The Shotgun Blog
« Break the costly government med-pot monopoly | Main | New Liberal leader? »
Monday, April 14, 2008
Is Barack Obama a Marxist?
In today's New York Times, William Kristol discusses Barack Obama's recent claim that bitter people in the Midwest "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
In his column, Kristol makes the obvious connection: the comments Obama made during that San Francisco fund-raiser could have come from Karl Marx. And Kristol isn't the only one to make that observation. On a recent radio show, Senator Joe Liberman was asked by former Political Animals guest Andrew Napolitano whether Barack Obama is a Marxist. Obama's fellow senator had this to say:
"Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."
Is Obama a Marxist? I address the question in a little more detail below the fold.
As many know, Karl Marx described religion as "the opiate of the people." What he wrote immediately following that line provides some context to its intended meaning:
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions."
For Marx, the happiness of the religious man is an illusion that covers his miserable plight in a capitalist society. It's not real happiness, but a mere facade, which must pale in comparison to the happiness that will come to the worker when he finally recognizes and breaks free of the chains that bind him.
In a way, Marx's comments are more flattering to the religious person than Obama's. For Marx, a society's dominant religion is a function of its economic system. It is the exploitation inherent in the capitalist system that Christianity (for example) disguises and justifies. The workers are bamboozled. They do not set out to deceive themselves into a religion because they are unhappy. Rather, they are deceived, by others, and by the economic system that defines their society.
Now think about Obama's suggestion -- that the poor unenlightened voters are basically deceiving themselves. They are unhappy with the status quo, and so they "cling" to religion in order to explain their "frustration." Obama, like many on the left, is accusing small town voters in the Midwest of being not just stupid, but cowardly, at least compared to his west coast audience. They, unlike the people of Pennsylvania and Ohio, are capable of facing the truth without a religious or ballistic crutch.
I wonder what Marx and Obama would have made of this discussion in the Wall Street Journal regarding survey results revealing that religious people are far more likely to rate themselves as happy than secular people (when controlling for other factors, the difference between religious and secular happiness was 21 percent, which is huge.)
What would Obama make of these survey results? According to him, bitter Midwest folk are so "frustrated" they can only deal with their plight by clinging to guns or to God. Unlike the San Francisco elite, they can't deal with the harsh truths and unhappiness, and so they fool themselves into religion. How would Obama explain the fact that religious people are typically happier than their secular counterparts, including, most likely, those in the very audience to whom he was speaking?
I find myself in agreement with Political Animals guest Dan Jacobson: Obama is a dead candidate walking. At the rate his campaign is unraveling, he'll soon be less electable than Karl Marx himself.
Posted by Terrence Watson on April 14, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e551e966628834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Barack Obama a Marxist?:
Comments
It's so hard the keep up with the latest naratives! First Obama was a closet Muslim who had been trained in his childhood by being schooled in a foreign madrassa. Then Obama was a Christian who attended a radical and subversive church lead by his personal "spiritual advisor" who preached treason on a regular basis. Now he is an atheist like his ideological mentor, Karl Marx, and thinks that if those morons in Pennsylvania would only stop "clinging" to that foolish religion of theirs they would be much happier.
Up next: Obama is actually a Sihk terrorist who ... oh, nevermind.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-14 7:21:41 PM
How come they never asked if Obama is in league with the Devil? Did they have to go one better and claim he is the worst of all possible things, a m a r x i s t ????? LOL! Why are clowns like Lieberman allowed to make a mockery of democracy? When will America throw off the yoke of fundamentalist religion?
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-14 7:23:36 PM
Fact Check,
It should be noted that I never called Obama a Marxist... in fact, I don't think he compares very favorably to Marx, in at least one respect: Marx had fairly well thought out views that fit together in a more-or-less comprehensive way.
In fact, Obama isn't a Marxist: he's a politician.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-14 7:29:31 PM
The smear campaign is underwar.
Barack is a
Marxist
Gay
Muslim
Uppity black who wants white girls
Uppity black who thinks he is too good for white girls
Socialist
In league with Satan
has AIDS
is related to bin Laden
is a Black Panther
a Mau Mau
a Frenchman in disguise
a cannibal
a cannibal who ate his grandmother
...
