2016: Dinesh D’Souza’s Misguided Film
September 14, 2012
R.R. Reno
The success of Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie, 2016: Obama’s America, leads me to revisit my thoughts about his recent book on which the film is based, The Roots of Obama’s Rage. I was and remain unconvinced by the argument that Obama’s anti-colonialist father explains his governing mentality. By my reckoning, the emerging postmodern liberalism of Columbia University circa 1982 (where I was for a semester as a visiting student) explains Obama pretty well.
Not only do we not need to go to Kenya to find the sources of Obama’s worldview (the Ivy League will do just fine), but in fact the very realistic and at times cold-blooded sentiments of post-colonial Africans who wrested their futures out of the hands of their European masters cuts against the magical thinking that characterizes the sort of liberalism that the Obama White House represents.
For example, D’Souza writes in a Forbes article that served as a précis for his book: “From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global dominance and destruction. He came to view America’s military as an instrument for neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder.”
Accurate or not as a description of our president’s intellectual development, Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, and a whole raft of Vietnam era baby boomers thought the same thing (and passed it on to their kids)—and yet none had Kenyan fathers.
More decisive still, I think, is a passage that D’Souza quotes from Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father. In this passage Obama is talking about his undergraduate experience reading Joseph Conrad’s famous novella about white imperialism in Africa, The Heart of Darkness. Obama recalls, “I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. . . . It helps me understand how people learn to hate.”
Learn to hate! I cannot imagine that Barack Obama, Sr., a man formed in the crucible of the Kenyan struggle for independence, would have ever entertained the facile notion that human beings are inherently good, and only hate because they are socialized into negative worldviews. The sad fact of the matter is that we hate quite naturally. We need to learn decency, to say nothing of the ideal of loving one’s enemies.
D’Souza’s argument is not just unpersuasive; it is positively misleading. Obama is very much a man formed by American culture. He is, in fact, our first therapeutic president. He doesn’t so much have beliefs as critical perspectives, not convictions but instead expertise. He doesn’t confront our enemies, but rather tries to understand them, empathize, and gain their trust—perhaps in order to help overcome their fears and learn how not to hate . . .
Philip Rieff announced the triumph of the therapeutic nearly 50 years ago, so in a way it’s surprising that it took so long for us to have a president like Obama. But now we do, and it does us no good at all to imagine that his mentality comes from alien shores, as D’Souza suggests. On the contrary, Barack Obama strikes me as an intelligent, ambitious, and fully committed representative of the therapeutic American liberalism of our day.
At its worst it’s a smug liberalism that refuses to see itself as an ideology but instead postures as our national (and global!) guidance counselor, which explains why Obama can push for liberal policies while insisting that he is nonpartisan. The therapist, after all, has no “interests,” only “understanding.”
Far from having sources in the Third World, I’m willing to bet that the therapeutic liberalism that Obama represents gives most anti-colonial African nationalists the creeps.
We need to be careful in assessing our liberal adversaries. They represent an American progressive tradition that has strong, deep roots in our society. As a conservative, I want to work against the predominance of this tradition to prevent it from controlling the future of our country. But my fight, our fight, is with our brothers, not with aliens from a different planet (or Africa, or Europe, as the case may be).
R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here. This article is based on his 2010 First Thoughts post, “D’Souza Unconvincing.”
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
9.14.2012 | 1:28am
Warren says:
I disagree, and I believe you have missed the point. You ignore the economic, geopolitical & domestic social peril brought on by this administration. Compassion without reason is dangerous. You're a Biblical Scholar, intelligent and a gifted writer, I urge you to step out of your current library, and read "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek as a foundation. D'souza got it right; I think you'd be wise to revisit his arguments, and listen this time, without a predetermined heart.
9.14.2012 | 2:32am
Rick says:
Agreed--Obama's mentality and policies do NOT spring from the anti-colonialism of indigenous tribal Africa. We have had some interesting samplings of their distinctly non-liberal mindset recently: proposed laws making homosexuality punishable by death (the Berbers of the Rif Mountains in Morocco, where I lived, had the charming custom of tying homosexuals back-to-back, soaking them in gasoline, and lighting them off), forced genital mutilation of girls, leaders worshipped as virtual gods (I saw President Mobutu on a t-v spot in Zaire descending from the heavens in a beam of light to earth), and goon squads with Kalashnikovs who would beat to a pulp anyone daring to vote for an opposition politician. In fact, all that brand of "conservatism" has made me a bit more appreciative of American liberalism and tolerance.
I wonder, though, if simply identifying Obama as a typical American liberal goes far enough to decipher him. I've come to the conclusion that he actually is more complex than that. For example, if he bought into the notion, a la Jane Fonda, that the American military was an instrument of neocolonial domination, would he think long and deep about the war in Afghanistan and then decide to send tens of thousands more US soldiers to fight there?
And about the "magical" liberal thinking... Are you sure that some conservative thinking isn't vulnerable to the same charge? For instance, the notion that if we just get government off the backs of the Randian movers and shakers of society, then the John Galts will be able to start new businesses, employ common workers, and the economy will roar to life again. Except, it won't, because the middle class is dead in its tracks, impoverished by globalization and other factors. With no middle class consumers, there will be no market for the new businesses. Likewise, Keynsian stimulus won't start it up, either, and for exactly the same reason. There is plenty of magical thinking to go around for both sides.
I wonder, though, if simply identifying Obama as a typical American liberal goes far enough to decipher him. I've come to the conclusion that he actually is more complex than that. For example, if he bought into the notion, a la Jane Fonda, that the American military was an instrument of neocolonial domination, would he think long and deep about the war in Afghanistan and then decide to send tens of thousands more US soldiers to fight there?
And about the "magical" liberal thinking... Are you sure that some conservative thinking isn't vulnerable to the same charge? For instance, the notion that if we just get government off the backs of the Randian movers and shakers of society, then the John Galts will be able to start new businesses, employ common workers, and the economy will roar to life again. Except, it won't, because the middle class is dead in its tracks, impoverished by globalization and other factors. With no middle class consumers, there will be no market for the new businesses. Likewise, Keynsian stimulus won't start it up, either, and for exactly the same reason. There is plenty of magical thinking to go around for both sides.
