Andrew Sullivan, who has done a very good job of linking the various internet postings in the Iranian civil strife, said this amusing and absurd video was “why Obama was watching his words” on Iran. If that is valid, and this crude anti-American propaganda is effective, then it hardly matters what an American government says, the people are so paranoid and gullible. (There is evidence to support this contention.)
We see the government video quite differently. The video shows that the Iranian government is very concerned about “secret messages” coming in over satellite TV, and about the use of the internet for subversive purposes. The video makes the point that if you plot against the government you will get caught because the government has spies everywhere.
The creepiest element is that the bad guy (pro-American) in the film gets caught because his sister rats him out by calling 113, the national hotline to the secret police. Question: if a government is that paranoid and its security apparatus is deployed against the people in such a gross and obvious way, why should we be concerned that pointing out the truth offends them?
VDH sums up the rather narcissistic and strange journey that President Obama has put America on for the past six months:
in the Middle East, in the case of Israel, with Turkey, on the recent Iranian upheaval, and during the South America visit, Obama is clearly to the left of Europe. He sees himself more as multicultural prophet born out of the Third World, foe of colonialism, angry at past imperialism, skeptical of capitalism, eager to showcase his non-traditional ancestry and tripartite nomenclature. By coming from the West, but separating himself from the history of his own country, Obama has become a citizen of the world, who polls far higher, as intended, in the Middle East, than does his own country…
almost all Obama’s historical references were wrong or distorted: Berlin airlift, death camps, Inquisition, Muslim contribution to the European Renaissance and Enlightenment, Muslim discoveries of breakthroughs in science, math, printing, etc., suggesting that as a postmodernist he (and/or his speechwriters) does not really believe in absolute truth, but rather relative competing narratives predicated on race/class/gender. And the means of magnifying the accomplishments of those “without power” justifies the ends of diminishing those “with power.” The list of other inaccuracies in his Cairo speech could be expanded from the contemporary Middle East to his references to John Adams and Islam…
Here at home — We know the boilerplate: The President outlines the problem, punctuated with those awful “them” and “they” and “some” and “others” who as extremists stand in the way of all good things and present “false choices”, but remain unnamed. (Sort of like the tropes in 1984)…These are the prefaces to his reluctance to … (fill in the blanks: run the private sector, spend massive amounts of money, take over health care, raise taxes, etc.).
Then he pauses, takes a deep breath, and in fact outlines ways to take over GM, regulate compensation, run up massive deficits, nationalize health care, and plan record tax hikes…he finishes with variations on the old campaign formula “this is the moment”, “hope and change”, “yes, we can”, “we will not be deterred.” No one can quite believe that one has just heard Obama deny that he’s going to do exactly what he then outlines he is going to do.
Obama himself gave us ample warning of his reckless grandiosity during the 2008 campaign. So we can’t say we weren’t warned. The situation has only gotten worse in the months since his inauguration. And there’s 3.5 years to go. Help!
Obama talks tough, at long last, in his Saturday radio address. But it’s not about the poor people being killed or beaten senseless in Iran, as in this graphic scene — it’s about credit card companies. AP:
this crisis may have started on Wall Street. But its impacts have been felt by ordinary Americans who rely on credit cards, home loans and other financial instruments…Those ridiculous contracts — pages of fine print that no one can figure out — will be a thing of the past. You’ll be able to compare products, with descriptions in plain language, to see what is best for you…
I welcome a debate about how we can make sure our regulations work for businesses and consumers…what I will not accept — what I will vigorously oppose — are those who do not argue in good faith…While I’m not spoiling for a fight, I’m ready for one
The most interesting aspect of Obama’s muted response to Iran is that it is a truly revelatory moment. After all, as Roger Simon notes, Iran is an issue that, at the moment at least, “clearly unites the left and right emotionally.” The easiest choice for a politician would be to go with popular opinion; but Obama does not. Therefore, there is either deep strategy at work, or some deeply held belief. We would hope for strategy, but that’s not what we think is really going on.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivered a rare but critical Friday sermon prayer June 19 in which he addressed the continuing public unrest in the wake of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s victory in the June 12 presidential election, as well as the schism among the country’s political leadership. As expected, he took a clear position in favor of the president, rejecting accusations of electoral fraud…
Khamenei has clearly opted for the forcible suppression of the uprising…the country’s elite ideological military force, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has taken command of domestic law enforcement in Tehran. Consequently, from today forward, we can expect to see security forces crush protests…
Khamenei…said, “Differences of opinion do exist between officials which is natural. But it does not mean there is a rift in the system. Ever since the last presidential election there existed differences of opinion between Ahmadinejad and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (the second most powerful cleric in the state). Of course my outlook is closer to that of Ahmadinejad in domestic and foreign policy.”…
The stage is now set for a major confrontation, but it is unclear who will emerge victorious. Regardless of which political faction wins, Khamenei has decided that it is worth the risk to bring in the IRGC. Though the Iranian state security apparatus is adept at extinguishing protests, it is still a risky gamble that will further fuel the fire of discontent.