Fox News will cover it in depth. Oh, and the blog.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-14 7:42:02 PM
Terrence: "It should be noted that I never called Obama a Marxist"
It should also be noted that I never said that you did :-)
But you did say that Obama called voters "stupid" and "cowardly". You can only get to that conclusion by reading a lot into what he said. The truth is that anyone who is very politically thoughtful - no matter what their political allegiance is - believes that there is a choice that best represents the interests of the voters and other choices that do not. So when voters choose the one that they believe do not represent the voters' own interests, they have to have some story as to why the voters would do that. The explanation need not be so simple as just that they are "stupid".
Yes, lots of Democrats will tell you that the people who voted for Bush just are stupid, but any Republican who thinks that Bush best represented the voters' interests could be asked to explain why half the voters voted for Gore. "They're just stupid" might be one answer, but if it is the only answer then Republicans think no more highly of the intelligence of voters than Democrats who say the same do. People like Adam Yoshida will say things like this quite often and then will feign outrage when any political opponent says anything that can be spun as suggesting that at least some voters are less than political experts. But surely you can aspire to better than that. And perhaps unless Obama actually says "some of those voters are just dumb" you might not be so quick to read that in to his comments.
As he has explained, his point was merely that when people lose faith in politicians delivering on economic issues they will vote based on their concerns about other issues. Among those other issues might be ones that have a religious element (the so-called "values voters"). So when he tries to talk to voters about how he hopes his policies will make things better for people economically, he gets little traction.
Political opportunists (like Bill Kristol) will seize on Obama's comments and twist them for all they are worth. Why? Because they believe in their heart of hearts that there are a lot of dumb voters out there who can be persuaded to vote against Obama by convincing them that he hates them ... or because he is a radical Muslim terrorist sympathizer ... or because deep in his heart he hates America ... or whatever. These gambits could only be tried by people who believe the voters are dumb enough to vote based on them rather than, for example, their economic interests.
Of course, it also follows that the fact that such gambits sometimes do work shows that they are right: there are a lot of dumb voters. In fact, the thoughtful ones probably made up their minds about who they support long ago. The ones who are left to be persuaded and could make the difference are largely people like Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" interviewees or the voters Bill Maher has interviewed in his man-on-the-street segments. And if there is one thing dumb people hate being told, it is that they are dumb. So when people tell them that Obama thinks they are dumb, they likely will react just like dumb people would.
Bill Kristol and others on all sides of the political spectrum aspire to be like Iago. And the "swing" voters always are happy to be their Othellos.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-14 8:25:33 PM
Fact Check,
You make a lot of good points. I should point out that I'm not really incensed that Obama thinks certain voters are idiots. I buy Bryan Caplan's work on the myth of the rational voter pretty wholeheartedly. Individual voters, because they have no real incentive to be informed, rarely are informed.
But look: those of us who think that voters are stupid are typically happy to tell everyone about it. We don't save the message for a crowd of San Francisco elites who already agree with us about (some) voters being dumb -- not themselves, of course. This makes us honest men but terrible politicians.
Obama is a good politician. Maybe the best I've seen since I've started paying attention to politics, anyway. But that means, almost necessarily, that he's going to spend time telling people what he thinks they want to hear. In my experience, what left-wing audiences like to hear is that Midwest voters are stupid peons who are easily distracted and can't see what's obviously best for themselves.
That's my impression of much of the left, based on a lot of discussion with leftists both online and in person. I interpreted Obama the way I did mainly because I figured he was being a politician, affirming the biases of a group of San Francisco liberals. Even a liberal I know and love basically agreed with Obama's comments, when interpreted the way I did here.
Your interpretation of his remarks is undoubtedly more charitable, though (I think you could give lessons on the principle of charity!) But notice: I'm not disagreeing with Obama directly. What I don't like is the dishonesty I see in most politicians, and Obama's comments (interpreted as I interpreted them) are a good example of that kind of dishonesty.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-14 9:35:19 PM
Fact Check - the problem is that no one has any idea what Obama is. The man is a cipher - and his background and actions are extremely worrying, indicative of the possibility that he may actually be a hidden enemy of one type or another.
I tend to discount the Moslem theory at this point - in favor of the hard-left one. The man's background is far, far, far left and, when the mask slips, we get suggestions that he is as well.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-14 9:54:06 PM
Wow, Yoshida does not think Obama is a Muslim mole manchurian candidate.