9.14.2012 | 6:17am
Rick Cross says:
Mr Reno remembers Columbia in the 1980s. I distinctly remember Boulder and Berkley in the 1960s, both part of American culture, where some practiced a therapeutic in bomb making and rioting (consider it a kind of guidance counseling.) I believe one of its practitioners at the time was Mr. Bill Ayers.
9.14.2012 | 6:44am
John Wickey says:
I think that you are partially wrong. Yes, his domestic policies have roots in the American progressive tradition, but much of his foreign policies are also rooted in the notion that American should have less influence in the world, that this influence has been the root of evil that has kept the third world in its place, at the bottom. I also think that his profession of Christianity is perverse and feckless.
9.14.2012 | 7:30am
eusebius says:
"He doesn’t confront our enemies, but rather tries to understand them, empathize, and gain their trust—perhaps in order to help overcome their fears and learn how not to hate . . ." Silliness. Just ask the victims of US drone attacks, which were begun under our putatively conserative former president and continued under our putatively liberal current one.
9.14.2012 | 7:48am
Joe DeVet says:
My guess is that we're talking about a "both/and" situation. It seems more probable that Obama was first formed by his foreign experience, which then was reinforced by liberal American ideas, and further reinforced by the foriegn influence of his father.
In the case of the home-grown Ivy-League liberals, many of their ideas were imported, let us recall. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Freud, liberation theologists were all from somewhere else.
The movie does a public service by pointing out the broader influences on this man than just the obvious Ivy-League-community-organizer-ACORN milieu, with which we are already familiar.
In the case of the home-grown Ivy-League liberals, many of their ideas were imported, let us recall. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Freud, liberation theologists were all from somewhere else.
The movie does a public service by pointing out the broader influences on this man than just the obvious Ivy-League-community-organizer-ACORN milieu, with which we are already familiar.
9.14.2012 | 8:33am
Peadar Ban says:
Thank you, Sir, for your analysis. I have seen the D"Souza film and thought it a quietly persuasive piece. But I came away wondering how much more than his father's might have been Obama's mother's influence on him. The scenes and narration in Indonesia were what started me thinking along those lines, especially the comment she made to her husband about the white westerners in the oil community not being her kind of people. From there he is sent to be with his grandparents in Hawaii and comes under the influence of a radical leftist columnist....not to mention Grandpa and HIS socialist notions.
That isn't to say that your thoughts above are not an important piece of the puzzle. They put flesh on the bones for me, and I truly appreciate what you have to say about the man, here, and the pond from which he emerged.
My only quarrel with the story is with the last sentence in your first paragraph. But, beyond personal experience I have nothing to offer in advance of the topic. I well remember the Free Speech Movement and the sit-ins at Columbia. I was a student at a small private college in New York then and remember not being able to understand what in God's name was wrong with the people who ran Columbia and taught in the place. The simple solution, I thought and still think, to the problem was expulsion. With no place to sleep and no place to eat, things would rather quickly have quieted down.
That horse your speak of was long out of the barn by 1982, sad to say.
As a Federal Narcotics agent only a few years later I learned first hand what happened to so many young postmodern liberals in the 19th century tenements of the East Village. It was not a pretty sight.
That isn't to say that your thoughts above are not an important piece of the puzzle. They put flesh on the bones for me, and I truly appreciate what you have to say about the man, here, and the pond from which he emerged.
My only quarrel with the story is with the last sentence in your first paragraph. But, beyond personal experience I have nothing to offer in advance of the topic. I well remember the Free Speech Movement and the sit-ins at Columbia. I was a student at a small private college in New York then and remember not being able to understand what in God's name was wrong with the people who ran Columbia and taught in the place. The simple solution, I thought and still think, to the problem was expulsion. With no place to sleep and no place to eat, things would rather quickly have quieted down.
That horse your speak of was long out of the barn by 1982, sad to say.
As a Federal Narcotics agent only a few years later I learned first hand what happened to so many young postmodern liberals in the 19th century tenements of the East Village. It was not a pretty sight.
9.14.2012 | 8:42am
Dan says:
Between D'Souza and Reno may I interject a middle category: Third Culture Kid. Obama spent some impressionable years in Indonesia and was not doubt formed by that experience. The phenomenon of Third Culture Kid has been studied and written up. Some of us who are TCKs have recognized the traits in Obama. It doesn't explain everything, but it merits consideration.
9.14.2012 | 9:16am
Suzanne Carl says:
This strikes me as a situation where both perspectives are equally true. The dramatized scene near the beginning of 2016 in which D'Souza encounters a classmate in college with views similar to Obama's indicates that D'Souza would not disagree with you, Mr. Reno. Both perspectives have influenced our president. Both are dangerous.
9.14.2012 | 9:36am
Charlie Collier says:
How does psychoanalyzing the President to determine the roots of his difference not represent a moment internal to the triumph of the therapeutic?
9.14.2012 | 10:36am
Bill says:
Certainly, the influences on President Obama are legion: the father, the "mentors", Columbia, etc. . . . . The greatest influence on him, however, is a bit bypassed, critically: his mother. Her "liberal" influences throughout his childhood, and her examples towards and navigations of her son up through and into adulthood undergird his worldview. As a source of knowledge about the world and as a provider of of his sense of security, Anne Dunham was the underlying fire propelling Mr. Obama into history. Also, for the most part,"American progressive tradition" is hardly progressive. It has been insidiously regressive. Time will tell. It always does and surely will, as predicted.
9.14.2012 | 11:24am
Michael says:
The facts are the facts, no matter how one tries to spin it. His father had deep socialist roots bordering on communism. His mother and grandparents were avid socialists. He was mentored by a known communist, Frank Marshall, when he lived in Hawaii. He attended a radical anti-American church lead by the Rev. Wright, who has many documented and recorded hateful speeches against America. He has radical ties to known terrorist, Ayers, who bombed buildings. I can go on and on, but the proof is in the pudding. As you quote,
“Obama is very much a man formed by American culture. He is, in fact, our first therapeutic president. He doesn’t so much have beliefs as critical perspectives, not convictions but instead expertise. He doesn’t confront our enemies, but rather tries to understand them, empathize, and gain their trust—perhaps in order to help overcome their fears and learn how not to hate .”.
