1994.
especially when you realize that Obama is not some run-of-the-mill political talent like Jimmy Carter or even Bill Clinton
I have to think you're mistaking speechifying skills with cutting-backroom-deals skills. Bill Clinton was a decent speaker (at least according to some) but terrific at bargining and cutting deals (and selling the White House).
Obama MIGHT be that great, or better, but nothing in his political history supports such a conlcusion. He is (for some) an inspiring speaker. But when he has to start justifying the actual political choices he's making his speeking skills will probably fail him.
The troubling thing about either Obama or McCain as President is that we are facing some real difficult issues, in most ways much more difficult than the problems that Reagan faced in 1981.
And having a confused, media based President (and both McCain and Obama are media creations, at least as politicians) won’t help us at all.
Having the Clintons back in the White House would be the safest course over the short term, but certainly won’t help to clarify political issues over the long term. But I’m still not sure that Obama or McCain will bring “short term pain” for “long term gain.” It is more likely that the disastrous course either would take us would result in lasting if not irreversible damage and decline.
Steve,
Joel Waldfogel has a article in Slate where he (inadvertently) explains how (ethnic) diversity comes at the expense of (economic) diversity:
Ten years ago, I started studying radio-station listening patterns. I noticed that people listened to the radio more in metro areas of the United States with relatively large populations. This is not terribly surprising. In larger cities, more stations can attract enough listeners and advertising revenue to cover their costs and stay on the air. With more to choose from on the dial, residents tune in more. So, in this situation of high fixed costs (each station needs a following to keep broadcasting), people help one another by making more options viable.
But who benefits whom? When I looked at black and white listeners separately, I noticed something surprising. Blacks listen more in cities with larger black populations, and whites listen more in cities with larger white populations. Black listening does not increase where there's a higher white population, and white listening does not increase with a higher black population. Which means that while overall people help each other by increasing the number of stations on the dial, blacks do not help whites, and whites do not help blacks. Similar patterns arise for Hispanics and non-Hispanics.
A closer look at the data—necessary only because I'm a middle-aged white economist—showed why this was happening. Blacks and whites don't listen to the same radio stations. The black-targeted formats account for about two-thirds of black listening and only 3 percent of white listening. Similarly, the formats that attract the largest white audiences, like country, attract almost no blacks. This means that if you dropped Larry the Cable Guy and a few thousand of his friends from a helicopter (with parachutes) into a metro area, you'd create more demand for country and perhaps album-rock stations, which would be nice for white listeners. But the influx wouldn't help black listeners at all.
Ethnic diversity makes communities less vibrant in ways that people are likely to find meaningful.
In my opinion, the foreign policy of the USA won't change - we will still be in Iraq, very possibly attack Iran, and support every 3rd world dictator who boils his opponents alive.
This is simply "putting lipstick on a pig", with a friendly face of Obama becoming the PR front man for USA, inc.
In case you cannot tell, I am a centre-left kind of guy.
Good blog btw - if a bit racialist.
The thing many Americans don't realise, most probably due to the incessant sanitization of primitive black behaviour by the media, is that much of the world holds disdain for anything African. You can call this racist or colonialist but it is a fact. So an Obama presidency will simply lead to America losing an enormous amount of prestige and respect internationally. Even though the NYT editors will miss a turn at the bathroom in order to write another fawning piece about Chavez, Kim or the Chinese, in fact most of these dictators hold low opinions of anything African and secretly admire western culture. They are also not likely to believe all the Obama hyping which is really intended for gullible city whites in the US. Even blacks in Africa know where the goodies come from and do not trust their own leaders.
Obama will be our next President and articles by Steve Sailer (of all people) will not deter him from making the kind of appointments and policy recommendations that he wants.
He will push liberal policies and America will love him.
He will push liberal policies and America will love him.
Mmm hmm.
And he will usher in 1,000 years of peace, the dead shall rise from their graves, and the wicked shall face their doom.
Consider these problems:
1) A trade deficit of nearly $1 trillion
2) A dollar in freefall (helping the trade deficit, a little.)
3) A mortgage crisis about to be made worse by yet even more requirements to "help minority borrowers."
4) Gasline approaching $4 per gallon.
5) School performance getting worse thanks to more children of illiterate peasants entering the system.
6) Water shortages, lengthening commute times, and declining wages - all thanks to high levels of immigration.
7) Medicare and social security going bust.