McCain is highly unstable, emotional, irrational, given to temper tantrums and wild swings in belief and opinion, cynical, dishonest, a snarling grumpy old man with senile dementia budding a la Reagan. Probably impotent to boot. Highly incompetent too--imagine, he was flying high in a modern jet and some shoeless, illiterate peasant in a rice paddy shoots him down with a bow and arrow! My god, that takes incompetence on Pilot McCain's part--he graduated at the bottom of his class--he only got into the military academy because of his family's connections and was a disciplinary problem throughout his stay--young know-it-all hot head. That maniac is going to have his finger on the nuke button? Heaven forbid!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-14 10:03:20 PM
Well can we at least agree he is a rubbish judge of character? From the Rev Wright (a racist, jew-hating, Liberation theologist), several members of domestic terrorist groups from the 60s and quite a few other naerdowells.
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge | 2008-04-15 2:40:34 AM
Is Obama a Marxist? In his own words he referred to his brief stint in the private sector as "working for the enemy". Does he advocate statist solutions to "help" the great "bitter" unwashed left clinging to "guns" and "religion"? Who knows, he's not stupid and won't say it that honestly. Anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't bet against it. Neo-Marxist? perhaps, arrogant socialist, no doubt! Obama = Stealth Trudeau.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-04-15 11:31:11 AM
No one has mentuioned his mentor in Hawaii, Frank whom he named in his book. Turned out that the man who Barry used to spend time with and listen to the guys poetry was a long time Communist party member. So, is he a marxist? Yeah, I'd say that there is a very good chance that he leans that way at least.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-04-15 2:16:12 PM
Since I am not an American citizen, the point is moot... however, I would never vote for someone whose speech, replete with high sounding claptrap was inserted into a slo-mo music video with some group of bearded wonders lip-sync-ing it.
Roger: in this context: Definition: manic Goof, liar.
Cheers, Rog.
Posted by: DCM | 2008-04-15 3:10:03 PM
I am SO glad ROGER ( AKA LOL ) has deigned to grace us with his wisdom. Whatever would we do without his valuable and learned input?
Thank God we have a person amoung us that can keep us on track.
Posted by: atric | 2008-04-15 4:09:24 PM
Maybe I'm the only one, but I didn't take Obama's comments in the usual way. I'm a Canadian, by the way, so I have no partisan opinion. But I thought that he was saying that when people are in some kind of serious trouble--in this case, economic--they fall back on long-held values, opinions, even stereotypes to try to make sense of their world. It's a bit like saying, There are no atheists in foxholes.
It seemed to me that Obama was suggesting that the economically marginalized people in Pennsylvania, in their pessimism and frustration, might turn to politicians who stood for the old verities that worked in the past. Since Obama sees himself as heavily into changing some of those old political verities, he was anticipating that Pennsylvanians would more likely support a status quo person like Clinton.
Posted by: John R. Sutherland | 2008-04-15 4:15:38 PM
John R. Sutherland,
YOU SAID ...
"It seemed to me that Obama was suggesting that the economically marginalized people in Pennsylvania, in their pessimism and frustration, might turn to politicians who stood for the old verities that worked in the past."
I SAY ...
Barry Hussein wants Americans to turn to the old fashioned verities of socialism that DID NOT work in the past and will not work in the future or any time in between. It's a bankrupt system (pun intended).
I suggest you do have partisan opinion in that you are supporting the same kinds of things that Jack Layton is promoting. You are a leftist. If not, you would see through Barry's bullshit.
Posted by: John West | 2008-04-15 5:36:56 PM
Except for the schoolboyish sarcasm from the usual suspects, this is a very entertaining and thoughtful discussion. Thanks.
Posted by: Crusader10 | 2008-04-15 10:15:08 PM
A few weeks back during the Rev. Wright controversy (the religious Wright), Glenn Beck had an interesting guest.
The former US ambassador to the United Nations recognized the stuff Wright was spouting as Marxist-inspired Liberation Theology.
He pointed out this type of Marxism dressed up as religion appeared in countries run by Marxist regimes in Africa and South America.
Although Wright's history is sketchy, the south Chicago neighbourhood in which he and Obama are from also spawned Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan.
There was even some suggestion Wright had been a Black Panther member in his youth.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-15 10:25:13 PM
So most of us seem to agree that you are known by the company you keep. If you step in a cowpie, you sill walk on with dirty feet. Of course change is possible but Barack's explanations smack of desparation.