Here’s some reaction to Khamenei’s speech. Who knows where things go from here?
Quick: name two countries or leaders that Barack Obama dislikes or disfavors, and two more countries or leaders that he likes or shows deference to. It was easy, wasn’t it, even after five short months of Obama’s Presidency? Here are some potential candidates as answers in case you were stumped: (a) England, (b) Israel, (c) Saudi Arabia, (d) Honduras, and (e) Iran.
It appears to us to be more than strategy and tactics that President Obama shows disrespect to, or bullies, America’s traditional allies, while appearing inappropriately obsequent to certain countries, including outright enemies.
You may think that President Obama’s vision is correct, and that the “re-branding” of America is a good thing, or you may think that the President’s policies are foolish, even dangerous. For us, Obama’s reticence at the atrocities in Iran have finally made it very clear whom his gut reactions favor and disfavor, and we find that the conclusions we have drawn are pretty disturbing.
As they note over at Powerline, you don’t have to be much of an American to side with besieged democracy protesters over authoritarian anti-American dictators who are comfortable in their thuggish ways. And then there’s Obama…..
President Obama reacts to the news of the day in a way that sounds bizarre to us, given the level of violence and oppression currently underway in Iran. WaPo:
“I do believe that something has happened in Iran where there is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past…When I see violence directed at peaceful protesters, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me, and it’s of concern to the American people…That is not how governments should interact with their people.”
What’s the deal with this? Why is the first sentence so contorted and unclear? Why is it so false — the Iranian people are demanding some freedom, not “questioning Iran’s antagonistic postures towards the international community”? Why are the next sentences so at pains not to single out Iran and its government? Why is the murdering of protesters reduced to the banality of “that is not how governments should interact with their people”? This is bizarre. Taking a “wait-and-see” approach to Iran might seem practical, but exactly what sort of enduring, enforceable agreements are possible with governments that do not hesitate to kill large numbers of their own people when they decide it is in their interests to do so?
By contrast, this reaction by a President to a somewhat similar situation seems a lot clearer: “I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct ‘business as usual’ with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection.”
Maybe it’s just us, but we get the feeling from the way that Obama talks that he is desperate to do a deal, some kind of deal, any deal at all, with Khamenei — the man he calls even now “supreme leader“. Obama so appears to want not to offend him, or to say a clear, good word about some real “community organizers“. Perhaps it goes too far to say that Obama seems to identify with the authoritarians around the world, but the question is not unreasonable, given his taking over vast parts of American industry.
Given how far things have gone in Iran, it is a total cop-out to say “the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the US that is encouraging those reformers.” (Even the man once the designated successor to Ayatollah Khomeini has a good word for the protesters.) Furthermore, even if the US is not causing any provocation, the Iranian regime still declares that we are behind the protests, so what’s the point?
It’s a sad day in America when we shouldn’t express our fundamental beliefs about freedom and liberty because some dictator somewhere might try to use them against his own people. If Obama believes the statement he made above, he has poor judgment. If he doesn’t believe it, but is using it as an excuse, the explanations are not pretty to contemplate.
Final thought: Roger Simon’s reflections on this matter seem pretty similar to ours, and even David Ignatius thinks Obama should be speaking out clearly and in favor of the protesters.
The Boston Globe has a collection of pictures of Iran that give a sense of the scale of the protests. Images 39-41 are pretty disturbing. Question: does this comment from President Obama seem appropriate given what is going on: “You’ve seen in Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election.” Huh?
UPDATE — Charles Krauthammer has had some similar thoughts on this matter of the “supreme leader” and his concerns:
after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamenei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of “some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election.”