8) Annual debt service of $700 billion+
Yes, there is the possibility that we will face them rationally. There is the more likely possibility that with a Republican president (McCain) like Schwarzenegger, we will not. Or that with a Democrat Congress and White House in the mode of Fabian Nunez that - well, that we won't.
I gotta admit Sailer's constant hackjobs against Obama just makes me like him even more; but I just read this blog semi-weekly for the laughs.
March-on fighters of White guilt!
"He will push liberal policies and America will love him."
And when those policies turn out the same way they did under Lyndon Baines Johnson, then it means we just have to try harder!
This is one of the reasons I am supporting Obama. For example, I am betting that he will not get his illegal immigrant amnesty through without substantial compromise, especially if Webb is his running mate.
At the same time, the fact that he has no real solutions to problems like economic inequality, failing public schools, etc., means that their will be an opening for some really fresh thinking on these problems. Put that together with all the new energy and idealism he is pulling into the Democratic party, and we may have the makings of a truly transformative moment in American politics -- one that bears little relationship to the tired old liberal cliches of the past, and even less to the trendy leftist nostroms he grew up with.
Of course, all this is a gamble -- but a better gamble, in my judgment, than electing McCain, and risking four more years of the disastrous course we are on.
Of course, Hillary would be safer than either of these candidates -- but also less likely to break new ground.
So who you gonna vote for Steve? We all want to know.
In my opinion, the foreign policy of the USA won't change - we will still be in Iraq, very possibly attack Iran, and support every 3rd world dictator who boils his opponents alive.
There is clearly a contradiction here, since Iraq and Iran are (or was, in the case of Iraq) cruel dictatorships. Perhaps that's too much of a "neo-con" thing to say in your book, but it's nevertheless true.
We have supported and will continue to support some dictators; other, not so much.
I think there is a real danger to an Obama Presidency. He will be in a position to offer the democrats 30 years worth of denied wish-fullfillment (Clinton couldn't do this because of a republican congress and his mere plurality share of the vote). And, unlike with Clinton, with Obama in charge, the republicans will cave-in completely. Merely threaten to call them racist, and they will deny him nothing. At least for a couple of years. Obama and a democratic congress could do a lot of damage in two years.
McCain will probably cave in to the democrats too, on any and all domestic issues, so long as he is allowed to be the cartoon super-hero war-lord he longs to be.
I view Hillary as the least objectionable option. She starts out with a lot of baggage: She's hated by half the nation, hated even by a lot of liberals. She's a bad organizer, a bad speaker, and a bad liar. Hers could be a crippled, almost lame-duck presidency from day one.
BTW, American Goy: I liked your analysis of the "Global Patriot" incident. You're right - just the name of the ship alone, speaks volumes about what is wrong with this country.
"I have long expected that America would soon have a black President. But I assumed he would come from a background of objective, non-racial accomplishment—a military leader, perhaps a football coach turned governor, or a mayor of a mostly non-black city."
Yeah, I expected that too. Back around 1990 here in the UK BBC2's highbrow 'Newsnight' news tv show did a piece where they predicted the future over the next 25 years; predicting the glorious advance of their beloved European Community/Union and the economic collapse of the USA - as I recall their prediction ended with the USA and EU going to war over fishing rights (probably who would steal Iceland's fish, but it was presented as good EU vs evil USA of course). One of their predictions was the election of a radical leftist Hispanic President of the USA. I was scornful - "Sure there'll be an Hispanic President, but he'll be a war hero, probably a Republican!". Hmm, wrong on both counts. A 15% Hispanic population turns out to mean a 6% Hispanic vote, and it also turns out that minorities apparently don't have to be war heroes, or even reassuring centrists, to be President.
Still I suspect this couldn't have happened without GW Bush, he really lowered the bar for all future candidates.
Ben Franklin said...
The troubling thing about either Obama or McCain as President is that we are facing some real difficult issues, in most ways much more difficult than the problems that Reagan faced in 1981.
Exactly.
This points to a problem that has troubled me for some time now.
The more complex our problems become the more over-simplified the solutions.
Not a good combination. But there's no question that they've been growing in exact proportion to each other.
In an age of celebrity we don't live by principles, we live by personalities. This is one of the most perfect manifestations of Codepdendency, and in my view, the Age of Codependency subsumes the Age of Celebrity.
