Barack Hussein Obama has spoken. Today the President of the United States sought to address 1.5 billion Muslims through the means of a speech at Cairo University and said, “Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President.” Is it now politically correct to occasionally use his full name in correspondence?
Like his many other speeches this overture to the “Muslim World” is filled with many appeals that include such phrases as: “…we must…”, “…our need to work together”, “…we plan…”, “…we will…”, “…bring us together…”, “…must be done in partnership…” and “…we have a responsibility to join together….” And you might not be surprised therefore at the unbridled collectivism that runs rampant throughout. Such a departure from the principles underlying the founding of the United States has rarely been displayed on such a large, public scale.
President Obama referred in his speech to a half dozen specific issues or “source(s) of tension” he said “…we must finally confront together.” The first was “violent extremism”. I guess I should feel safe for the time being as I am only an extreme advocate of individualism not a violent one. By extreme I mean out of the ordinary and beyond the average. I don’t know what Obama means and I doubt he does either when he repeats the word “extremism”. The word is a political smear because it connotes something negative in the way it is used. Thus, anyone who is a strong advocate of some principle is discredited by being labeled “extremist”. The American revolutionaries were extreme advocates of rights. The US President could simply have denounced violence as a means to ends and thereby appeared as a more honest man.
The second issue was cited as the relationship among Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. There was little that was new to say here and nothing new was said. My only comment is that there will never be a resolution to the conflicts in the Middle East as long as nations are organized on collectivist doctrines. Divisions along ethnic, religious or other classes of human interest that do not recognize individual rights doom such societies to class conflict. In fact, it is the turning away from individual rights in favor of group rights that is destroying the United States, and Barack Obama is now one of the enablers. (See my earlier post on Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu.)
Mr. Obama’s remaining issues were to some degree related to the first two. He discussed nuclear weapons in the context of the well-known Iranian pursuit of this capability. His preference is for all to disarm it seems, but talking nice to the mullahs in the Iranian Republic is unlikely to move mountains. Preemptive strikes to take out Iranian facilities may need to accomplish that. The President still thinks of Iran in terms of moral equivalency, failing to acknowledge that it is in fact an evil regime, if by evil you mean working against human life, and I do mean it.
In the latter half of his speech Mr. Obama addressed democracy, religious freedom and women’s rights. Just as countless politicians have so failed before him, Obama does not make the link between tribalism and democracy. The latter is a political term that demands definition in its application. The only way to clarify it is to address democracy in terms of political-economy. It should be evident to most in the US today that using democratic voting processes to distribute loot taken from some by force is destroying not only democracy but the US Constitution.
The United States’ founding documents provide for religious freedom, and that provision has so far been the least assaulted in practice. Americans are still free to observe whatever religion they want, or none. They get to choose. On the other hand, the most assaulted provision is arguably interstate commerce. The clause respecting interstate commerce has been used to involve the central government in practically every aspect of individual American life. Americans do not get to choose many economic goods or services without central government regulation at some level. Look at the troubles in the American economy of late, where people have had their choices limited by government.
Finally, while it may be necessary to address the rights of female human beings in the context of addressing Muslims, it might be helpful, and principled, to point out that women are individuals and thus possess rights by nature, just as does the male of the species defined as “rational animal”. Continuing to make distinctions in political terms based on gender is just another collectivist approach to politics.
As is customary for United States foreign policy, the President, in wrapping up his speech, made numerous promises of foreign aid and international cooperation to create jobs, collaborate on programs to develop new sources of energy, and promote education and health in Muslim communities and Muslim-majority countries. Sounds a lot like the promises made to the American people in his inaugural speech. All hail the Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.
©Copyright 2009 Edward Podritske