Blankley: Obama doesn’t like America
Tony Blankley writes
at the Washington Times
If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn’t like America the way it has been since its founding—and it will take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don’t know that, you don’t yet know Barack Obama.
I agree with Blankley’s comment about Obama. But did Blankley ever say that George W. Bush didn’t like America the way it had been since its founding, and that he wanted to use open borders to realize his dream
of converting America into something quite different? Did Blankley ever criticize Bush for sending his idiot Secretary of State and close personal pal around the world bad-mouthing America before bewildered foreign audiences? Did he ever call Bush an anti-American for going to Africa in 2003 and declaring that “the racial bigotry fed by slavery” still characterizes America today
? (Read about it here
.) I challenge Blankley to find a single affectionate thing Bush ever said about our actual historical nation, apart from praising the military or speaking of the U.S. as God’s (unworthy) instrument for the spreading of universal democracy.
Until conservative opinion makers render unto Bush the censures he richly deserves, especially for the same things for which they now excoriate Obama, their criticisms of Obama will have the stink of rank partisanship.
- end of initial entry -
Sage McLaughlin writes:
You comment that, “Until conservative opinion makers render unto Bush the censures he richly deserves, especially for the same things for which they now excoriate Obama, their criticisms of Obama will have the stink of rank partisanship..”
It seems to me that at this late stage, even when coupled with a repudiation of Bush, any return to conservative principle will appear merely partisan and opportunistic. Remember when Pelosi was hammered for opposing the Congressional “nuclear option” with regard to filibusters of judicial appointments, when she had previously supported the idea while the Democrats were in power? She said, simply, “I was wrong then.” That did absolutely nothing to remove the partisan stink from what she was doing, and I’d argue that as necessary as a repudiation of Bush-ism truly is, it will inevitably appear opportunistic and partisan (especially if the speaker never acknowledges his own volte face). The damage is irreversible.
By the way, Tony Blankley is no longer the editorial page editor of the Washington Times. He is vice president of the Edelman public relations firm in Washington. This is from the company’s “Diversity” page:
As a global company, Edelman strives to employ a workforce that reflects the diversity of the world in which we live and work. We do this not only because, as a “business imperative,” it’s the best strategy, but because it is, simply put, the right thing to do.
We recognize that to serve our growing roster of clients who are themselves international in nature we must identify with the world from a variety of perspectives, including locally, regionally, and globally. While Edelman is relatively modest in size, our approximately 3,200 employees work in 53 cities across 24 countries on five continents, bringing not only much-needed diversity to our efforts, but a diverse understanding of the complexities of the world, its cultures, markets, and issues. We actively seek to hire and promote individuals from varied heritages, continuously educate and mentor our employees, and nurture a culture where diversity is valued and expected. Our belief in the value of a diverse workforce is evident in our 13 U.S. offices, each of which reflects the country’s increasingly diverse demographic; today, approximately 21 percent of our employees in the U.S. are from racially diverse backgrounds, and 72 percent are women. In addition, we benefit by building partnerships with community organizations and minority- and women-owned businesses.
Paul Gottfried writes:
Congratulations on your ability to read my mind perfectly!
I find it interesting that Blankley’s company uses that sanctimonious claptrap about diversity “simply being the right thing to do.” Another PR/advertising company of my acquaintance used the exact same phrasing when announcing a recent diversity initiative. One can only suppose that that is the approved language supplied by the Ministry of Truth.
Moreover, what’s with this pious pronouncement about “simply the right thing to do” from otherwise hardheaded businessmen who would never launch any new program or alter an existing company policy without months of reach-and-frequency studies, strategic planning, focus group data, and a battery of other metrics?
The phrase, “simply the right thing to do,” means it’s beyond discussion. Liberalism cannot defend its positions logically, so it must simply assert them as “simply the right thing to do,” i.e, as something that all good people automatically understand without further discussion. Modern liberalism rules, not by rational discourse and persuasion, but by collectivist consensus.
As for your question why hard-headed businessmen would adopt this stuff, the answer is that non-discrimination is the ruling belief of our society.
But why do I say “non-discrimination,” since the Edelman company speaks of “diversity,” not of “non-discrimination,” and since most conservatives would say that “diversity” is the ruling belief? I think that calling it diversity misses the core of the phenomenon. Modern liberalism believes that all people and all racial groups are equal (though some groups are more equal than others), and therefore it believes that in the absence of discrimination there would be group equality of results (though, of course, there would be more equality for some groups than others). What is called “diversity” is group equality of results. Diversity is the proof that we are not discriminating. The avoidance of discrimination—discrimination being the ultimate moral evil—remains the driving moral imperative.
Glynn Custred writes:
You forgot Bush’s single-minded effort to keep the borders open by refusing to enforce immigration laws and properly managing the border, to the extent of prosecuting US law enforcement officers, who attempted to so, at the behest of foreign governments.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 03, 2009 09:20 AM | Send