Where to begin? “Supreme Leader”? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts — a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.
Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren’t dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.
Krauthammer says: “Obama totally misses the point.” No, that’s not it. Some see a “deeper wisdom” in Obama’s reticence, and we wish that were true, but this is a serious enough situation that you ought to be on one side or the other. Obama’s relative silence chooses sides for him.
Iran’s manipulated vote totals in 2005 showed some finesse and subtlety, as we observed at the time. This year the fraud was clumsy. Why? Forbes:
The final election result — 85% voter turnout and Ahmadinejad victory with 62.63% of the total vote and a modest 33.75% of the vote to the closest contender Mir-Hossein Mousavi not to mention ridiculously low number of votes of Rezai and Karrubi — shows that the Iranian leadership not even bothered to produce elegant fraud.
Unlike earlier elections there is still no detailed data on breakup of the vote in the provinces, but allegations of lack of voting forms in constituencies supporting Ahmadinejad’s rivals, prohibitions against presence of representatives of the rivals at many voting stations, and election results from native villages and towns of Mousavi, Karrubi and Rezai most surprisingly showing more than 90% vote for Ahmadinejad, demonstrate rather clumsy rigging tactics.
The question is why all the clumsiness? Ahmadinejad could have easily advanced to the second round of election against Mousavi at which point the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij with some manipulation of the vote could have secured him a second-term victory without the easily detectable fraud.
Imagine just how dangerous to the regime this sort of visible and pubic protest (in a very politically correct color in Iran) would have been if two thirds of the population started wearing green scarves or driving green cars as the election campaigns stretched into a second round. The regime’s decision to cook the books in the first round of the election — and brutally suppress whatever protest erupted — was a gamble. No one knows how it will turn out at this point for the oppressed people of Iran, but it certainly has opened the eyes of nearly everyone as to the true nature of this mad dictatorship.
Barack Obama found it “exciting” and Hillary Clinton saw it as “a positive sign”. Others, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US national security adviser, went further and praised it as a “vibrant democracy”. A variety of useful idiots at home and abroad expressed similar illusions about the Iranian presidential election on Friday.
Many had hoped the exercise would dislodge President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the maverick who has vowed to chase the United States out of the Middle East, wipe Israel off the map and prepare the ground for the hidden imam, Shi’ite Islam’s “end of times” figure of retribution. In the event, the election turned out to be a choreographed affair designed to reinforce Ahmadinejad’s position as the leader of “resurgent Islam”.
Officially put at 85%, voter turnout was the highest in Iran’s history. Ahmadinejad won with 63%…Whoever wrote the script also made sure that his three rivals, all veterans of the Khomeinist revolution, were roundly defeated even in their respective home towns…
the Khomeinist regime remains deeply unpopular, especially among young Iranians, who account for two-thirds of the population. Yesterday Tehran and other cities witnessed antiregime demonstrations, mostly young people shouting, “Shame on you Ahmadinejad! Quit the government!”…
Iran is also heading for economic meltdown, with a daily loss of 1,000 jobs and inflation of more than 20%. Ahmadinejad’s election slogan is “Ma mitavanim” (We can), like Obama’s “Yes we can”. Iran’s leader has been true to his slogan by showing he can fix the election results to the last detail. But can he cope with a restive population…
Iran is an unashamed police state, and was in the last “election” too. (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hailed the current phony election as a “divine assessment” and a “glittering event“.) In our view, a US President should be on the side of the young people who want freedom instead of the old guys who have the guns and instruments of repression. It’s too bad that Obama is apparently on the wrong side of this issue, at least so far.
There apparently was an election in Iran. Guardian:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won a crushing victory in Iran’s landmark presidential election, according to the country’s authorities, but his moderate challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi has warned of “tyranny” and protested that the result was rigged after a record turnout of 84%. As the official results were announced, baton-wielding riot police clashed with angry Mousavi supporters in some of the most serious unrest Tehran has seen in years…
Mousavi said this morning: “I personally strongly protest the many obvious violations and I’m warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade. The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardise the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny.”
But Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, called the result a “divine assessment” and called on all Iranians to support Ahmadinejad. Speaking on state television this afternoon, he said: “I assume that enemies intend to eliminate the sweetness of the election with their hostile provocation.”