How is that working for the Catholic Church in America where he is forcing his beliefs of free contraception and free abortions onto the Church? How is his foreign policy working out for his now? He goes around the Arab World apologizing for what America stands for to the Arabs, removes leaders he feels doesn’t fit his template and now we have chaos in the Middle East with American’s being killed. Just because Mr. Obama chooses not to believe that there is evil (i.e. the Devil) in this world, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. By off of Mr. Obama’s actions and extremely liberal Czar Appointees, he does have an agenda to change America, not for the better, but to knock it down and notch and make America pay for this so called unfair advantage we have had from our value system, religious beliefs and freedoms.
“Obama is very much a man formed by American culture. He is, in fact, our first therapeutic president. He doesn’t so much have beliefs as critical perspectives, not convictions but instead expertise. He doesn’t confront our enemies, but rather tries to understand them, empathize, and gain their trust—perhaps in order to help overcome their fears and learn how not to hate .”.
How is that working for the Catholic Church in America where he is forcing his beliefs of free contraception and free abortions onto the Church? How is his foreign policy working out for his now? He goes around the Arab World apologizing for what America stands for to the Arabs, removes leaders he feels doesn’t fit his template and now we have chaos in the Middle East with American’s being killed. Just because Mr. Obama chooses not to believe that there is evil (i.e. the Devil) in this world, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. By off of Mr. Obama’s actions and extremely liberal Czar Appointees, he does have an agenda to change America, not for the better, but to knock it down and notch and make America pay for this so called unfair advantage we have had from our value system, religious beliefs and freedoms.
9.14.2012 | 11:43am
gordon marino says:
The Drone Master who ordered the strike on Bin Laden is an example of therapeutic culture because he makes some efforts to understand our enemies? I guess Sun Tzu is as well since he suggests the same in the ART OF WAR?
But come on - our liberal ADVERSARIES? I don't think this team mentality is the most productive way to think about political dialogue. It can even prod a person to give a hearing to a team member who really has nothing to say and is just a shill for the right -- or left. And if you will indulge me here for a free association-- I can always remember Professor Rieff carrying on " Everyone is an author is search of a topic" has nothing to say but wants to be heard, and in D'Souza's case handsomely paid.
But come on - our liberal ADVERSARIES? I don't think this team mentality is the most productive way to think about political dialogue. It can even prod a person to give a hearing to a team member who really has nothing to say and is just a shill for the right -- or left. And if you will indulge me here for a free association-- I can always remember Professor Rieff carrying on " Everyone is an author is search of a topic" has nothing to say but wants to be heard, and in D'Souza's case handsomely paid.
9.14.2012 | 12:19pm
MRD says:
I am not sure that Mr. Reno and Mr D'sousa are all that far apart. Does it really matter if Mr Obama's radial anti-american views arise primarily from marinating with radical, marxist inclined IVY league professors, or whether there is some influence of this late fathers anti-colonial, marxist inclined political philosophy? I would think that the overlap is so great that to try an tease this out is neither possible nor helpful.
The essential insigt of D'Sousa is to recognize that Obama is not someone who as some conservatives allege "does not understand the economy" or is naive about foreign affairs. I think this is almost insulting to Obama who clearly has impressive political skills, rising from unknown State Senator to President very rapidly. D'Sousa makes the case that Obama simply has a different agenda. HE does not care if the unemployement rate is 8% or 18%, HE does not care how many embassies are burned down by Jihadist Muslims.. What he cares about is that America is made more "fair" and just" according to his leftist/ radical view of the world ( regardless of the details of how it was aquired) and this is what drives him and explains his behavior. DSousa puts his theory on the line. ( This is more than most commentators) He makes predictions about what policies he will pursue. So lets see if he is correct. He will allow Iran to aquire Nuclear weapons is one such prediction. He will spend us to oblivion is another, because he really is not concerned about mundane issues like inflation, national debt etc. lets see if this is correct. Anyone willing to wager?
The essential insigt of D'Sousa is to recognize that Obama is not someone who as some conservatives allege "does not understand the economy" or is naive about foreign affairs. I think this is almost insulting to Obama who clearly has impressive political skills, rising from unknown State Senator to President very rapidly. D'Sousa makes the case that Obama simply has a different agenda. HE does not care if the unemployement rate is 8% or 18%, HE does not care how many embassies are burned down by Jihadist Muslims.. What he cares about is that America is made more "fair" and just" according to his leftist/ radical view of the world ( regardless of the details of how it was aquired) and this is what drives him and explains his behavior. DSousa puts his theory on the line. ( This is more than most commentators) He makes predictions about what policies he will pursue. So lets see if he is correct. He will allow Iran to aquire Nuclear weapons is one such prediction. He will spend us to oblivion is another, because he really is not concerned about mundane issues like inflation, national debt etc. lets see if this is correct. Anyone willing to wager?
9.14.2012 | 12:44pm
Amatorem Veritatis says:
Re: R.R. Reno:
False dichotomy alert! Several others have already identified the real answer to the "Obama question", i.e., his ideological formation is almost certainly a case of "both/and" as opposed to your attempt at dilemma. But assuming for the moment we accept your premise, your otherwise well reasoned critique stops somewhat short of reality. First, let me say that D'Souza's thesis can be viewed narrowly in the context of the Eurocentric anti-colonialism of Africa and many other regions, or can be seen in the larger context of Marxist class struggle exegesis that tends to permeate virtually all post-colonial revolutionary thought. I prefer the latter context to the former. Therefore, your formulation is certainly accurate in part, but your characterization of Obama as being representative of "therapeutic liberalism" misses the point. Obama is a great grand-child of early 20th century Progressivism, evolved (mutated?) through the New Deal and Great Society cultural calamities. This Progressive heritage, and the neo-progressivism of Obama, H.Clinton, Pelosi, Reed, Carter, et al, is nothing more than a uniquely American version of historical European socialism & fascism. All firmly rooted in the zeitgeist of Marxist magisterial thought, but shaped by the unique character of American individualism. And therefore profoundly dangerous to the ideal of the America experiment. You fail to provide sufficient respect to the threat that he and his fellow travelers present to not only American, but the world order (no hyperbole intended).