Posted by: DML | 2008-04-16 12:07:23 AM
Obama is dangerous, no doubt about it. His Reverend Wright was raised in an upper middle class family, and has been using the pulpit as a way of making money off the victim-mentality blacks of Chicago. Anyone see his new 10,000 sq. foot house under construction in a mostly white subdivision? Seems a strange place for him to live, especially after his remarks about the rich white man controlling the poor black man in America.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-04-16 4:11:34 PM
Fact Check and Roger are the only ones on this blog who seem to feel that the spiritual adviser's racist liberation theology rantings and Obama's clearly marxist derived "cling to religion" comments are perfectly reasonable and that the related uproars are merely a result of stupid voters being exploited by fox news and political opportunists. I have noticed that the terms "marxism" and "socialism" have become so discredited in North America that leftists have been systematically re-branding the underlying themes as "the espousal of economic justice" by people who are "Progressive." However, if you point out this is rehashed marxism/socialism, leftists either dismiss your comparison as ill-willed exaggeration, like Fact Check; or just go completely apopleptic, like Roger.
Indeed, the marxist derivation of Obama's comments is obvious. However, Roger seems to think that when Joe Lieberman and others make this obvious connection, that they are doing so because they are under "the yoke of fundamentalist religion." Further, he asks "Why are clowns like Lieberman allowed to make a mockery of democracy?" I found these statements absolutely astonishing. The sentiments seem plagiarized from the Daily Worker. Certainly Roger will be heading up the Thought Police to ensure that such anti-democratic (meaning to Roger anti-marxist) speech is no longer allowed to mock democracy?
I thought that things could not get much worse but curiousity compelled me to read on. John McCain was shot down by a SAM while attacking a power plant over heavily defend Hanoi. Roger's comments that he was shot down with a bow an arrow by shoeless peasants is standard far left characerization of the cold war. Roger probably pulled this witty comment from one of the Chomsky books which list the far left views that cold war was unnecessary; the Soviet Union was no real threat; the McCarthyism that spoiled the movie careers of many leftists was equivalent to Stalin's reign of terror which guaranteed everyone (seriously everyone!) eventual execution; the Cambodian killing fields did not take place; neither did the rest of communist induced slaughter that actually managed to eclipse the death count of the Hitlerite nightmare; and, of course, that our (I am American) military was slaughtering defenceless peasants rather than engaged in a hard fight with well armed and determined communist forces. There is no point in highlighting to Roger McCain's suffering of severe torture or refusal to be released before his other fellow prisoners as heroism. Roger would not thank McCain and other like them for their sacrifices on our behalf. Roger would disown them as incompetent baby-killers.
The classical liberal rebuttal to Marx' opiate of the masses comment is that income redistribution strangles the economy and addicts the poor on welfare dependence. Over very short periods of time, the intended beneficiaries become materially worse off then they would have been without the redistributed largesse. Marxism itself becomes the opium of the people as the people suffer but are told they are happier because they don't have to bear the psychological burden of being jealous of those who enjoy even greater wealth. Certainly the most intoxicated by the marxist religion are the self-appointed leadership who are inevitably suffering from severe messiah complexes (i am here to save the people!) and usually also severe inferiority complexes ( i hate everyone who has done better than myself in the meritocratic liberal capitalist system!). Selfish positions are rationalized as selflessness. Certainly the psychotically giddy euphoria demonstrated by Roger in this thread could only be accomplished chemically through the cocktail of crack and IV herion that put John Belushi in the ground. Marxism has achieved it for Roger and Chomsky without any of the lethal downside.
The standard leftist delusion is that they are a) more intelligent, b) better educated, and c) morally superior. This is very explicit in Fact Check's and Roger's comments above. The truth is that they are a) less intelligent, b) grossly ignorant, and c) massively self-deluded.
As an American independent, I must state that Obama seems to have serious socialist inclinations, but that he also seems to be a very intelligent and good person. He still is the solid favorite to be the next president. If he loses it will be because the very well grounded and intelligent American political center will become convinced not merely that Obama is Trudeu, but that the likes of the Weather Underground, Reverend Wright, and Roger would be anywhere near the corridors of power.
I regret that this might seem a severe criticism, but I feel that it is completely deserved.
Posted by: Kevin | 2008-04-19 3:37:00 AM
Very well said Kevin! Obama's supporters go on about how Hillary and McCain will say or do anything to get elected, thinking that their man, Barry is above that. However, he is just better at hiding that fact about himself.
After all, he joined an Afrocentric/socialist 'black' church in Chicago (this from a guy who doesn't want to use 'race' in this election)in order to help his political career even though (he now says) he doesn't agree with the racist rants of the Pastor. Very convenient. What a politician.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-04-19 10:47:28 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.