An accurate prediction about Obama, October 18, 2008

Many opinions, guesses, intuitions, predictions were put forward at VFR last year on what Obama would be like as president. I said many times that while his whole history was as a man of the anti-American left, and that it was horrifying that the American people were about to elect such a man as president, I was not absolutely convinced that he would govern that way, because there was were contrary indications, such as that all his positions seemed opportunistic, such as that he kept throwing past associates under the bus, such as that he seemed to desire the love and support of everyone, which would militate against his governing as an all out leftist once he got into office.

But what I saw as the likelihood that Obama would govern as a radical leftist, reader Kevin, last October 18, saw as a certainty. He had it pretty right.

Kevin wrote:

I agree with Diana West. I don’t think there is much doubt that Obama is a true believing radical. He not only belonged to an ideological anti-white anti-American church for 20 years but considered its pastor his mentor. He also named the radical America haters Phleger and Meeks as mentors. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Bill Ayers wasn’t something of a mentor to him. You say you don’t think he hates whites. I think you’re probably correct when it comes to a personal level. However I think he believes that white America that is traditional America is intrinsically bad and oppressive both at home and to the world, and his goal is to change it into something else. Also as I wrote to you once before I don’t think he’s an appeaser but rather sees America as the problem and identifies more with our enemies. And once he gets in it will be very difficult to reverse given the media’s unconditional backing of him along with the possibility that fair elections in the future are not a guarantee.

I replied:

You may be right about Obama, but Diana West’s point was not that Obama is a radical. Her point was that voters would reject him because of his radicalism.

Kevin then replied:

You said:

“You may be right about Obama, but Diana West’s point was not that Obama is a radical. Her point was that voters would reject him because of his radicalism.”

But isn’t that the same thing? Diana West obviously believes that Obama is a radical and thinks that enough voters might reject him because of his radicalism.

What I was responding to was this statement that you had made:

“What these questions suggest is that, pace Diana West, the real “third candidate” in this race is not Obama’s radicalism, but the fact that no one—including perhaps Obama himself—knows who the hell he is.”

It sounds like you’re not sure that Obama is a radical and what you’re saying is that although he very well might be we don’t really know for sure, and he might not even know himself. I am saying that I believe given his associations, his political history, and statements he has made that the evidence is overwhelming that he is a radical, and I apparently feel a greater certainty about this than you do. And I agree with Diana West that people are capable of seeing this radicalism e.g. Ayers & Wright, although of course people might also from their perspective see him as too much an unknown or an exotic rather than a radical and vote against him for that reason. So as a reason why people might decide to vote against him I think that you and Diana West are both right.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 08, 2009 10:31 AM | Send