I've been posting over a year now at various places about how we need to re-examine our study of Codpendency. Most recently at the comment section of Mansizedtarget, where I refer to Obama as THE candidate of Codependency. When Mr. Sailer calls for "informed" citizens, this would be one area, actually, in my view, THE area of study that would certainly inform us in a way nothing else can match, about Mr. Obama, and not just him.
Born again Democrat,
"At the same time, the fact that he has no real solutions to problems like economic inequality, failing public schools, etc., means that their will be an opening for some really fresh thinking on these problems. Put that together with all the new energy and idealism he is pulling into the Democratic party,..."
What "fresh thinking?" What "new energy and idealism?" The blather from the Democrats never ends: after forty years of failure, we'll just pour the same old Great Society wine into new skins.
Steve, I think you make a couple of assumption errors in the piece.
You assume that Obama's lack of production at Harvard Law Review was a function of his moderation and desire to leave no paper trail. The other explanation is that he was lazy or simply unable to produce much, and was selected merely because he was Black and well-spoken.
Second, Obama has promised the moon to his ultra-liberal white supporters and Black Nationalists. He'd have to deliver on reparations for slavery, freeing black inmates for disparate sentencing, and dismantling the military as he's promised. Or there would be hell to pay from his supporters. With an Obama win there would be no one to hold him accountable, the media, judiciary, and Congress would all roll over as they did in Venezuela and Argentina for their caudillos.
Third, you underestimate the danger that Obama's weakness presents wrt foreign affairs. Pakistan has over 100 nukes, poorly guarded, and the nation is shot through with AQ and Taliban, who control sizeable chunks of territory forbidden by agreement to the military and government. Being weak and anti-American only encourages unhealthy and dangerous aggression by AQ/Taliban, we saw what it cost on 9/11. With nukes it could be far worse. That's leaving aside North Korea's "nukes for cash" emporium and Iran's nuclear ambition (not even Europe believes the NIE).
Last, you assume that because a man like Hussein is not a fanatic he's not dangerous. Tojo was not a fanatic. Stalin was not a fanatic. An enemy is dangerous if he has the means and intent to harm your country, and can't be reasonably deterred. Right now few in the Muslim world fear the US and most believe asymmetric rules favor Muslim terror and constrain US response.
Probably the best choice is McCain. He's not Ike but the best chance of credible threats to deter both Iran and elements inside Pakistan. Obama and Clinton are more like Adlai Stevenson, unable to inspire fear in adversaries.
I see a lot of wishful thinking, particularly by leftists, in that the "safe" Cold War nuclear duo-opoly is projected into today and the future. In foreign affairs the real challenge is nuclear proliferation (which is unstoppable) and lack of any bipartisan framework for deterring attack. A McCain would at least articulate (Bush has been shameful in this area) a policy of explicit retaliation on nations if the US was nuked by terrorists. Who will get nuked, and how to get off the list (dump their nukes).
I don't see either Obama or Hillary articulating that. GWB clearly failed in his "transformational" gamble, isolationism and "negotiations" without credible threats is useless.
[if Google mangles my "name" call me "testing99"]
Obama is clueless when it comes to Latinos. Completely. Clueless.
Obama seems to think (along with many whites) that Brown is the new Black. Bzzt, wrong answer. Brown is the new Red. Big difference that makes.
And they are the political movers and shakers right now. They are THE American issue right now. The Bush Jr. and McCain Republicans have some big time inkling of this and have been very smart so far.
It's interesting to see the spin some Obama supporters are trying to put out, but let me bring up something Obama said a couple weeks ago in defense of illegal immigrants. He said at a rally (I'm paraphrasing), "Now we're not just going to deport millions of people. First of all, we're a country of immigrants....."
Ahhhh, that old tripe. We can't deport the people who came illegally yesterday or today because we're a country of immigrants! And of course, we can't deport people who enter illegally tomorrow or the next day because we're a country of immigrants!
Now enter Dolores Huerta, cofounder of the UFW who gave a talk last week co-sponsored by MEChA. Some excerpts include, "We didn't cross the border. The border crossed us.", a claim that the Minuteman Project was linked to the US govt. (if only!), and the assertion that deportations of illegal aliens last year was "ethnic cleansing". Following in the racial healing of Obama, she declared of anti-illegal immigration movements, " "'It's really too late. If 47 million (Latinos) have one baby each ... it's already won.'"
People like her would feel nothing but empowered by an Obama victory.
I know whites hate thinking in racial terms, but face it: if Obama wins, you will see economic war declared on white America and middle class America.
-Vanilla Thunder
Obama is the future of this country. The racists on this site that are afraid of an Obama presidency are shaking in their boots because it would signal the end of their way of thinking.
In the future, all people in the USA will be mixed race like Obama. Welcome to the future.
Long live Obama!!!!!!!!!
"Anonymous said...
....He (Obama) said at a rally (I'm paraphrasing), "Now we're not just going to deport millions of people. First of all, we're a country of immigrants....."
Ahhhh, that old tripe. We can't deport the people who came illegally yesterday or today because we're a country of immigrants! And of course, we can't deport people who enter illegally tomorrow or the next day because we're a country of immigrants!"
It is tiresome, isn't it? It's a pity that Mohammed Atta and his band of sadistic killers didn't hit the Statue of Liberty instead. It would have killed far fewer people, and it would have rid us of that now noxious symbol, and that poem by Emma Lazarus, which in many people's minds has taken on the force of law. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." Give me a break. She doesn't sound like Lady Liberty so much as a Salvation Army goody-two-shoes lighting the door to the rescue mission.
king obama sed
"In the future, all people in the USA w"
What's so cool about being mixed race? Having endless identity problems, not being as hot looking as a white chick, being less intelleigent, what?
Steve I'm afraid that you're right. My fingers are crossed in the hope that Obama will be a Trajan Horse but in reality I imagine that he'll be worth shit. In fact here's a transcript of a-moment-ago's chat with a fellow blogger:
me: By the way, you care much about this upcoming election? Personally I see two identitical folk running so while I'll vote for the Dem (even though I like McCain better as a person) I put very little stock in Barack. What America deserves (but will never get - and likely wouldn't even help but would rather make matters worse) is a bloody revolution. There are sins that need to be paid for. Wait, the Patriot Acts expired, right?
Sent at 1:57 AM on Tuesday
other guy: Well, yes, I do...I don;t believe any Democrat is going to be the savior or anything, but they will be considerably better than McCain...I felt the way you did in the 2000 election and regret it deeply. This country is in for some hard times and we need to get some halfway intelligent people in positions of power. The Republican party is a passle of corrupt idiots.
Sent at 2:04 AM on Tuesday
me: Yeah, I don't see it. The only Democrat I was able to get even remotely excited about was Edwards. I'm sure his soul was as rotten as the rest of our politicians but he had a lot of verbiage he was going to have to live up to. Barack though will be so happy to find himself in teh Oval office that he won;t do shit. I mean sure, if another Katrina comes along he might send help a little faster but to think that he's going to bring us into the civilized world when it comes to healthcare, labor laws and whatnot - humbug.
Sent at 2:08 AM on Tuesday
mnuez
[T]he fact that he has no real solutions to problems...means that their will be an opening for some really fresh thinking on these problems. Put that together with all the new energy and idealism he is pulling into the Democratic party, and we may have the makings of a truly transformative moment in American politics.
Ummm...yeah, man. Sounds groovy to me.
Are these the same New Democrats that rioted at the '68 convention? Or the same New Democrats that formed the Clinton Administration? Or are they the same New Democrats elected to such great acclaim in 2006?
Where was all the brand new thinking, third way politics we kept getting promised?
Leftist Democrats (a redundancy, I know) keep giving us the same old white elephant ideas wrapped up in new and excitingly different paper. It certainly won't change with the election of Barack Obama. All of the friends I have who support Obama are totally sold on the old, failed ideas.
The only advantage to electing Obama is that he would prove, yet again, and perhaps moreso than anyone else, why those old ideas are so bad, and why they're so unpopular when people are confronted with them. We're far mor elikely to get a conservative Republican Congress in 2010 with Obama or Clinton in the White House than with McCain there. That's the best argument for their election. Leaving Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire are two more.
It is tiresome, isn't it? It's a pity that Mohammed Atta and his band of sadistic killers didn't hit the Statue of Liberty instead. It would have killed far fewer people, and it would have rid us of that now noxious symbol, and that poem by Emma Lazarus, which in many people's minds has taken on the force of law. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."
Finally, stating your case with some honesty.
That whole "border crossed us" thing. Well, it's true. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. That all used to be Mexico. Pesky things, facts. Anyone care to deal with these facts head-on?
Anyone?
Anyone?
