Medved: Conservatives dead wrong about Obama's intentions

Usually Medved is a sanctimonious bore who sucks at reviewing movies, wants everything to be rated PG, and simply recycles other conservative two-bit pundits' throwaway opinions, but I have to say Medved hit the crazy nail on its nutty head this time. Listen to one of your own, conservatives!

(Thank goodness it's not just pinko-liberals like me sounding the alarm about the other side calling our rightfully elected President some kind of Manchurian candidate and crypto-Islamist/cypto-Marxist who hates his country which he took an oath to defend! By all means you have the right to disagree with his policies, hate the way he looks, or even call him nasty names, but to sincerely believe that he hates his country... where can we find any common ground if that's what you really think?)

Obama Isn't Trying to 'Weaken America'

Some conservatives call the president the political equivalent of a suicide bomber: so consumed with hatred that he's willing to blow himself up in order to inflict casualties on a society he loathes.

By Michael Medved

February 14, 2011 | Wall Street Journal

Some conservative commentators may feel inclined to spend Presidents Day [Washington's Birthday! - J] ruminating over Barack Obama's evil intentions, or denouncing the chief executive as an alien interloper and ideologue perversely determined to damage the republic. Instead, they should consider the history of John Adams's White House prayer and develop a more effective focus for their criticism.

On Nov. 2, 1800, a day after he became the first president to occupy the newly constructed executive mansion, Adams wrote to his wife Abigail: "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."

More than a century later, Franklin Roosevelt ordered the inscription of these words on a mantel piece in the State Dining Room, inviting serious consideration over the extent to which divine providence responded to the earnest entreaty of our second president.

In terms of wisdom, some of Adams's successors who "ruled" under the White House roof most certainly fell short. James Buchanan comes to mind—or Jimmy Carter.

When it comes to honesty, skeptics might also cite heaven's mixed blessings, reviewing a long history of presidential prevarication. Richard Nixon almost certainly lied about Watergate, as did Bill Clinton about his amorous adventures.

But in the deeper sense that Adams longed for "honest men" to occupy the White House, the nation has fared much better: Those who rose to the highest office worked hard, took their responsibilities seriously, and sincerely pursued the nation's good—in order, if nothing else, to secure a positive verdict on their own place in history.

Even the most corruption-tarred presidents, Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding, agonized over the demands of the office and drew scant personal benefit from the scandals involving unworthy associates. They both retained the profound affection of the populace while they lived and drew massive outpourings of grief at their funerals. Both (especially Grant) have begun a recent rise in the estimation of historians.

John F. Kennedy may have suffered from sex addiction (and a host of other secret maladies) while Franklin Pierce drank heavily in the White House (in part in mourning for his 11-year-old son who died before his eyes in a train accident two months before the inauguration). But neither man ignored his duties, and both had previously demonstrated their love of country with courageous military service.

In short, the White House record of more than 200 years shows plenty of bad decisions but no bad men. For all their foibles, every president attempted to rise to the challenges of leadership and never displayed disloyal or treasonous intent.

This history makes some of the current charges about Barack Obama especially distasteful—and destructive to the conservative cause.

One typical column appeared on Feb. 5 at the well-regarded [um, that depends who's doing the regarding - J] American Thinker website, under the heading: "Obama Well Knows What Chaos He Has Unleashed." Victor Sharpe solemnly declares: "My fear is that Obama is not naïve at all, but he instead knows only too well what he is doing, for he is eagerly promoting Islamic power in the world while diminishing the West."

These attitudes thrive well beyond the blogosphere and the right-wing fringe. On Jan. 7, Sarah Palin spoke briefly on Laura Ingraham's radio show, saying, "What I believe that Obama is doing right now—he is hell-bent on weakening America." While acknowledging that "it's gonna get some people all wee-weed up again," she repeated and amplified her charge that "what Obama is doing" is "purposefully weakening America—because he understood that debt weakened America, domestically and internationally, and yet now he supports increasing debt."

The assumption that the president intends to harm or destroy the nation that elected him has become so widespread that the chief advertising pitch for Dinesh D'Souza's best-selling book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage," promises to "reveal Obama for who he really is: a man driven by the anti-colonial ideology of his father and the first American president to actually seek to reduce America's strength, influence and standard of living."

None of the attacks on Mr. Obama's intentions offers an even vaguely plausible explanation of how the evil genius, once he has ruined our "strength, influence and standard of living," hopes to get himself re-elected. In a sense, the president's most paranoid critics pay him a perverse compliment in maintaining that his idealism burns with such pure, all-consuming heat that he remains blissfully unconcerned with minor matters like his electoral future. They label Mr. Obama as the political equivalent of a suicide bomber: so overcome with hatred (or "rage") that he's perfectly willing to blow himself up in order to inflict casualties on a society he loathes.