Re: Rick Says:
Was with you until the final paragraph. The "Randian/Galt" straw man is rather silly don't you think? There are no Rand style ruthless utilitarians running any companies that I know. It was just a book. Not even a well written book. It was a caricature of human and collective nature trying to make a point. And yes, "if we just get government off the backs of" everyone (not just your facile formulation of Randian movers and shakers), then we would see a remarkable improvement in business development, unemployment and every other meaningful metric. And you are wrong on both counts regarding the "death of the middle class". Although income growth has slowed recently, the middle class is expanding not contracting. And any reasonable analysis of what is considered "poverty" in this country reveals a standard of living equivalent to the upper middle class in Europe. Ergo, our "middle class" is doing quite well thank you, compared to the rest of the world, and your pessimism has just a hint of Malthus. And just think of the positive benefits of creating the largest middle class in the history of man...in China (and India for that matter). That would have never happened without all those "Randian movers and shakers" that you so blithely dismiss. Just sayin!
False dichotomy alert! Several others have already identified the real answer to the "Obama question", i.e., his ideological formation is almost certainly a case of "both/and" as opposed to your attempt at dilemma. But assuming for the moment we accept your premise, your otherwise well reasoned critique stops somewhat short of reality. First, let me say that D'Souza's thesis can be viewed narrowly in the context of the Eurocentric anti-colonialism of Africa and many other regions, or can be seen in the larger context of Marxist class struggle exegesis that tends to permeate virtually all post-colonial revolutionary thought. I prefer the latter context to the former. Therefore, your formulation is certainly accurate in part, but your characterization of Obama as being representative of "therapeutic liberalism" misses the point. Obama is a great grand-child of early 20th century Progressivism, evolved (mutated?) through the New Deal and Great Society cultural calamities. This Progressive heritage, and the neo-progressivism of Obama, H.Clinton, Pelosi, Reed, Carter, et al, is nothing more than a uniquely American version of historical European socialism & fascism. All firmly rooted in the zeitgeist of Marxist magisterial thought, but shaped by the unique character of American individualism. And therefore profoundly dangerous to the ideal of the America experiment. You fail to provide sufficient respect to the threat that he and his fellow travelers present to not only American, but the world order (no hyperbole intended).
Re: Rick Says:
Was with you until the final paragraph. The "Randian/Galt" straw man is rather silly don't you think? There are no Rand style ruthless utilitarians running any companies that I know. It was just a book. Not even a well written book. It was a caricature of human and collective nature trying to make a point. And yes, "if we just get government off the backs of" everyone (not just your facile formulation of Randian movers and shakers), then we would see a remarkable improvement in business development, unemployment and every other meaningful metric. And you are wrong on both counts regarding the "death of the middle class". Although income growth has slowed recently, the middle class is expanding not contracting. And any reasonable analysis of what is considered "poverty" in this country reveals a standard of living equivalent to the upper middle class in Europe. Ergo, our "middle class" is doing quite well thank you, compared to the rest of the world, and your pessimism has just a hint of Malthus. And just think of the positive benefits of creating the largest middle class in the history of man...in China (and India for that matter). That would have never happened without all those "Randian movers and shakers" that you so blithely dismiss. Just sayin!
9.14.2012 | 1:40pm
John Hinshaw says:
You couldn't be more right, Mr. Reno. Conservatives have gone to great lengths to understand Obama as if he is a unique figure in American politics. Follow his career in the banalities of an urban political machine of Chicago and you find nothing unique. He is the predictable byproduct of of our vapid educational system (higher and lower). I listen to him and he sounds like any shallow kid from one of our upper-crust suburbs, espousing generalities about the danger of everyone who doesn't think like him. His problem does not stem from his father's anti-colonialism, but from his mother's baby boomer mentality. This mindset is just as hostile to American interests as the other. This misreading of him has famously led some to worry that he is actually a Muslim. I listen to him when he talks about God (which seems only to be when he is forced to ) and he sounds like no Muslim I have ever heard before. He sounds like another American kid who thinks.."like, I mean, God may exist, but what does that have to do with me? I mean, like, look at what all those religious people do to other people and they're sooo uncool." He seems to have made no connection to God at all. I hear an American secularist. The only unique thing about him is his election to the Presidency with a dark skin - something that makes me a little proud of my country, not him. What he has done as President will determine my pride in the man.
9.14.2012 | 1:46pm
JB says:
It seems many commenters already nailed it.
Actually, we're talking about exactly the same thing. African anti-colonialism was not a tribesmen fight. It was a subproduct of western liberalism brought there by guys, like Obama's dad, who had studied in Europe or America.
Google Mondlane, for instance.
The young Eduardo Mondlane, a black Mozambican, was very loyal to Portugal. Then he went to study in America (Yale?) and become a marxist. He founded a leftist guerrilla group which was happily funded not only by the Washington government but also by private US corporations. As soon as the Portuguese were kicked the Americans would arrive that was the plan... How ironic!
Actually, we're talking about exactly the same thing. African anti-colonialism was not a tribesmen fight. It was a subproduct of western liberalism brought there by guys, like Obama's dad, who had studied in Europe or America.
Google Mondlane, for instance.
The young Eduardo Mondlane, a black Mozambican, was very loyal to Portugal. Then he went to study in America (Yale?) and become a marxist. He founded a leftist guerrilla group which was happily funded not only by the Washington government but also by private US corporations. As soon as the Portuguese were kicked the Americans would arrive that was the plan... How ironic!
9.14.2012 | 1:57pm
Donna says:
Living in Canada, we have yet had access to the movie (nor doubt we shall), so those of us interested have had to content ourselves with reading his very recent book, Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream.
I find myself scratching my head after reading this current book, and then reading Mr. Reno's article. Like other commenters, I suggest this is a both/and situation. In this book, D'Souza assesses this president from many angles, one of which is the influence of an anti-colonialism, but he goes on to list a number of other key influences in this president's life: his current and past American mentors, his mother, his pastor, and more. D'Souza underlines that humans are often complex beings molded by many factors during our upbringing.