How do President Obama’s words of yesterday look now? (“We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran and obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there’s a possibility of change and, ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide but just as what has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well, is that you’re seeing people looking at new possiblities, and whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”)
ABC reports the words of a plain-spoken man, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He says that he can’t seem to get in contact with his friend of two decades, President Obama:
them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office….He’s gotta do what politicians do…Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza…Ethnic cleansing the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don’t want Barack talking like that because that’s anti-Israel…the Jewish vote, the A-I-P-A-C vote, that’s controlling him, that would not let him send representation to the Darfur Review Conference, that’s talking this craziness on this trip, cause they’re Zionists, they would not let him talk to someone who calls a spade what it is.
We don’t know about you, but we think it shows excellent judgement on the part of the President to spend as many as 1000 Sundays associating with this fine fellow Wright, a man who never vacillates and always speaks his mind. We live in an absurd time, not that the media would ever let Americans notice, as they engage in a special kind of worship of the own in this matter.
Tom Bevan observes that President Obama’s calculated tactical and rhetorical devices are getting a little tiresome, as even the NYT has noticed. Bevan sees potential peril for Obama ahead in his personalizing so much of a grand and sweeping agenda that seems further and further to depart from reality:
Obama’s speeches are often strikingly self referential. Clearly, Obama sees unique background and his life experiences as an asset and a rhetorical tool, which helps explain why his recent speech in Cairo was peppered with 68 first person references (I, me, my, or mine). But the habit carries over to other speeches as well, leaving the impression that Obama is often interested in talking about Obama.
In his speech honoring the 65th Anniversary of D-Day, for example, Obama made 10 first person references. While not a huge number in itself, it was eight more than Gordon Brown made and nine more than Stephen Harper made in their respective speeches that day. In his aforementioned national security speech on May 21, President Obama made an astounding 147 first person references.
Most importantly of all, however, Obama’s high profile speechmaking on a range of big issues from restructuring GM to solving Middle East peace has dramatically increased the pressure on him to deliver results.
There is no doubt that Obama has bitten off far more than he can chew, and has doubled down by personalizing so many initiatives. The Cairo speech was noteworthy not only because Obama appeared in it 68 times, but also because at 30 points in the speech, he told other people and nations what they “must” do.
Obama’s line in the Cairo speech that no single nation should decide who should have nuclear weapons was widely taken as a rebuke to American power. However, there is another reading of this which is consistent with Obama’s constant first-person references and his personal ability to tell his listeners what they “must” and must not do. America shouldn’t tell other nations what they must do, but Mr. Obama thinks it is just fine for him to personally do so. Newsweek may have gotten it about right.
You will recall President Obama’s speech as ASU, where he derided traditional American aspirations of getting ahead in life, even as he ticked off, one by one, his own achievement of each of those goals. Hmmm. Let’s see. Aloof, charismatic, obsessed with power, “absolutely certain” that he has a special personal destiny. This can’t end well. No, this can’t end well at all.
Israelis didn’t like the picture above. We didn’t either, and that was before we knew the context. A report from CBS says:
Israeli TV newscasters Tuesday night interpreted a photo taken Monday in the Oval Office of President Obama talking on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an “insult” to Israel…It is considered an insult in the Arab world to show the sole of your shoe to someone…Was there a subliminal message intended from the White House to Netanyahu in Jerusalem, who is publicly resisting attempts by Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to force Israel to stop any kind of settlement activity in occupied territories once and forever?…
Netanyahu met with George Mitchell today for four hours in Jerusalem…Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an “American official” in Jerusalem that, “We are going to change the world. Please, don’t interfere.” The report said Netanyahu’s aides interpreted this as a “threat.”
Given Obama’s track record of flipping off Hillary Clinton, as the LA Times reported, and his other indirect and deniable insults, it is perfectly plausible that President Obama was insulting Netanyahu with the photo. Powerline has more.
But there are two insults in the photo. Obama didn’t just insult Netanyahu; he insulted his fellow citizens as well. Obama knows perfectly well how to have a decent picture taken in the Oval Office. And whether you’re a fan of silly movies, or are of a certain age and can remember JFK, you know that you shouldn’t be photographed putting your feet up on the Resolute Desk.
Obama lives in a house that is not his; he is a temporary resident in a house that is owned by all of us. Our first thought on seeing the photo was: who does this guy think he is, putting his feet up on furniture he doesn’t own? Get a hassock and get your feet off our desk.