On his radio show last July 2, the most influential conservative commentator of them all reaffirmed his frequent charge that the president seeks economic suffering "on purpose." Rush Limbaugh explained: "I think we face something we've never faced before in the country—and that is, we're now governed by people who do not like the country." In his view, this hostility to the United States relates to a grudge connected to Mr. Obama's black identity. "There's no question that payback is what this administration is all about, presiding over the decline of the United States of America, and doing so happily."

[For the record, I alerted ya'll to Limbaugh's crazy conspiracy rants when they happened. - J]

Regardless of the questionable pop psychology of this analysis, as a political strategy it qualifies as almost perfectly imbecilic. Republicans already face a formidable challenge in convincing a closely divided electorate that the president pursues wrong-headed policies. They will never succeed in arguing that those initiatives have been cunningly and purposefully designed to wound the republic. In Mr. Obama's case, it's particularly unhelpful to focus on alleged bad intentions and rotten character when every survey shows more favorable views of his personality than his policies.

Moreover, the current insistence in seeing every misstep or setback by the Obama administration as part of a diabolical master plan for national destruction disregards the powerful reverence for the White House that's been part of our national character for two centuries.

Even in times of panic and distress, we hope the Almighty has answered John Adams's prayer. Americans may not see a given president as their advocate, but they're hardly disposed to view him as their enemy—and a furtive, determined enemy at that. For 2012, Republicans face a daunting challenge in running against the president. That challenge becomes impossible if they're also perceived as running against the presidency.

Mr. Medved hosts a daily, nationally syndicated radio show.

Liberals mind their money and their minds

The professional movie critic Michael Medved (who has spent his whole adult life watching Hollywood films and then blasting Hollywood for promoting immorality and anti-American values) wants to tell me how I, a liberal, see the world.  I give his lame attempt 2 thumbs down.

 

Conservatives vs. Liberals: Two Paths to Power

By Michael Medved

April 1, 2009 | Townhall.com

 

The ferocious fight over the Obama budget exposes some of the deepest differences between liberals and conservatives, contrasting not only their goals for the country but their desires for themselves.

 

All human beings feel a drive for power, but leftists and right-wingers express that urge with opposing (and often irreconcilable) strategies. They employ very different means in pursuit of power in part because they seek distinctive ends: at the most basic level, liberals want enhanced control through political authority while conservatives crave greater sway through accumulation of personal wealth. Understanding the true nature of this distinction clarifies the most polarizing political disputes that currently divide the country. 

[Right, that's why Republicans don't try like hell to get elected or anything, not using tactics like gerrymandering, voter intimidation, and SC judges' 11th hour decisions.  They just concentrate on making money and concede most elections to Democrats. - J]

 

The liberal preoccupation with governmental control characterizes every major initiative of the Obama administration. The reflexive response to the financial crisis is to blame it on insufficient regulation and to demand an instant expansion of bureaucratic authority to deal with the emergency. The left places its faith in governmental institutions, and even though most leftists will never personally involve themselves in politics or the bureaucracy, they support and trust those who do.

 

For instance, recent polling shows that big majorities of Americans want government to require more fuel efficient cars. Of course, the countless sincere citizens who demand such regulations could easily purchase high-mileage vehicles without waiting for some new federal policy, but the demand for sweeping regulations shows that many Americans trust bureaucrats more than they trust themselves.

 

Thoughtful liberals defend this deep-seated yen for government supervision by affirming that they feel no pressing need for Washington to regulate them, but they do want more rules and bureaucracy to rein in the destructive excesses of their greedy, irresponsible, selfish neighbors. In other words, leftists seek greatly enhanced power for those they consider enlightened and generous and broadminded—best exemplified, of course, by President Obama himself. They seek vastly increased funds for these wise, steady, philosopher-kings who guide the federal government, and sharply decreased money for the wealthiest, most productive private citizens (and, for that matter, for private charities). They believe that society will benefit greatly if progressive leaders define new goals in health care, energy, education and every other field, rather than relying on the often benighted impulses and preferences of the public at large. The great unwashed may enjoy "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars," but if the feds pump enough taxpayer money into PBS, maybe the culture commissars can facilitate the appreciation of higher things. In view of the painfully high cost of health insurance, tens of millions of Americans choose not purchase it – though many of them clearly can afford it. In response, progressives want to force them to get government insurance whether they want it or not, and plan to bill them (and everybody else) with increased taxes. In short, liberals seek power and influence over their fellow citizens by means of a more energetic and intrusive government, with the belief that everyone will benefit from more supervision, regulation, and social workers to administer the new agenda of compassion. 

[Um, ever heard of voting?  It's that thing we do every 2 years.  It's when we get to choose gov't representatives who share our "often benighted impulses and preferences." Seriously, Medved would have us believe that the only time the public ever expresses personal preferences is when they buy something. - J]

 

While liberals seek to advance their values and priorities with more bureaucracy and federal spending, most conservatives yearn for a different sort of power: the control and privilege and security that comes from the accumulation of personal wealth. Right-wingers want above all to take care of themselves and the people closest to them – family, co-workers, friends, and fellow members of churches or other affinity groups. Conservatives generally feel less concerned about the welfare of strangers than they do about the fate of those who are close at hand, though they understand that personal success also brings benefits for the whole society. A flourishing business creates new jobs, and those workers can use their paychecks to stimulate the entire economy. Conservatives distrust bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare programs and redistribution of wealth because such initiatives reward the sort of behavior that right-wingers would never want to encourage personally. 

[Naturally, being less concerned about the welfare of strangers jibes perfectly with conservative Christian morals.  As Jesus said, "It's tough out there, people, so take care of your own.  Let the guy in the next village worry about the next village."  Or something like that. - J]

The power that conservatives most fervently desire involves self-sufficiency: the ability to control your own circumstances and your future, without depending on government or charity. Accumulating wealth – or at least putting together some modest savings – insures that you'll be well-treated more effectively than any governmental regulations or guarantees.

 

The contrast between the liberal and conservative pursuit of power gives the left two big advantages in politics, while providing the right with an even more substantial edge in terms of personal happiness.

 

In politics, the liberal focus on influencing government and controlling the status of other people allows the left to claim the mantle of superior compassion. Because leftists talk more about the welfare of strangers, they portray themselves as more idealistic and more concerned with humanity at large. By contrast, the conservative emphasis on private institutions – businesses, families, churches – is often derided as selfish and insular. 

[I deride these institutions as poverty-fighters because they don't work; they haven't put a dent in poverty, or at least families and churches haven't.  Indeed, during the recession people are contriubting less money to charities, despite a greater need. - J]

 

The left enjoys a second built-in political advantage: because of its emphasis on the importance of public life and governmental activism, the most ambitious and gifted people in the progressive community will often choose politics as a higher calling. Conservatives, with their preoccupation with the private sector, will much more likely choose to emphasize building families, businesses or communities rather than constructing electoral careers. 

 

This means that those observers who perceive superior political ability on the liberal side of the spectrum are probably correct. Moreover, it's a structural imbalance, and not a temporary aberration – a reflection of the fact that the left sees government as a source of enlightenment and accomplishment, while the right views government as a locus of corruption and potential tyranny. It's not surprising that those who look on bureaucracy and political power most favorably will choose disproportionately to involve themselves in those pursuits. 

[Wow, what an admission!  Finally, Medved hits the target!  Yes indeed, when you elect people to gov't who believe that gov't is bound to be cynical, inefficient, ineffective, and even corrupt, well, then... don't be surprised when that's exactly what kind of gov't you get.  Just like Coca-Cola wouldn't hire a CEO who drank only tea, or you wouldn't choose a surgeon who recommended pills instead, or you wouldn't send your children to a teacher who hated kids. - J]

 

Conservatives, meanwhile, enjoy a mirror-image structural advantage when it comes to personal happiness. It is obviously much easier to control your own circumstances than to secure the welfare of society at large. It's inherently more possible and more satisfying to influence yourself and your intimates than to impact millions upon millions of utter strangers.

 

In other words, it's easier to change yourself than to change the world. [Duh. - J]  It's therefore only logical that conservatives would report far higher levels of contentment and personal happiness than liberals, according to Syracuse University's Arthur Brooks (author of "Gross National Happiness"), and everyone else who's studied the subject. 

[Is liberals' ennui due to their pre-occupation with the sadness, suffering, and moral complexity of our messed-up world, whereas conservatives' happiness is due to their blissful ignorance, instead spending their time thinking about the accumulation of personal wealth?  Perhaps.  But if you look at how Americans vote, in fact rich people -- especially the super-rich -- are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, especially from the richest East and West coast "blue" states. This inconvenient fact kind of shoots Medved's whole theory to hell... unless we allow for the possibility that, despite all their time & effort spent trying to get rich, conservatives are still worse at making money than politically 'distracted' liberals!  Can you say 'multi-tasking'? - J]

 

Both conservatives and liberals pursue power, but the left wants to influence other people and society at large while right-wingers want enhanced control over their personal circumstances. That contrast may give liberals the edge in many political scraps, but conservatives will still have a better and more satisfying time in the process.