I find it disappointing that Mr. Reno would seem to overlook or underplay other factors presented, and, further, to offer this statement: "He [Obama] doesn’t so much have beliefs as critical perspectives, not convictions but instead expertise." Please, God, spare us from this "expertise."
I find myself scratching my head after reading this current book, and then reading Mr. Reno's article. Like other commenters, I suggest this is a both/and situation. In this book, D'Souza assesses this president from many angles, one of which is the influence of an anti-colonialism, but he goes on to list a number of other key influences in this president's life: his current and past American mentors, his mother, his pastor, and more. D'Souza underlines that humans are often complex beings molded by many factors during our upbringing.
I find it disappointing that Mr. Reno would seem to overlook or underplay other factors presented, and, further, to offer this statement: "He [Obama] doesn’t so much have beliefs as critical perspectives, not convictions but instead expertise." Please, God, spare us from this "expertise."
9.14.2012 | 2:44pm
D.W. Evans says:
I take issue with the thought D'Sousa's arguement is misleading. His argument along with yours tells Obama's story. He is a combination of those arguements plus an upbringing that was contrary to the most common American values. I also take issue with the perspectives above that posess Obama with some sort of exceptional intellectual empathy. Having spent a career in D.C. issues managment, there is conventional wisdom there that the man is quite out of his league--an amateur in all things except his ideology.
9.14.2012 | 2:48pm
Donald Vance says:
it seems to me that you both can be right. Modern liberalism is rife with post-/anti-colonialism. However, your therapeutic model doesn't explain the drilling and pipeline decisions nearly a well as D'Souza's model does.
9.14.2012 | 2:59pm
John Cummins says:
It's too bad that Reno defines himself as a conservative, too bad his discourse is based upon labels. It's not based upon labels, he might object? Then why does his writing so easily slip into the derision-by-quotation marks style, "The therapist, after all, has no 'interests,' only 'understanding' ", those quotation marks that take over where words fail.
An article worthwhile to conservatives and "conservatives", liberals and "liberals" and everyone else with a stake in the matter would review the fact there is "an American progressive tradition that has strong, deep roots in our society", would delve, impartially, into why that is so and into what it indicates about the history of attempts at practical and moral governance on the part of the West in the last 300 years or so, and about their future.
An article worthwhile to conservatives and "conservatives", liberals and "liberals" and everyone else with a stake in the matter would review the fact there is "an American progressive tradition that has strong, deep roots in our society", would delve, impartially, into why that is so and into what it indicates about the history of attempts at practical and moral governance on the part of the West in the last 300 years or so, and about their future.
9.14.2012 | 3:22pm
Bill says:
“He doesn’t confront our enemies, but rather tries to understand them, empathize, and gain their trust—perhaps in order to help overcome their fears and learn how not to hate . . .”
Aside from the debate of Anti-Colonialism vs. Ivy League liberal this statement I believe is one that merits the most consideration of this article. This is one thing that we do “know” about this president which is a debate in itself, however this can and most likely will be the undoing of his office. Where ever his ideology was nurtured, came from etc., the Commander and Chief and a President of these United States needs to be able to lead.
Aside from the debate of Anti-Colonialism vs. Ivy League liberal this statement I believe is one that merits the most consideration of this article. This is one thing that we do “know” about this president which is a debate in itself, however this can and most likely will be the undoing of his office. Where ever his ideology was nurtured, came from etc., the Commander and Chief and a President of these United States needs to be able to lead.
9.14.2012 | 3:24pm
mg15 says:
Our therapeutic President, and his teaching us to understand other cultures, which the President believes will win over those cultures, and the view of the neocolonial "military" will result in the same outcome of what D’Souza is describing. Same result just different thoughts.
9.14.2012 | 3:54pm
Bill Russell says:
How is is possible that Obama has a degree from Columbia University without having learned to speak any foreign language?
9.14.2012 | 4:33pm
Jay says:
RR Reno should watch the movie before criticizing it. He should also read D'Souza's book before criticizing it. To only read an excerpt in Forbes magazine is the utmost of hubris, but not surprising since his opinion is solely based upon his own personal experience. The lack of research conducted to write this commentary is embarrassing to RR Reno.
9.14.2012 | 5:10pm
Rick says:
Re: Amatorem Veritatis
I am impressed that you stuck with my post until the last paragraph! But the farther right of the Republican philosophy today (Paul Ryan, for example), definitely buys into the notion that we especially have to free the wealthier business and investor classes from gov't interference, regulation, and taxation, in order to facilitate business creation. Actually, I would contest the notion that the American middle classes make the middle classes in a country like Germany look poor. For one thing, European families haven't nearly the burden of medical expenses and higher education that our families have. Furthermore, hard research shows that the American middle classes have lost a great deal of their share of total family wealth over the last couple of decades, with most of that wealth moving up to the rich classes.
I also wondered if it makes sense to automatically label an "anti-colonialist" mentality as "dangerous" or "un-American." We started our history with an anti-colonial struggle. Was Gandhi really a "half-naked, seditious fakir," as Churchill called him? Would India be better off today if it were still under the British Raj?
I am impressed that you stuck with my post until the last paragraph! But the farther right of the Republican philosophy today (Paul Ryan, for example), definitely buys into the notion that we especially have to free the wealthier business and investor classes from gov't interference, regulation, and taxation, in order to facilitate business creation. Actually, I would contest the notion that the American middle classes make the middle classes in a country like Germany look poor. For one thing, European families haven't nearly the burden of medical expenses and higher education that our families have. Furthermore, hard research shows that the American middle classes have lost a great deal of their share of total family wealth over the last couple of decades, with most of that wealth moving up to the rich classes.
I also wondered if it makes sense to automatically label an "anti-colonialist" mentality as "dangerous" or "un-American." We started our history with an anti-colonial struggle. Was Gandhi really a "half-naked, seditious fakir," as Churchill called him? Would India be better off today if it were still under the British Raj?
