Vincent J.
Curtis
11 Jan 2017
I am not
going to count the number of times that Barack Obama referred to himself in his
“Farewell Address,” (75 by someone’s count), or observe the chasm that exists
between what he said and the actual facts.
And I don’t want readers to choke on the hypocrisy laden in his
remarks. Instead, I want to focus on the
difference between a Republic and a Democracy, as it pertains to the speech.
Okay, first
let me get this bit of fiction dealt with.
Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams from my Father,” turned out to be a work
of fiction. Parts of the “memoirs” were
fictionalized for effect - something he couldn’t remember because they actually
didn’t happen, and he knew they didn’t happen.
Hence, when Obama says something unverifiable that is intended for
dramatic effect, as he does in the italicized part below, it probably is a lie.
"I first
came to Chicago when I was in my early twenties, still trying to figure out who I was; still searching for a purpose to
my life. It was in neighborhoods not far from here where I began working
with church groups in the shadows of closed steel mills. It was on these
streets where I witnessed the power of
faith, and the quiet dignity of working people in the face of struggle and
loss. This is where I learned that change only happens when ordinary people get
involved, get engaged, and come together to demand it.”
Barack Obama
came to Chicago to start a political career, which he always wanted. He knew his political worth (being a ‘clean’
black man who didn’t sound like Jesse Jackson), and there he met Bill Ayers.
Okay, that is
off my chest. Now, let’s get to the
business of Republic versus Democracy. America is substantively a republic, in
particular a constitutional republic; and is only accidentally a
democracy. That is how the best
philosophers would put it in technical language; the Founding Fathers had all been
immersed in the philosophy of John Locke, and understood the difference. When asked what form of government the Fathers
had chosen, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A Republic, if you can keep
it.”
As a
constitutional scholar, which he reputedly was, Barack Obama ought to know the
difference, superficially at least. He
ought to know it, if not understand it. On the final exam, he ought to know the correct answer is A and not B, even if he doesn't understand why. In his speech, he betrays no understanding of the difference, and the
scholar appears nowhere even to know the difference. The scholar does not, in fact, understand the
difference.
In the
passages below, which were extracted from his speech, I’m going to substitute
the word “Republic” for “Democracy” where he erred. I hope the reader sees a profound difference
in meaning, intent, and power when the correct word is substituted for the
incorrect word:
“We, the
People, through the instrument of our [republic], can form a more perfect union.” (Isn’t that more true?)
“It’s what
led patriots to choose republic over tyranny.”
(Here Obama uses the correct word.
He demonstrates that he knows what the patriots chose, and it wasn’t
democracy.)
"In ten
days, the world will witness a hallmark of our [republic]: the peaceful
transfer of power from one freely-elected president to the next.” (It is in virtue of being a constitutional
republic that the transfer of power occurs peacefully.)
"That’s
what I want to focus on tonight – the state of our [republic].”
"Understand, [republicanism] does not require
uniformity. Our founders quarreled and compromised, and expected us to do the
same. But they knew that [republicanism] does require a basic sense of
solidarity — the idea that for all our outward differences, we are all in
this together; that we rise or fall as one.” (This argument doesn't hold when you use the word 'Democracy.')
“A shrinking
world, growing inequality; demographic change and the specter of terrorism —
these forces haven’t just tested our security and prosperity, but our
[republic] as well. And how we meet these challenges to our [republic] will
determine our ability to educate our kids, and create good jobs, and protect
our homeland.”
"Our
[republic] won’t work without a sense that everyone has economic opportunity.”
"There’s
a second threat to our [republic] — one as old as our nation itself. After
my election, there was talk of a post-racial America. Such a vision, however
well-intended, was never realistic.”
"This
trend represents a third threat to our [republic]. Politics is a battle of
ideas; in the course of a healthy debate, we’ll prioritize different goals, and
the different means of reaching them. But without some common baseline of
facts; without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your
opponent is making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, we’ll keep
talking past each other, making common ground and compromise impossible.” (A shot at his successor…)
“The peril
each poses to our [republic] is more far-reaching than a car bomb or a missile.
It represents the fear of change; the fear of people who look or speak or pray
differently; a contempt for the rule of law that holds leaders accountable; an
intolerance of dissent and free thought; a belief that the sword or the gun or
the bomb or propaganda machine is the ultimate arbiter of what’s true and
what’s right.”
“[A Republic] can buckle when we give in to fear.” (A democracy can buckle, but a republic won't)
“our
[republic] is threatened whenever we take it for granted. All of us, regardless
of party, should throw ourselves into the task of rebuilding our [republican]
institutions.
“In his own
farewell address, George Washington wrote that self-government is the underpinning of our safety, prosperity, and
liberty, but 'from different causes and from different quarters much pains will
be taken … to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth;' that we
should preserve it with 'jealous anxiety;' that we should reject 'the first
dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest
or to enfeeble the sacred ties' that make us one.” Okay,
so Obama recognizes that old George referred to the essence of the United
States as self-government, and in
political science self-government takes the form of a republic.
"It
falls to each of us to be those anxious, jealous guardians of our [republic].”
“Ultimately,
that’s what our [republic] demands. It needs you.”
The idea that Obama is some kind of brilliant
constitutional scholar, or that he is deeply thoughtful at all, was put paid by
all these examples where accuracy and clarity of thought escaped his attention. That ‘republic’ is the more accurate term for
saying what America is resonates
with people who have even a modicum of understanding of the American system.
Let me now turn to a few other points. For all his admiring talk of “democracy,”
Obama fails to understand what democracy essentially is. The kind of political organizing he knows,
derived from Saul D. Alinsky, is anti-democratic. Community organizing as practiced by Alinsky is
gang-warfare perpetrated against elected government. In Chicago, that government was corrupt, and
the gang-warfare was justified on the basis of getting a piece of the pie for
the community from a corrupt civic government upon the rules of that corrupt
crowd. Community organizing of the type
Obama understands is a corruption of democracy, because violence and pressure
are applied to duly elected representatives of the people in the constitutional
order.
Obama thanked his organizers thusly:
“every
organizer who moved to an unfamiliar town and kind family who welcomed them in” An organizer of that sort operates in the
mould of Saul D. Alinsky.
Lastly, he
made this curious remark:
“That’s why I
leave this stage tonight even more optimistic about this country than I was
when we started.” He is more
optimistic than when he started because he wasn’t sure at the beginning that he
was up to the job, and he is leaving the job to Donald J. Trump!
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment