9 April 2008

Obama’s Skewed Experience Of The Third World

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, among many others, is always gushing about how Sen. Barack Obama’s life story gives him an exceptionally sophisticated understanding of foreign affairs. Yet, Obama approvingly quoted in the climax of the Chicago section of his autobiography his spiritual mentor Jeremiah A. Wright’s remarkably unsophisticated worldview in his 1980s sermon “The Audacity of Hope”: “It is this world … where white folks’ greed runs a world in need …”

Wouldn’t some experience with the Third World raise severe doubts about such an apportionment of guilt? After all, during Obama’s formative years there were plenty of anti-American leftist Third World countries that only become needier the more they separated themselves from white folks’ greed.

So, why didn’t Obama get it?

First, as far as I can tell, despite his image as a world-spanning figure, Obama doesn’t actually have that much foreign experience. Obama’s overseas travel before becoming a U.S. Senator four years ago (since which he has taken a few junkets) was quite limited, consisting largely of living Indonesia as a child and two visits to Kenya. During his years in Chicago, he typically spent his winter vacations (not irrationally!) in his native Hawaii.

Nor has he exhibited all that much interest in foreign countries not directly connected to his own life story. In his autobiography, Obama is subtly contemptuous of his wandering, exotiphilic mother whose centrifugal tendencies took her from Kansas to Indonesia. In contrast, Obama has concocted for himself a life trajectory from the exotic margins to the heart of African-America, the South Side of Chicago, where he methodically made himself a Chicago politician. (And, as Churchill said about the Pathans, for a Chicago politician, “life is full of interest” right at home, so curiosity about foreign affairs is a distraction.)

I imagine Obama took other trips abroad, but clearly Kenya and Indonesia were the two that had a major impact upon this self-absorbed artiste. The common denominator of Indonesia and Kenya for understanding where Obama is coming from is that were two typically cruddy Third World countries — but, they were typically cruddy Third World countries that happened to be Cold War allies of the U.S.A. lined up on the side of “capitalism.” Obama had very little experience with, or interest in, all the cruddy Third World countries that were nonaligned or Soviet allies and espoused socialism as their reigning ideology.

Obama’s naive mom appears to have assumed when she moved to Indonesia in 1966 that it was still as leftist as it had been under Sukarno, who had been overthrown the year before. She was horrified to learn it wasn’t the non-aligned utopia she had imagined. Indonesia had been a leftwing anti-American dictatorship when she had met her second husband Lolo in Hawaii, but by the time she and little Barack arrived in Jakarta, Indonesia was a rightwing pro-American dictatorship. When Lolo (who is just about the only character in Obama’s memoirs that I’d like to have a beer with) got a nice job working in government relations for an American oil company, they would argue (p. 47 of Dreams from My Father):

“…about her refusal to attend his company dinner parties, where American businessmen from Texas and Louisiana would slap Lolo’s back and boast about the palms they had greased to obtain the new offshore drilling rights, while their wives complained to my mother about the quality of Indonesian help. He would ask her how it would look for him to go alone, and remind her that these were her own people, and my mother’s voice would rise almost a shout.

“They are not my people.”

Such tensions paved the way for their divorce.

Similarly, Kenya’s leader Jomo Kenyatta, who persecuted Obama’s father for being a member of the Luo tribe, allowed an American naval base at Mombassa and encouraged capitalism — among his Kikuyu tribesman. Thus, Obama’s Luo relatives were, increasingly, enemies of Kenyatta’s pro-Western policies. The Luo, under the leadership of Obama’s kinsman Oginga Odinga (who sent his son Raila Odinga, the current Luo leader who claims to be Obama’s cousin, to study in East Germany in 1965), thus were leftist and friendly toward the Soviets.

Time magazine reported in 1969:

President Jomo Kenyatta, who with his fellow Kikuyu has ruled the country since independence in 1963, threw Opposition Leader Oginga Odinga in prison and banned his Luo-dominated party.Kikuyu and Luo, first and second largest of Kenya’s 46 main tribes, have long controlled the country’s politics. Initially, neither Kenyatta’s Kenya African National Union (KANU) nor Odinga’s Kenya People’s Union (KPU) were organized along strictly tribal lines. … In recent years, however, both party memberships have become increasingly polarized. …

As Kenyatta’s convoy began to move away after the speech, spectators stoned the lead car. Panicky police fired point-blank into the crowd, leaving at least nine dead and 70 wounded. Two days later, Kenya police arrested Odinga, and most of the other KPU leadership, including all eight of the party’s MPs. A day later, KPU was banned for allegedly seeking “to overthrow the lawful and constitutional government of the Republic of Kenya.” It seemed a clear reference to Communist intrigues. Though apparently no Communist, Odinga is a leftist who has accepted funds from Soviet and Chinese Communist agents; “Double O” was also instrumental in persuading the Russians to build the new hospital in Kisumu.