9.14.2012 | 5:20pm
Rick says:
Dinesh is a courageous man and is placing truth in front of everyone to see and to see plainly. It is hard for those that voted for OBama to muster the humility to see the vote they cast as a huge mistake. These are times when we need to think clearly and make judgments based on records and facts, or as our Master said, "Judge by the fruit." By this measure it is clear that Obama just has to go. He must be rejected as a failure. Just his history alone with Davis and Ayers made it obvious he was not presidential material. He is something different altogether. Now that our collective conscience has been soothed with a "black" president, we can move on and do what is right for our generation and our children and grandchildren.
9.14.2012 | 6:07pm
A.M. says:
While the true source of the influnece of evil in any one's life may be beyond the reach of undersatnding for most of us , we have been given ample ways to deal with same !
Fr.Machado, a priest trained exorcism , in his book ' Holy Hands ' mentions the case of evil possession of a nun in Italy , whose family had surrendered 12 generations to the evil one and she was supposedly in the eight generation .
Would it be unrepentant sin against life , in one of the ancestors and the resultant deep hatreds, with the broken relationships , that we see playing out ..
Seems we may not even need any new terms to recognise the age old spirit of idolatry - of rebellion against God , wanting what belongs to God and efforts to instill such , with ever more ardor ....
http://www.spiritdaily.com/Yozefu1.htm - may be Kenya needs to meet this priest from Nigeria , whose book deals in family healings ..
and the prayers from many , for ancetsral bondages as well as debt of present actions ..
It was heartwarming to hear , on this Feast of the Exaltation of The Holy Cross ,prayers for forgiveness for all ...which would , in turn , help us to have respect , as mentioned in the Vatican directives related to the recent violence , even for those persons whose errors seem so glaring , that , in the Power and light of The Cross , we need not so much focus on such ..but what God's mercy can do , for any who so want same , with a heart that recognises that need .
And hope that those who want to deny that power, for others , by promoting decisions that make gods out of greed or fear for doing good , by struggling against evil tendenceis , would recognise what they are doing ...of influencing many more , in to the same spirit of idolatry of self and the emptiness of such !
Fr.Machado, a priest trained exorcism , in his book ' Holy Hands ' mentions the case of evil possession of a nun in Italy , whose family had surrendered 12 generations to the evil one and she was supposedly in the eight generation .
Would it be unrepentant sin against life , in one of the ancestors and the resultant deep hatreds, with the broken relationships , that we see playing out ..
Seems we may not even need any new terms to recognise the age old spirit of idolatry - of rebellion against God , wanting what belongs to God and efforts to instill such , with ever more ardor ....
http://www.spiritdaily.com/Yozefu1.htm - may be Kenya needs to meet this priest from Nigeria , whose book deals in family healings ..
and the prayers from many , for ancetsral bondages as well as debt of present actions ..
It was heartwarming to hear , on this Feast of the Exaltation of The Holy Cross ,prayers for forgiveness for all ...which would , in turn , help us to have respect , as mentioned in the Vatican directives related to the recent violence , even for those persons whose errors seem so glaring , that , in the Power and light of The Cross , we need not so much focus on such ..but what God's mercy can do , for any who so want same , with a heart that recognises that need .
And hope that those who want to deny that power, for others , by promoting decisions that make gods out of greed or fear for doing good , by struggling against evil tendenceis , would recognise what they are doing ...of influencing many more , in to the same spirit of idolatry of self and the emptiness of such !
9.14.2012 | 7:18pm
Gil Garza says:
Mr. Reno misses the entire point of the movie and makes a critical error. Yes, it is sufficient to say that Obama is merely a leftist in order to explain his agenda. That, however, is not reason enough to dismiss the anti-colonial hypothesis that Mr. D'Souza establishes. Mr. Reno makes, I believe, a critical error in saying that the President "is very much a man formed by American culture." No. He is not. Obama spent his formative years (until he was 10 years old) living in Indonesia. Then, when his step-father began showing too much favor to Capitalism and Free-Market ideas, his mother sent him away to be cared for by his grandparents and attend an elite leftist boarding school in Honolulu. Further, according to his own memoir, Obama's mother created a flawless example of anti-colonialism in his absent, biological father. It was this example that Obama was taught to emulate. In fact, Mr. Reno fails to engage any of supportive content of the movie. He, in smug fashion, swats away the arguments as "misguided" and something "alien." Mr. Reno would have greater credibility if he had actually seen the movie.
9.14.2012 | 7:57pm
Karen LH says:
Jay,
Reno has read the book. See http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/01/04/dsouza-on-obama/
Reno has read the book. See http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/01/04/dsouza-on-obama/
9.14.2012 | 8:37pm
Maria says:
I agree with others that there is much that both D'Souza and Reno say that ring true. And I confirm with others who have commented, that Obama's mother was a much greater influence than mentioned in either piece. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." The missing piece of "Who is Obama?" which D'Souza did not address is his EXTREME position on contraception and abortion. This is his sacred cause on which he WILL NOT BUDGE. His actions bear this out. I think it comes mostly from his mother and his liberal college days (and from the devil). He might compromise on budgets, or socialism vs. capitalism, but he will not compromise on this.
9.14.2012 | 10:37pm
Graham Combs says:
I'm not sure 2016 is the issue here. If Mr. Reno's livelihood depended upon the institutional culture that Pres. Obama represents I wonder if he would be either so sophisticated or complacent. Decency is not a word that my law school experiences bring to mind. I have to assume that he has never met a cold-eye ideologue or been humiliated with a smile. There's a small creature in the room that will always be central to any of these discussions and that is the unborn who no longer has the right to be born. His eminence Cardinal Archbishop Dolan has made a similar mistake. We are not dealing with thoughtful or particularly reasonable Americans. When I hear the president speak I don't hear thoughtfulness or empathy. What exactly is therapeutic about his unimaginative aspersions toward anyone who disagrees with him?
I'm so weary of these discussions. If you want to know how one budding conservative thought on June 13, 1993 read my op-ed piece in the New York Times of that date. My attempt to be reasonable could not have been more ill-advised. But I did know a cult when I encountered one. And 2008 jerked me back to the early 1990s.
