Posted by: David Offutt | August 15, 2010

The Big Lie vs. Barack Obama (Part 1)

President Barack Obama is routinely described as being a “Muslim-Marxist” or “Muslim-Communist” or “Muslim-Socialist.”

I am often asked why we have heard or read for over two years the same lies about President Barack Obama. I have tried to explain that the Big Lie Technique is successful only if it is relentlessly repeated. Any lie heard often enough becomes “the truth.” Since WWII, the Republicans have mastered the art of the Big Lie, from Richard Nixon to the neoconservatives’ use of the philosophy of Leo Strauss. Today, I would like to comment on only two of the recurring Big Lies.

Big Lie Number 1: Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. If your parents gave you a middle name like that of the former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, you must be a Muslim. In fact, if we weren’t a nation of immigrants, Obama’s whole name might sound “un-American.” You can see how easily it would be to fool uninformed, angry, and frightened people.

The philosophy of Leo Strauss has been the dominant influence of the Republican neoconservatives who have dominated the party for thirty years. He believed the masses could be controlled by religion, perpetual war, and the Big Lie.

The philosophy of Leo Strauss has been a primary influence on the Republican neoconservatives who have dominated the party for thirty years. He believed the masses could be controlled by religion, perpetual war, and the Big Lie.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof blames himself for causing so many reactionaries to claim that President Obama is a Muslim. Mr. Kristof wrote a column about his interview with the then-future president. He included what he thought was a poignant story, in which Mr. Obama recalled an experience of his youth in Indonesia: the Muslim morning call to prayer that he heard nearly every day was so beautiful that he could still remember it. Mr. Kristof instantly regretted that the whole story got deliberately distorted.

Many of us remember that White House chief of staff Donald Regan complained about having to schedule Ronald Reagan’s trips and speeches around Reagan’s horoscope – Nancy had an astrologer, Joan Quigley, that she and the president relied on. Maybe we should ask Obama’s chief of staff whether he has to schedule Mr. Obama’s daily itinerary around his numerous required Muslim prayer rituals. I’m aware of no one who has known or worked with our president who thinks he is a Muslim. Even John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign had to take the microphone from a pathetic woman who insisted Obama was a Muslim. Senator McCain tried to straighten her out, but I fear he may as well have been talking to the back wall.

 

Big Lie Number 2: President Obama is a socialist. No, but Mr. Obama is certainly somewhere in the liberal tradition of the Democratic Party that has existed from Thomas Jefferson to Ted Kennedy. He is clearly more progressive than moderate Democrats like Arkansas’s last two Democratic senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln. Republican president Theodore Roosevelt referred to those in his own party who did not want to reform capitalism as the “lunatic fringe.” TR and his Democratic successors Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson wanted to save capitalism from itself – from its own worst excesses. They succeeded so well that after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, we let our guard down. Now, Mr. Obama has fortunately returned to that same tradition.

Richard Nixon built his entire career around the use of the Big Lie. In his races for the House, Senate, vice presidency, and the presidency, he challenged the patriotism of his opponents: they were communists, Reds, pinkos, soft on communism, un-American.

Richard Nixon built his entire career around the use of the Big Lie. In his races for the House, Senate, vice presidency, and the presidency, he challenged the patriotism of his opponents: they were communists, Reds, pinkos, soft on communism, un-American.

Sadly, the “lunatic fringe” still exists, but now it’s the dominant wing of the Republican Party. Rather than submit to reforms and regulations, it apparently would prefer to see every bank fail, every auto manufacturer go out of business, every oil and coal industry pollute the planet, every one who loses a job go destitute, and every sick or injured person who can’t afford health insurance “die and decrease the surplus population.”

Many of us have utilized many or all of the following: public school systems; state universities; adult education centers; public libraries; public water utilities; fire and police departments; county health units; traffic and street lights; trash pickup; street and highway construction and maintenance; city, state, and national parks, wildlife refuges, and recreational areas; National Guard; U. S. Armed Forces; Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. All of these are socialistic services, but how many of us consider ourselves to be socialists?

Everyone knew before the Election of 2008 that it was George W. Bush who doubled the national debt, and it was he who authorized the bailout of the banks. Obama’s emergency responses to the Great Recession have only added about 10 percent to the anticipated debt. Voters are notorious for having short memories, but the instantaneous amnesia that set in after Obama’s inauguration in 2009 has been ridiculous and irresponsible.