As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar University — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing.
Back in November, Evan Thomas of Newsweek noticed a “slightly creepy cult of personality” in the worship of Obama. How times change:
in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above –- above the world, he’s sort of God…the President’s speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful…But what I liked about the President’s speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility…The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world…Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial…He’s going to bring all different sides together…Obama is trying to sort of tamper everything down. He doesn’t even use the word terror. He uses extremism. He’s all about let us reason together…He’s the teacher. He is going to say, ‘now, children, stop fighting and quarreling with each other.’ And he has a kind of a moral authority that he…can do that.
Evan Thomas once said that media coverage was worth “maybe 15 points” to the Democratic candidate in an election. Is that still true when the media elite sound sillier than teenage girls?
For a different take on the One’s speech in Cairo, we recommend this piece by Scott Johnson.
Robert Draper is the author of Dead Certain, a book on the Bush presidency, which says, among other things, that Donald Rumsfeld was quite unpopular within the administration. Draper has written a piece in GQ which alleges some disturbing behavior on the part of the Defense Secretary. This excerpt discusses Rumsfeld’s delivery to the White House of the April 10, 2003 Worldwide Intelligence Update, of which only 16 copies were produced each day:
the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing’s cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days’ war efforts:
On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death.”
This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: “It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.”
Frank Rich: “As Draper writes, Rumsfeld is not known for ostentatious displays of piety. He was cynically playing the religious angle to seduce and manipulate a president who frequently quoted the Bible. But the secretary’s actions were not just oily; he was also taking a risk with national security. If these official daily collages of Crusade-like messaging and war imagery had been leaked, they would have reinforced the Muslim world’s apocalyptic fear that America was waging a religious war.” It’s not often we agree with Rich, but he might have a point, assuming that the documents are genuine.
Finally, what seems far worse to us than bible quotations at the top of a daily intelligence briefing is the apparent cheesy boosterism of the covers. From its very limited distribution list, the Worldwide Intelligence Update would appear to be a very serious document. Instead, the covers make it look like the Movietone News (we searched Dunkirk 6/6/40 just for fun). If the Secretary of Defense’s daily briefings to the President of the United States were serious, professional and balanced exercises, the covers certainly belied that content. Indeed, it is very hard for us to believe that the covers are real, and not some prank.
The Dinocrat’s grandparents were born into the hardscrabble America of the late 19th century. Half the people were farmers and almost no one was rich. It was a world of short lives, a world without cars, telephones, airplanes, pharmaceuticals, access to books, and often without running water and indoor plumbing. News came sporadically and late if it came at all. The Dinocrat’s grandchildren experience a generally much richer America of far greater longevity, a world of instant communications among everyone on the planet, and instant access to a global encyclopedia of immeasurable size. Every kid with his cell phone has far greater resources at his fingertips to broadcast and receive the news of the world than were ever available to Edward R. Morrow.
It is a world of great promise, but also of considerable peril, as we have discussed on many occasions. More has changed in the last 130 years in terms of population, long life, prosperity, communications, available knowledge, technology, and global reach than in any comparable period of human history. It is perhaps trivial to say, but it is also true: we do not understand the vast complexity that has grown up about us. The complexity of the modern world has overtaken our ability to understand it, and this creates instability — how much instability is a little hard to say at the moment.
Meanwhile, instability comes from another angle as well. Any ideology that insists on the literal truth of books that are millennia out of date is ipso factoat war with the modern world. It is an inevitable conflict. It is unknown at this time whether George Bush’s ambitious but ahistorical approach to solving the problem will have any lasting impact on the matter. What seems clear to us is that an unambiguous understanding and defense of the Judeo-Christian-Enlightenment values that underpin our freedom and prosperity is necessary for America and the West to make it through the 21st century in a form recognizable to our forbears. At the moment it looks somewhat unlikely that the Western world will pass this test.
The modernness of the modern world is a thing that we do not understand. It has all happened so fast. The proper reaction to so much change in so short a time is modesty. Instead we have just the opposite. In Europe there are substantial elements of the population who would like to see the modern world destroyed. In the US, many people want “change” at an even more accelerated pace, but many of the changes they are getting are a fantasy — the numbers just don’t add up. Maybe we’ll muddle through, but a train wreck of some sort seems likelier to us at the moment. Are we unduly pessimistic?