I'm so weary of these discussions. If you want to know how one budding conservative thought on June 13, 1993 read my op-ed piece in the New York Times of that date. My attempt to be reasonable could not have been more ill-advised. But I did know a cult when I encountered one. And 2008 jerked me back to the early 1990s.
9.15.2012 | 4:26am
Rick says:
Well, I've been convinced. You could even call it a conversion experience. The arguments here are so strong that I can now see the danger and subversion of the anti-colonial mentality. And I say that the sooner we reverse the whole process, the better! Only a century ago, virtually the whole world was safely colonized by the Western, Christian powers, and it's not too late to return to those glory days.
I say our first target should be Mexico, and the model to use for the "Reconquista" would be a letter that General Patton wrote home from Mexico during his participation in Pershing's campaign against Pancho Villa. In it, Patton decried the debased culture of the Mexican people. He recommended to his family that the US should invade, conquer, and occupy the country. Then, he wrote, we should "exterminate the existing population." Well, look what a mess they are making of things down there! And this would only be the beginning of our colonial empire. Today Mexico, tomorrow the world!
(Excuse my satire, but I'm getting a little sick of the smug assumption that anyone with an anti-colonial mentality must surely be in league with the Devil.)
I say our first target should be Mexico, and the model to use for the "Reconquista" would be a letter that General Patton wrote home from Mexico during his participation in Pershing's campaign against Pancho Villa. In it, Patton decried the debased culture of the Mexican people. He recommended to his family that the US should invade, conquer, and occupy the country. Then, he wrote, we should "exterminate the existing population." Well, look what a mess they are making of things down there! And this would only be the beginning of our colonial empire. Today Mexico, tomorrow the world!
(Excuse my satire, but I'm getting a little sick of the smug assumption that anyone with an anti-colonial mentality must surely be in league with the Devil.)
9.15.2012 | 1:26pm
Mike Murray MD says:
After reading all of these erudite analyses I am reminded that a single and unexpected experence can change one's worldview. In the 1960's I was a medical officer stationed at a Strategic Air Command hydrogen bomber base. I fuly bought in to the current notion that Soviet Russia was a mighty force that intended to destroy us. A few years later, during an international thaw, I had the opportunity to travel to Russia to attend medical meetings in Moscow and Leningrad. I was allowed to travel freely and unaccompanied. (Perhaps there was a low level KGB agent on my tail but I was not interfered with). I walked deep into those cities and used the famed Moscow subway. I saw friendly, if shabbily dressed, citizens who, on one occassion, sent me a bottle of soviet champaign and purchased my meal after I had passed around some cigarettes. (I know, bad idea) The cities had not recovered from World War II during which the Russians had lost over twenty five million dead. It finally dawned upon me that they were afraid the United States would attack them and that their elderly and cautious leaders were also afraid and were simply trying to deter us.
The purpose of this story is to point out that our opinions, determined by our mindsets, conversations, readings, companions and experiences, are often dead wrong.
The purpose of this story is to point out that our opinions, determined by our mindsets, conversations, readings, companions and experiences, are often dead wrong.
9.15.2012 | 4:56pm
John Hinshaw says:
Now that the discussion has turned from Barack Obama and a film's mistaken notion of him as a third-world anti-colonialist, to a discussion of anti-colonialism itself, let's have at it. Like environmental concerns, imigration reform, concern for the domestic poor, the anti-colonial movement has been channeled into a narrow perspective of some in the first world to allow for wider exploitation. During the Cold War, anti-colonialism reared against the western governments while accepting all sorts of aid and intrusion from the first-world Soviets. I understand the third-world nations' pursuit of self-interest in a world not of their making, but I will not cede them the moral high ground. Today, the Vice President of the United States goes to an African country and tells their government that they must change their Contitution too allow for abortion "and the money will come flowing in". We heard nothing from the anti-colonialists. JoBi's comments seethe with colonialism (and more than a whiff of racism), yet no outrage from the perpetually offended.
9.15.2012 | 8:52pm
Georgia Hedrick says:
Much of what is stated by all above is so far above my head as to be in a bubble all by itself. Many of the vocabulary words are way beyond me. This being said, the arrogance of many who have written what they have written above saddens me.
So, what do I know? Did I see the movie? No. Did I read the Forbes article by D'Souza? yes. Did I read Obama's book? no. Do I understand what is being said in all the above opinions? Sorta, maybe, kinda, not much-- for real.
What I am absolutely sure of are these 2 facts: Osama Bin Ladin is dead and GM is alive. Plus, as GM goes, so goes the nation. I know that both these events happened under the leadership of President Obama. For such leadership, he has my little ol' elderly vote.
The alternative in office of Gov. Romney frightens me. Like Bush, he also is the man born with the 'silver foot in his mouth'. No thank you.
So, what do I know? Did I see the movie? No. Did I read the Forbes article by D'Souza? yes. Did I read Obama's book? no. Do I understand what is being said in all the above opinions? Sorta, maybe, kinda, not much-- for real.
What I am absolutely sure of are these 2 facts: Osama Bin Ladin is dead and GM is alive. Plus, as GM goes, so goes the nation. I know that both these events happened under the leadership of President Obama. For such leadership, he has my little ol' elderly vote.
The alternative in office of Gov. Romney frightens me. Like Bush, he also is the man born with the 'silver foot in his mouth'. No thank you.
9.15.2012 | 10:00pm
Bill Huber says:
Tony,
I think that this is more a case of "yes, and...". In other words, both sets of influences were in play.
I think that this is more a case of "yes, and...". In other words, both sets of influences were in play.
9.16.2012 | 3:26pm
Rick says:
Re: Mike Murray MD:
By some coincidence, in the 1960s I was a B-52 crew member stationed at a SAC base in North Dakota. Years later, I got a chance to spend a summer in the Soviet Union. I also gradually came to the conclusion that there was no real chance of a Soviet surprise attack, although they greatly feared one from us. (In the 1950s, some top Air Force officers were actually lobbying for a first nuclear strike, but Eisenshower was sane enough to veto the idea.) In the late 1980s, I heard an army officer give a talk at Stanford in which he described the invincible Soviet supermen as, essentially, having no problems. They didn't even have to think about economics or budgeting restraints when they expanded their military, which already dwarfed ours. By this time, I was ready to laugh out loud at such a presentation. It would only be about another four years until the entire Soviet edifice collapsed.