Yes, health care reform did put restrictions on the for-profit insurance companies. They will not be able to drop clients because they get sick and will not be able to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. And yes, millions of people previously uninsured and uninsurable will be able to get coverage. However, the choices we will have for health coverage are entirely in the private sector. No public option was created. Why? All the Republicans and many moderate Democrats believed that a public option would be so successful and so popular that private insurers would not be able to compete with it – this position was stated by Republicans in committee. Yes, President Obama was aware that the public option was the best way to go, but he never fought for it. Never!

Veteran Republican congressman Bob Inglis (S.C.) disappointed his previous supporters when he refused to label President Obama as a socialist. As a result, a TEA Party candidate received the Republican nomination for his seat.

According to David Corn of Mother Jones, Representative Bob Inglis (Republican of S. C.) believes that he lost his primary-reelection bid on June 22, 2010, to a TEA Party-supported candidate because he would not lie about Obama’s being a socialist. Mr. Inglis was one of House Speaker Newt Gingrich “Khan’s” mean and nasty horde when the Republicans gained control of Congress in the 1990’s. Like the hatred against the sheer existence of Barack Obama today, he had hated Bill Clinton and joined his party in its effort to destroy him. He is now remorseful of his previous conduct because he believes he violated the 9th Commandment: “Thou shall not bear false witness against one’s neighbor.”

The Party of Hell No seems intent to become an exclusively radical-reactionary party. Like Inglis and Utah’s Sen. Robert Bennett, many conservative Republicans are finding that they are not extreme enough for TEA Party enthusiasts. Will others like them be purged from the party the way the moderate Republicans were? Will the reactionaries gain absolute power and try to return the country to the policies of the Gilded Age (1877-1900)? Bob Inglis is concerned about his party’s future: “It’s a dangerous strategy to build conservatism on information and policies that are not credible.”

by David Offutt

A version of this essay was published August 14, 2010, in the El Dorado News-Times as a letter to the editor.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Re: “Obama is certainly somewhere in the liberal tradition of the Democratic Party that has existed from Thomas Jefferson to Ted Kennedy. He is clearly more progressive than moderate Democrats like Arkansas’s Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln.”

    Actually, Obama is a blue dog, similar to Blanche. His voting record in the Senate was very similar to Blanche and the other blue dogs. Ya, he talked like a liberal when he was running for office, but guess what — politicians lie when they are running for office.

    Stop wasting your time defending Obama. Yes, the Rethugs are sociopaths — but so is Obama. “The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.” — Eugene Debs

  2. Dan,

    Obama certainly makes defending him difficult. When he loses Pelosi as the House speaker, the chances of anything good happening will become nearly impossible. Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate for economics and NY Times op-ed columnist, has pretty much given up on Obama.

    I love your reference to the “Rethugs.”

    The biggest difference in Obama’s and Blanche’s voting record was on environment issues. Sen. Lincoln’s record was really embarrassing, but Sen. Obama’s was excellent. That’s why his appointment of Salazar, a rancher, as secretary of the interior was so disappointing.

    If we completely give up on Obama, which we could easily do for very good reasons, remember the alternative.

  3. Obama reads Reagan’s biography.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/hawaii-vacation-obama-reads-reagan/

    You are right about one thing, David — Obama is definitely not a socialist. If Reagan were alive today, he’d be proud of Obama — big deficits, endless wars, tax cuts, secrecy, indefinite detention, nibbling away at social security, and the presidential right to assassinate citizens whenever he feels like it. Ronnie would be in awe.

  4. David, you’re probably sick and tired of me rubbing salt in this festering wound, but your statement “Mr. Obama is certainly somewhere in the liberal tradition of the Democratic Party that has existed from Thomas Jefferson to Ted Kennedy” cries out for further discussion.

    You have”Offutt’s law,” well, I have Lynch’s law. It may have been Spiro Agnew, who in a rare moment of candor, said “Don’t pay attention to what we say, pay attention TO WHAT WE DO.”

    I’ve been fooled over and over again by lying pols (haven’t we all ?). At the end of the day, they have to be judged by their actions, not by their campaign rhetoric.

    The latest proof that Obama is a conservative is his choice to replace outgoing corporate conservative Rahm Emanuel — William Daley, a JP Morgan exec, and like Rahm, a corporate conservative, a mangy Blue Dog, a Democrat in name only.

    Howie provides a good run down on Daley: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2011/01/yes-he-can-find-someone-as-bad-as-rahm.html

    If you are sick of my comments, look at the bright side — I share your interest in history and current events. I continue to try to educate myself in both subjects. You succeeded in planting the seeds of “the liberal tradition of Jefferson and Kennedy” in this student.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: