Posts
In small ways that add up to a big, ugly truth, President Barack Obama has shown us a piece of who he is. I think it's his ugliest side.
Criticizing one or just a few of these events alone would be nit-picky and unhelpful. Discourse is best when critics choose their battles wisely (that's why I don't complain about the size of the First Lady's paid staff or the high-profile "date nights" that the president drags his expensive entourage around for. At the end of the day, that's small potatoes. But together, we can see something we shouldn't like. This is no small battle. This is an examination of who the man is. And, I'm afraid, it's not pretty.
I don't think Mr. Obama has any respect for history.
No big deal, some will say. We live in the past too much. He's more concerned with the future.
And he should be. But if he doesn't respect the past (and I'm increasingly convinced that he does not) then he does not understand the past. And if he doesn't understand the awesome history of America, he has a set of reins that he cannot handle.
If he had even a rudimentary understanding of and respect for American history, Mr. Obama would see the world through a different lens. He would behave differently.
—> I first noticed this last fall, when Mr. Obama visited Europe in an effort to appear "presidential." In Berlin, he declared himself a "citizen of the world." Clearly, Mr. Obama did not realize Americans have enough trouble protecting our rights against our own government. If we brought "the world" into it, our freedom would have no hope.
Sudan with a seat on a human rights commission. Resolutions labeling as racist and criminal any criticism of any Islamic country. Kyoto-style treaties that demand the United States curb all economic activity, while completely ignoring India and China (two of the most prolific polluters in the world). That's what we get from "the world." Americans cannot afford that.
Indeed, if Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would recognize what America is: A breed of people who fled the world because it is a harsh, cruel, immoral place. We or our ancestors (every one of us) sought America. That was not an accident.
If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would prefer being an American to being a "citizen of the world." It's better for you.
—> I was further disturbed when Mr. Obama described our long-term goals in Afghanistan. He said he dislikes using the word "victory" because he doesn't want to raise hopes too high, to conjure any notions of seeing Emperor Hirohito coming aboard the USS Missouri to sign a surrender document.
If he had any respect for history, Mr. Obama would know the emperor did not sign the surrender document. Neither did Harry Truman. A handful of Allied military officers signed for our side, and junior officials signed the papers for their side. If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would know chiefs of state almost never sign the paperwork at the end of a war; military commanders usually meet in the middle of the field for that.
—> I shouldn't have been surprised when, during Mr. Obama's visit to Asia last week he declared himself the "first Pacific President" because he hails from that region and because geopolitical reality today requires more focus on China and North Korea than in previous years.
But if Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would recognize at least 10 previous presidents either spent a significant portion of their pre-presidential careers (thereby being influenced by it) in the Pacific realm, or who made hefty presidential decisions about the Pacific realm (thereby influencing it).
I can picture Jack Kennedy swimming through miles of saltwater, holding a strap in his teeth to tow a wounded shipmate to safety. I can also see a young George H.W. Bush, shot down, bobbing, praying he'd be spotted by Americans before Japanese. To the extent that the word "Pacific" can be used as an adjective, I expect either Kennedy or Bush would think it applies to them.
Does this guy realize the world was, in fact, here before he came along?
—> The most offensive remains Mr. Obama's insistence on bowing to kings and emperors. In April, he showed subservience to the King of Saudi Arabia (and, remarkably, Obama's spokesman lied about it). And last week, Mr. Obama surely pulled a back muscle whilst bending down upon meeting Japan's emperor.
Neither episode was a case of simply adopting a local custom — say, bowing as a form of mutual greeting, in lieu a handshake. Neither monarch returned the bow. (They're not gutless, sniveling pukes. They're men.)
If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would respect what America is. And if he respected what America is, he would bow to no one short of the Almighty.
He would know America was founded because Americans decided they need not bow to another man. Americans decided that no man, by virtue of his birth alone, is superior. Even the strictest rules of manners stipulate that American citizens are not obligated to bow to royalty from another nation. (Also, those rules stipulate that the head of one state need not bow to the king of another.)
Every human being who is free today owes that freedom to a generation of Americans who insisted (it was quite radical of them, at the time) that men should be equals. They picked up guns, pointed them at their oppressors, and said: No More. I will bow to no king, forevermore.
Before America's Founding Fathers won that freedom, it did not exist for anyone anywhere. Many free nations can, today, trace their freedom directly to America having liberated them during World War II. The rest of the free nations can all trace their freedom indirectly to America's good example.
If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would understand what human history is. It's a lot of invasion, poverty, theft, slavery, rape, famine, subservience, and murder. The relative peace known to the world since the 1950s is the exception. The equality of Americans since the 1960s is the exception. The prosperity seen in America since the 1850s is the exception. The liberty enjoyed in America since late 1700s is the exception.
The rule is defined by the time beginning with man's climb from the swamp and ending at the Battle of Yorktown. That rule is tyranny.
America is not perfect and it never has been. But peace, equality, human harmony, liberty, justice and prosperity are — to the extent they exist — American inventions. At least, they exist because America insisted they should, when no other country did. If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would know that.
He would know these things are not accidental. He would know Americans of the revolutionary generation were tired of the old ways and blazed this radical new trail.
It has been said that America is more than a country: It's an idea. And it is not a trivial thing, that idea. Today, it seems natural that no person should have to bow to another, based only on the other's higher status at birth. But that notion is new to humanity. New since the 1770s. New to the world. Widely recognized.
Because of America.
No American has a moral right to under-appreciate that idea. And if Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would not under-appreciate it as much as he has repeatedly shown us he does.
If he had any respect for history, he would wake up each morning and pray, offering thanks to God that such men as our Founding Fathers were able to find one another on one continent in one era. He would rise each morning, look in the mirror, see himself as the chief defender of that heritage. It should terrify him, to know that he has the power to damage it.
It should also inspire him with awe and pride. If Mr. Obama had any respect for history, he would hold his head proud and high every second that he's visible to anyone.
Don't get me wrong. If Mr. Obama wants to bow to the Grand Vizieour of Sludobia, that's his choice. He's a free man. He'll never hear me tell him he can't.
But if he any respect for history, he would choose not to.