By some coincidence, in the 1960s I was a B-52 crew member stationed at a SAC base in North Dakota. Years later, I got a chance to spend a summer in the Soviet Union. I also gradually came to the conclusion that there was no real chance of a Soviet surprise attack, although they greatly feared one from us. (In the 1950s, some top Air Force officers were actually lobbying for a first nuclear strike, but Eisenshower was sane enough to veto the idea.) In the late 1980s, I heard an army officer give a talk at Stanford in which he described the invincible Soviet supermen as, essentially, having no problems. They didn't even have to think about economics or budgeting restraints when they expanded their military, which already dwarfed ours. By this time, I was ready to laugh out loud at such a presentation. It would only be about another four years until the entire Soviet edifice collapsed.
9.16.2012 | 5:48pm
Rick says:
Re: John Hinshaw: "Today, the Vice President of the United States goes to an African country and tells their government that they must change their Contitution too allow for abortion "and the money will come flowing in". "
I'm afraid this is wildly misleading. The Obama administration supports the new Kenyan constitution for a variety of reasons, the least of which is abortion reform. It will revamp the structure of their gov't, making it similar to ours in the balance of powers and, it is hoped, promote more stability and democratic transfers of power. Moreover, the new constitution does not provide for abortion on demand. It modifies the existing absolute ban to allow for abortion only in cases of danger to the health or life of the mother. Finally, the implication that our gov't will reward them with financial aid if they reform abortion law is incorrect. Biden said that if they pass the new, more democratic consitution, it would result in more "foreign private investment" flowing into the presumably more stable country. Please do your homework.
I'm afraid this is wildly misleading. The Obama administration supports the new Kenyan constitution for a variety of reasons, the least of which is abortion reform. It will revamp the structure of their gov't, making it similar to ours in the balance of powers and, it is hoped, promote more stability and democratic transfers of power. Moreover, the new constitution does not provide for abortion on demand. It modifies the existing absolute ban to allow for abortion only in cases of danger to the health or life of the mother. Finally, the implication that our gov't will reward them with financial aid if they reform abortion law is incorrect. Biden said that if they pass the new, more democratic consitution, it would result in more "foreign private investment" flowing into the presumably more stable country. Please do your homework.
9.16.2012 | 10:03pm
Martin Snigg says:
Philip Rieff's 'The Triumph of the Therapeutic' is a masterwork. . . . "breathtakingly argued". One comment mentions it. It was avoided in 1966 and is again seemingly avoided here. I hope I'm wrong.
"A triumphantly successful exploration of certain key themes in cultural life." Alasdair MacIntyre
It's absolutely essential no one allow themselvves to be made a 'therapeutic' yet the anti-culture (late liberalism) makes thousands every day, Prof Reno is crucially correct - one has been lifted up as paragon of the type and made POTUS.
My attempt to respond to the one commenter: there is nothing wrong with having a mindful/somewhat critical appreciation of the practice of one's own tradition - if the biblical tradition uses sociological tools to analyse 'psychological man' this doesn't mean he gives the therapeutic his triumph. It is an issue of proportion, off the top of my head a crude analogy: the right to bear arms does not imply a right to bear thermonuclear bombs.
"A triumphantly successful exploration of certain key themes in cultural life." Alasdair MacIntyre
It's absolutely essential no one allow themselvves to be made a 'therapeutic' yet the anti-culture (late liberalism) makes thousands every day, Prof Reno is crucially correct - one has been lifted up as paragon of the type and made POTUS.
My attempt to respond to the one commenter: there is nothing wrong with having a mindful/somewhat critical appreciation of the practice of one's own tradition - if the biblical tradition uses sociological tools to analyse 'psychological man' this doesn't mean he gives the therapeutic his triumph. It is an issue of proportion, off the top of my head a crude analogy: the right to bear arms does not imply a right to bear thermonuclear bombs.
9.16.2012 | 10:12pm
Martin Snigg says:
(when I say "avoided" I mean therapeutic elites refused to change. Mr Rieff however did change, as we read in his later writings. I'm following this +Eucharist.)
9.21.2012 | 4:34pm
David M says:
I also read Obama's book, although I haven't seen the movie. Dinesh is a brilliant mind; he’s also a brilliant marketer. With his book he may have gone too far by playing into the fears of conservatives. From a scholarly standpoint, he has definitely been irresponsible. It’s not untrue to say that a person's motivations stem from their father (and mother), but it is untrue to paint a total conspiracy, where Obama is unhinging all of America from the inside. Actually it’s not only untrue, it’s completely ridiculous! If Dinesh is aiming for a comedy, I am sure his movie will be a great success.
9.24.2012 | 6:22am
james farraud says:
at am. Did America deserve the attack, of course not. No one deserves to be killed, for any reason. I'm just saying your focus is off if you want to seriously prove this guy is anti-American.
11.16.2012 | 1:57pm
Mary Ann says:
Mr. D'Souza's book and film were obviously politically motivated. He misrepresents a number of facts, such as those concerning the IM-EX Bank of the US loan to Brazil to drill oil (a decision made during the Bush administration, not Obama's) and the Keystone Pipeline (the pipeline is not off the table - there were environmental issues for us and Canada - many environmental groups opposed the pipeline in its original plan). He distorts comments Obama makes in "Dreams from My Father" to suit his purpose. Mr. D'Souza has no more insight into Obama's psyche, than he does mine. He's a little twit, who aligned himself with President Reagan's administration and the Republican Party, no doubt to gain support for US citizenship and to further his career. Good for him - but I deplore his attempts to portray our President as un-American. Mr. D'Souza should concern himself with his own recent scandals.
Although brief, your piece is, for me, one of the few, by those who wouldn't count themselves as liberal, which both rings fairly truly and gives deeper insight into our President. Thank you so much for the honesty of thought and care of expression that went into it.
Michael Lee Ross