The lost prophet of the Frankfurt School, who was, with hitherto unrevealed redemptive and messianic qualities restore the dream of social justice and economic prosperity for an all regardless of race, creed, or taste. The man who could pull back Walter Benjamin from the cliff of nihilism and trade the sword of messianic violence for a ploughshare. He was constructed and hawked, in the best snake oil tradition of Yankee Huckerism and straight out peddling as the genuine article, completely authentic, a prodigal son who magically appeared out of left field, a street legal dyed in the wool liberal of unprecedented intellectual capacity. The master of the “quick study.”
So what happened to this near genius figure, the seemingly from Galilee that we in the end, know so little about. Whose entire candidacy and presidency was based on the phenomenon of Barack Obama and not the nuts and bolts mechanics that would take the smoke and mirror imagery and convert it into something a little more figurative and less fabricated out of spare parts. How is it that this Hemingway character, this sort of Golem manufactured out of clay by the likes of Alinsky and Axelrod can, in a presidential debate, be checked into the boards and thrown over the rails, and perhaps under a bus by what was presupposed to be a phlegmatic Romney incarnated, if briefly as Chuck Norris and Scott Stevens.
Michael Lewis and his spiffy, preppy, but soppy and 99% drivel of a fawn piece, “Obama’s Way,” emphasized the Obamster’s competitive nature and determination to deal with America’s social and economic issues. What was not evoked, but could be posited is an narcissistic, but highly intelligent manipulator who when he doesn’t get his way falls back into arse-hole mode and uses his leverage of power to crap on whoever he pleases.
Not that America cannot use a public health system and educational system of quality and value, but are these needs, in the end, just another part of the posturing and gesture, the platforms to convey a sense of moral superiority? Hard to say, although mucjh comes back down the ladder to Obama’s vaunted level of intelligence. Granted, he can walk and chew gum simultaneously, but it is a brightness, a contextually intelligence radared to a given sphere of Ivy league demands, and within that institutional parameter of which an unwholesome part is brainwashing, how really smart is that? The real oingo boingos that sping out of the box don’t follow that trail.
Obama’s own autobiography is also fluff-light hair salon, Readers Digest Cum Laude material; the defense being to dumb down the content to reach the median brained voter discerned to be something out of John Updike’s world of Rabbit Redux, evolved enough not to burn down a black neighbor’s house. But then again, the reasoning is condescending and demeaning. Maybe there is just not that much there. Conservatives have identified a sort of Commie/Marxist strain, but it is more readily seen as a kind of vampiring of the aesthetics than an actual radical disposition. At best, a very expensive champagne socialist who doesn’t like to share his toys. In 2008, Mc Cain was not an inferior candidate, but after Bush the flavor was really for the Brand New Shiny,and as quickly created, one that can be readily disposed of as well.
Very insightful. (see link at end)….
To understand the situation you need to look back into Obama’s background (especially as recounted by David Maraniss in his definitive – nothing is definitive, really – work on the formation of Obama.)
Obama is well ahead of most recent American presidents in terms of intellect and literary abilities. George W. Bush could not write a coherent paragraph and co
not form a complete sentence on his own, even if his life depended on it. But Obama has a history of not preparing: classmates said that he would not work hard and relied on his wits, and then showed up for exams and would do quite well. Obama knew that he had what it takes to excel academically. But there were clear reasons for his bad performance yesterday.
…Not that Obama tried to rule as a progressive: the man does not have a history of radicalism, the tales of Fox News notwithstanding. When he went to be interviewed for his first job as a community organizer, he made sure to ask his interviewer whether the outfit is one of those leftist organizations with which he wanted nothing to do. Obama was a man either of the center or without a core belief system at all (like Bill Clinton).
But Obama performed brilliantly back in 2008 against McCain. Mccain is a lousy debater and is too grouchy on camera. He is the stereotype of the “grumpy old man.” Romney is quite different: while he is a right-wing conservative (at least in his recent rebirth), he has a sunny personality and has the advantage of being constantly underestimated. Romney does not come across as very intelligent, but people forget that he attended Harvard Law School AND Business School simultaneously, and was top ranked at both of them. And he came to the debate very prepared, as he always does.
Obama appeared listless as if he lost the passion to rule. He also appeared to think that Romney was as bad a debater as John McCain. He seemed bored and apathetic. But he also seemed arrogant. His high opinion of himself and his intellect prevented him from taking his opponent seriously. He seemed to just show up on stage thinking that he could wing it on live TV….Read More:http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/obama-debate
Paul Kengor:…He is, however, clearly afraid to address the elephant in the living room of the Obama story — namely, Obama’s political radicalism, and particularly a young Obama’s obvious interest in communism in the late 1970s and early 1980s, precisely when he knew Frank Marshall Davis.
For the record, Frank Marshall Davis was introduced to Obama by Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Dunham introduced his grandson to Davis in the 1970s — by one (authoritative) account as early as 1970. He did so for the purpose of mentoring. And what a mentor he chose: Davis had been a literal card-carrying member of Communist Party USA (CPUSA). I have the FBI pages that list Davis’s CPUSA number, which was 47544. I reprint the FBI pages in the appendix of my book. Davis did outrageous pro-Soviet propaganda work for CPUSA organs like the Chicago Star and the Honolulu Record. His writings unerringly parroted the Soviet line. Like other CPUSA members, he was a loyal Soviet patriot.
The liberal Obama biographers who bother to acknowledge Davis frame him as an innocent victim of McCarthyism. That’s nonsense. McCarthy never came anywhere near Davis. No, it was anti-communist Democrats who pursued Davis, at least in part because Davis’s chief target was Democratic President Harry Truman, the man opposing Joe Stalin. Davis’s pro-Soviet/communist activities were first flagged in a 1944 report by the Democrat-run House Committee on Un-American Activities. When he was finally called to Washington to testify for those activities, it was by the Democrat-run Senate Judiciary Committee. It was the Democratic Senate that, in a 1957 report (tellingly) titled “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States,” stated categorically that Davis was “an identified member of the Communist Party.”
And this, ladies and gentlemen, was a man who would go on to mentor the current president of the United States of America.
So, how does David Maraniss deal with Frank Marshall Davis? I’ve been eagerly awaiting his biography to get that answer. I was not optimistic. Prior to the biography, Maraniss in August 2008 had written a 10,000-word profile of Obama’s Hawaii years for the Washington Post, so lengthy that it prints 17 pages in the web version. And yet, somehow, even with all those words, and seemingly no space limitations by the Post, Maraniss managed to avoid a single mention of Frank Marshall Davis. Yep, not one.