Controversial Article: Read At Your Own Riskwebdev
This is an article worth reading. It is a liberal critic by a normally liberal news outlet.
It is the kind of scrutiny that all potential presidents should be subjected to (before the election) and it addresses the issue of racism.
I Too Have Become Disillusioned
—by Matt Patterson (Columnist, Washington Post, New York Post & San Francisco Examiner)
August 27, 2012
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.
How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer;” a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and, finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling Associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor.
It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day.
But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal-dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be?
As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate.
All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
THIS REALLY BOTHERS ME. And it should greatly concern you.
How does a man of this caliber attain the highest office in the land?
How can a majority of the people be so duped? We are talking hundreds of millions here, and what does that say about our educational system?
And most importantly, what are we going to do about it? Sorry to say it, but electing a really good president (only time can tell) is not the answer. What happens when no really good candidate is running–lesser of to evils, right? If I hear that phrase one more time I think I will be sick.
Only its people can determine the long term direction of a nation. If a people are strong culturally, morally, economically, and are well educated, they will naturally choose good leaders who will continue providing leadership that promotes these things. If a people are culturally weak, bankrupt in both their morals and their finances, and have little personal discipline, they will always choose leaders who promise the moon, provide bread and circuses, and who look the other way.
From a historical perspective, things do not look good for Americans. Heard that before? Great, here are our current choices:
1. Become aware of our dire situation (foreign policy, economy, domestic affairs, culture, national morality, etc.) and develop a personal, family and community plan to rectify the deficiencies.
2. Acknowledge our real situation but continue as we are and hoping for the best, someone will eventually fit it.
3. Actually ignore our situation and living the good life as long as it lasts.
Personally, I am putting all of my eggs in basket number one. Other concerned citizens are helping me create a college that produces future moms and dads of the highest caliber, future citizens, business owners and community leaders who know and live by the Creed of Disinterestedness (a habit of high personal conduct, the mastery of all urgings that drive a man from his duty and the elimination of all calculations of benefit or gain at the expense of others) , and potencial state and national leaders who actually sacrifice for their country, voluntarily leaving office after a reasonable time of service, not having lined their own pockets in the process.
I’m with you on #1!
Unfortunately it’s been a 100 year process of transforming America into the urbanized rat-race that most people live in. At the end of the work-day, most people return home to their families to prepare meals and help with homework and perhaps spend an hour or two watching TV – only getting the biased reporting of the news of the day in sound bites – trusting that someone else is on top of the problems.
Most people live paycheck-to-paycheck, up to their eyeballs in debt, believing that “stuff” and “a good job” will make them happy and successful. They send their kids to government run schools that insist that “no child be left behind” and make sure of it through a series of standardized tests that are “dumbed down” a little more each year to meet the “standard”. When they are done there, the kids and the parents have been led to believe that only an expensive degree at some far off college is the only way to success these days – thus continuing the cycle of indebtedness and never seeing that they are repeating it.
The cycle can be broken.
Get out of debt. Turn off the TV and read for at least 1 hour a day (to start). Read things – old things, classics, history, philosophy – learn how the world really works and why. Read the news instead of watching it. Read the same news from a ideologically different point of view, then check the facts.
Once you have started, then you can better educate your children – which is YOUR responsibility, not the state’s!
This won’t fix things overnight, but it will plant the seeds for a better future where our children and grandchildren will look past the smoke and mirrors and “judge a man by the content of his chararcter, not the color of his skin.”
Love your note above, Chris. Couldn’t agree more.
As for post. Sigh. I am so sick of finding political editorials everywhere I look. I have already voted; chose a 3rd party candidate because I could not support either of the big two. Now you know my political leanings.
I am troubled by what I would characterize as misinformation in your post. Neither Matt Patterson nor Niall Ferguson are, or ever have been, considered “liberal”, by themselves or anyone else. Your post gives the impression that Patterson’s article was somehow related to the Newsweek cover. Patterson’s article has been bouncing around the internet for over a year and never appeared in Newsweek or any of the publications listed close to his name.
I am not an Obama supporter (obviously), but it disturbs me when so little attention is paid to facts at a place where I’ve come to expect better.
Caveat Emptor. The opinion piece referenced by Mr. Brooks was penned by Matt Patterson and first published under that title on the American Thinker website on 18 August 2011. Despite the mention of The Washington Post, the article was never published in the Washington Post or online version of that newspaper. Nor was the article published in Newsweek Magazine. A possible explanation for this error may be a result of faulty research by someone viewing publications Matt Patterson lists on his website in which his work has appeared and mistakenly or intentionally assumed this article was syndicated to all of them. Mr. Patterson isn’t a “columnist” for any of the publications mentioned, but an occasional contributor of opinion pieces and his own website lists him being a “commentator” on numerous Publications. Mr. Patterson lists himself as a “conservative” on his website. Do your own research.
Lesson learned. Thanks for the clarification.
My bad. I trusted a source for information (short on time) and I got burned. For the record, I did not verify this information and I have learned my lesson – I will always verify (and usually do) my sources before posting.
Please do not loose faith in the veracity of this blog.
Individual liberty and individual responsibility are at the heart of good self-government. When we act in harmony with the truth, we act wisely. Our freedom of choice must be balanced and tempered with the truth. Not an easy task for anyone, let alone one who lacks a sound education. Not an education certified by an arbitrary board of experts, but one certified by common sense. The founding documents of our nation and the writings of that generation provide a solid foundation for effective self-government; tempered with, dare I say it, the inspiration of God.
I read this article because a relative on Facebook recommended it. I found it rather mediocre in its attempt to discredit the President. I was disappointed that President Obama was unable to accomplish more in his first term. I ascribe that to inexperience on his part and a Congress that had, as a stated from the outset, a goal to ensure that was a one-term President. (How did that work out for ya, Mitch?)
In spite of his inexperience, President Obama successfully put the hunt for bin Laden at the top of his priority list and showed that he can be as bloodthirsty as any Republican. He was able to maneuver an inadequate (but better than nothing) health care plan into law. He ended major U.S. involvement in Iraq, but has dragged his feed on Afghanistan.
Certainly, Jill Stein would make a better President, but I knew my vote wouldn’t be enough . . . at least not this year. However, my conscience is clear.
Comments are closed.