In the course of a piece on Obama and Israel, Norman Podhoretz produced some interesting statistics from the 2008 election:
Obama received 78 percent of the Jewish vote. This was a staggering 35 points higher than the pro-Obama white vote in general (43 percent), and it was even 11 points higher than the Hispanic vote (67 percent). Only with blacks, who gave him 95 percent of their vote, did Obama do better than with Jews. The results were just as dramatic when broken down by religion as by race and ethnicity: Protestants gave 45 percent of their vote to Obama (33 points less than Jews), and Catholics gave him 54 percent (24 points less than Jews).
George Bush carried Catholics 52-47 in 2004, but apparently a lot has changed since then. It turns out that the Obama Catholic vote matched the majority given to Ronald Reagan in 1984. What a switch. Who would have thought it?
Mark Steyn discusses ongoing events in Europe and around the world, and sees unrest growing as a function of demographic change (HT: Powerline):
Beyond the fashionable “anti-Zionism” of the Euro Left is a starker reality: The demographic energy…in almost every Western European country is “Asian.” Which is to say, Muslim. A recent government statistical survey reported that the United Kingdom’s Muslim population is increasing ten times faster than the general population. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, and many other Continental cities from Scandinavia to the Côte d’Azur will reach majority Muslim status in the next few years….
the Islamicization of Europe entails certain consequences, and it might be worth exploring what these might be. There are already many points of cultural friction — from British banks’ abolition of children’s “piggy banks” to the enjoining of public doughnut consumption by Brussels police during Ramadan. And yet on one issue there is remarkable comity between the aging ethnic Europeans and their young surging Muslim populations: A famous poll a couple of years back found that 59 percent of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.
Fifty-nine percent? What the hell’s wrong with the rest of you? Hey, relax: In Germany, it was 65 percent; Austria, 69 percent; the Netherlands, 74 percent. For purposes of comparison, in a recent poll of Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — i.e., the “moderate” Arab world — 79 percent of respondents regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace…
there are occasional arcane points of dispute: one recalls, in the wake of the July 7 bombings, the then London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s somewhat tortured attempts to explain why blowing up buses in Tel Aviv is entirely legitimate whereas blowing up buses in Bloomsbury is not. Yet these are minimal bumps on a smooth glide path: The more Europe’s Muslim population grows, the more restive and disassimilated it becomes, the more enthusiastically the establishment embraces “anti-Zionism”…
In Britain in January, while “pro-Palestinian” demonstrators were permitted to dress up as hook-nosed Jews drinking the blood of Arab babies, the police ordered counter-protesters to put away their Israeli flags. In Alberta, in the heart of Calgary’s Jewish neighborhood, the flag of Hizballah (supposedly a proscribed terrorist organization) was proudly waved by demonstrators, but one solitary Israeli flag was deemed a threat to the Queen’s peace and officers told the brave fellow holding it to put it away or be arrested for “inciting public disorder.” In Germany, a student in Duisburg put the Star of David in the window of an upstairs apartment on the day of a march by the Islamist group Milli Görüs, only to have the cops smash his door down
Europe has big problems on its hands, and it’s hard to see how any of this ends well. We expect repression of law abiding citizens and their freedom of speech, and fantasy solutions like banning American talk show hosts from England. But ultimately these things cannot work — people will act out what they cannot say. What happens then?
It appears that the WaPo’s Dana Milbank has a case of spring fever:
Maybe Barack Obama really is The One. Yesterday’s news was good — almost supernaturally so. The economy? Recovering. The markets? Rallying. Swine flu? Abating. Drought? Ending. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared his confidence that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are well secured. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee declared his confidence that a massive health-care overhaul will be accomplished this year. Warren Buffett declared his confidence that the economy is “out of the quicksand.”…
Call it good policy, as Democrats do, or beginner’s luck, as the last remaining Republicans do, but you can practically hear the nation collectively exhaling. The rapid improvement in the public’s mood is without precedent in modern history. Last week’s Washington Post poll found that 50 percent of Americans think things are generally going in the right direction, up from only 8 percent
That’s funny. Milbank’s colleague Robert Sameuelson seems to be of a somewhat different opinion about the course being set by the Obama administration, not to mention Warren Buffett, whom Milbank cites. (And what was that about Pakistan?)