William:
In Latin America there is significant race mixing, to the point that almost everyone is mixed to some degree or another, but nice try at feeding me some B.S.
Don't worry, when your daughter gets some "jungle fever", your grandchildren will be mixed as well.
Welcome to the future!!!!!!!!
Poor Richard said:
"That whole "border crossed us" thing. Well, it's true. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. That all used to be Mexico. Pesky things, facts. Anyone care to deal with these facts head-on? "
So?
Know how many Mexican citizens were living in those lands in 1848?
A whopping 75,000.
Know how many Mexican citizens were living in all of Califoria in 1848?
California was stuffed to the gills with all of 7500 Spanish speakers.
The vast majority of Mexican-Americans alive today are descended from people who immigrated to the US at some time in the 20th century.
If Russia seized Alaska and I emigrated there illegally from the lower 48, would you be feeding Moscow the "borders crossed us" line?
I just plain don't care if we annexed the Southwest. If we hadn't, then California and Arizona would simply be impoverished areas of Mexico and all the Mexicans would be undocumented workers in Oregon and British Columbia.
-Vanilla Thunder
"That whole "border crossed us" thing. Well, it's true. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. That all used to be Mexico. Pesky things, facts. Anyone care to deal with these facts head-on? "
The key phrase is "used to be". I’ll keep this simple. There was a war that Mexico lost. Then the Mexican government ceded those territories as part of the peace settlement. Don't take my word for it, try this on for size:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo
Any more facts you would like to kick around?
"That whole "border crossed us" thing. Well, it's true. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. That all used to be Mexico. Pesky things, facts. Anyone care to deal with these facts head-on? "
Germany is calling and it wants Alsace and East Prussia back!
Mexico lost wars and territory, just like many other countries in history who've proved themselves to be a lot less whiny about that reality than Mexico. The vast majority of Mexicans in the United States are not the ancestors of those who lived in what is now Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, or California prior to these becoming states. If it makes the Mexicans feel any better, they can always take consolation in the fact that they stole the land themselves from the Apaches, Comanches, Navajos, Utes, and numerous peaceful Indian tribes in southern California who were driven into oblivion through the Spanish mission system. As for today's Hispanics, the border didn't cross them, they crossed the border. Want to deal with those facts head-on?
"poor richard said...
....It's a pity that Mohammed Atta and his band of sadistic killers didn't hit the Statue of Liberty instead. It would have killed far fewer people, and it would have rid us of that now noxious symbol, and that poem by Emma Lazarus, which in many people's minds has taken on the force of law. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."
Finally, stating your case with some honesty."
Yeah, so, what's your point? This nation was NOT founded on immigration. It used to be a nation - the expression of an actual people, their culture, and traditions. How many strangers have you taken in to your home recently?
"That whole "border crossed us" thing. Well, it's true. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. That all used to be Mexico. Pesky things, facts. Anyone care to deal with these facts head-on?"
And by what right does Mexico claim those four states? Not because many mexicans lived there. They claim that land because it was part of the Spanish empire in the Americas, and when they broke from Spain, they claimed all that Spain did. Mexico's claim to land in the U.S. is based on the legacy of white european imperialism, no less than ours. The differences are: 1.) we backed up our imperialism with people, 2.) we improved the lands we conquered (Mexico didn't do squat with them), and 3.) our claim is more recent.
"That whole "border crossed us" thing. Well, it's true. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. That all used to be Mexico. Pesky things, facts. Anyone care to deal with these facts head-on?
Anyone?"
Tons of people have dealt with these facts head on. And tons of people would be happy to give up at least some of these states to Mexicanization if it meant Latino crime, welfare dependency, illiteracy, and uncontrolled population were stopped from spreading the rest of the country.
What are the odds The Race would accept that kind of a compromise? We are a colony. Colonies are not in a position to bargain.
It's so hard to figure out what the socialists view as the Correct Historical Period. Before California and Arizona were part of Mexico, they weren't part of Mexico. Which socialists exactly are suggesting that the Mexicans quit speaking Spanish and start worshipping Quetzlcoatl again? Actually, the Aztecs are invaders to the region just like everyone else. Really, it should be the Toltecs running everything.
But really, before there were people on the planet, there weren't any people on the planet, so in order to be Socialistically Correct we really should all start acting like animals. Which is, more or less, what the socialists openly prescribe, with their open borders, destruction of families, decriminalized violence, and criminalized self-defense.
Post a Comment