So, in Indonesia, Obama absorbed his mother’s anti-Americanism, and from Keyna, he was exposed to his relatives’ opposition to the pro-American tribes.

Free Speech Threatened By Canadian Lawsuit

Kathy Shaidle reports that she and several other conservative bloggers and journalists are being sued, and asks for your help here.

Richard Warman used to work for the notorious Human Rights Commission, which runs the “kangaroo courts” who’ve charged Mark Steyn with “flagrant Islamophobia.”

Richard Warman has brought almost half these cases single-handledly, getting websites he doesn’t like shut down, and making tens of thousands of tax free dollars in “compensation” out of web site owners who can’t afford to fight back or don’t even realize they can.

The province of British Columbia had to pass a special law to stop Richard Warman from suing libraries because they carried books he didn’t approve of.

Richard Warman also wants to ban international websites he doesn’t like from being seen by Canadians.

The folks named in his new law suit are the very bloggers who have been most outspoken in their criticism of Warman’s methods.

WE NEED YOUR HELP!

 

More details of the lawsuit here. Since some of the victims of the suit are bloggers, they have no funding for legal defense at all, just what they earn at their jobs, (and Kathy Shaidle of FiveFeetOfFury.com is actually between jobs at the moment,) so by help, they mean not only moral support, but donations.

The United States if very lucky to have its strictly limited law of libel. In New York Times vs. Sullivan the media won the right not to be sued for libel, in effect, even if they lie.

This is bad if you’re a victim of libel, (like Steven Hatfill) but great if you’re telling uncomfortable truths about someone. You may think that it would be nice to sue people who libel you, but in Commonwealth countries with no First Amendment and a tradition of suing for libel, people frequently sue, and win, against people who are telling the truth.

  • Oscar Wilde had the Marquess of Queensberry arrested on a charge of criminal libel for calling him a “posing Somdomite.” The spelling error was the Marquess’s, but the legal error was Wilde’s–Wilde was a “posing Somdomite.” He lost the case, and went to jail, only because the Marquess had an excellent lawyer.
  • In 1959, Liberace sued the London Daily Mirror for calling him effeminate and implying that he was a “posing Somdomite.” He won his case, lying under oath to do it, and got eight thousand pounds out of the Daily Mirror, which was a lot of money in 1959.
  • Jonathan Aitken sued the Guardian for saying he was receiving gifts from the Saudis. He was, and he tried to get his 17-year old daughter to lie about it in court. He went to jail for “perjury and intending to pervert the course of justice,”–more less the same crimes Bill Clinton committed in his lawsuit with Paula Jones.
  • Jeffrey Archer sued the British Daily Star in 1987 over allegations that he’d had sex with a woman named Monica Coghlan. Though he had in fact had sex with that woman, he won the case and 500,000 pounds. The editor of the Daily Star was fired. Only in 1999 did it transpire that he’d perjured himself, and in 2001 he went to jail for the perjury.

With the last two, the point here is not just that they lied, but that they were Members of Parliament suing the press for printing the truth. Wikipedia says that it’s “now legal” since his conviction for perjury, to call Archer a liar. Americans will wonder at the fact that it was ever illegal.

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George was a special case–I once noted that he has two chapters to himself in the Penguin Book Of Lies, and fraudulent lawsuits were why.

Nobody much doubts that David Lloyd George conducted an affair with (among many other women) the wife of a Montgomeryshire doctor, Mrs Catherine Edwards, but, as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1909, he sued The People for libel for repeating this. Lloyd George persuaded his wife Margaret, who knew the truth, to perjure herself in court and deny it. Their son Richard reported his father’s conversation beforehand: “You must help me, Maggie. If I get out of this I give my oath you shall never have to suffer this ordeal again”. The People lost, and Lloyd George continued his philandering, and became Prime Minister.[Scandals? Well yes, minister, we just can't say no - Times Online, By Matthew Parris, December 2, 2004]

Remember, in the history of libel and libel chill, these are just the people who got caught. We don’t know how many politicians got away with all kinds of crime because editors were afraid of being sued. The point here is that libel law is a seriously Bad Thing, and protects the guilt more than the innocent. America is lucky not to have it..