The Roots of Obama's Rage (24 page)
Read The Roots of Obama's Rage Online
Authors: Dinesh D'Souza
But what about the health insurance companies; aren’t they Obama’s real enemy? Yes and no. Obama has mercilessly lashed out at the insurance companies. The
Washington Post
reports that in a single speech he “castigated insurance companies 22 times.” Among his comments: “We allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country.”
26
For him, the insurance companies are part of the neocolonial problem. But here is the key point: they are only part of the problem as long as they are operating freely, raising prices, and exploiting the customer. But if the insurance companies can be brought under government supervision and government mandate, then they have been decolonized and become part of the solution. The ingenuity of Obama is to devise a comprehensive health care plan that the insurance industry would support. And indeed they did support it. They even agreed to spend $150 million in ads to promote it to the public.
27
Why would insurance companies do this? Is this a case of Lenin’s prediction that the capitalists would sell the rope which would then be used to hang them?
Washington Post
reports that in a single speech he “castigated insurance companies 22 times.” Among his comments: “We allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country.”
26
For him, the insurance companies are part of the neocolonial problem. But here is the key point: they are only part of the problem as long as they are operating freely, raising prices, and exploiting the customer. But if the insurance companies can be brought under government supervision and government mandate, then they have been decolonized and become part of the solution. The ingenuity of Obama is to devise a comprehensive health care plan that the insurance industry would support. And indeed they did support it. They even agreed to spend $150 million in ads to promote it to the public.
27
Why would insurance companies do this? Is this a case of Lenin’s prediction that the capitalists would sell the rope which would then be used to hang them?
Let’s return to what genuine health care reform would look like. Such reform would be limited to providing catastrophic health insurance to Americans who could not afford it. Think about it: if I drop a lamp in my study and it breaks, I don’t need insurance to replace it. Why not? Because I can afford to buy a new lamp. But if my house floods or burns to the ground, I need insurance. Why? Because that’s a catastrophic loss that I cannot afford. Similarly with health care, if I have a cold, I and most Americans can afford $100 to go to the doctor, or even realize that a cold will go away on its own and I don’t need to see a doctor at all. But if I need open heart surgery, then I need insurance. Now catastrophic health insurance is much cheaper than full-coverage insurance because catastrophic events are rare. Consequently Obama could have mandated catastrophic coverage for all Americans, with the government subsidizing the cost for low-income Americans. This, arguably, would have been reasonable and affordable health care reform that could have won bipartisan support.
Instead, Obama opted to force every American to buy comprehensive health insurance, and to force companies to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. Predictably the health insurance companies didn’t like the latter provision. In fact, from an insurance point of view, it made no sense to insure people who were already sick. The whole point of insurance is for healthy people to put money into a pot so that if someone gets sick in the future, there is a pool of money to pay for treatment. But Obama brought the insurance companies around by showing them that his overall scheme actually meant much more business for them. If all Americans are compelled by law to buy comprehensive health insurance, where are they going to buy it from except from the insurance companies? So rally around the president, boys, because there is money to be made. You see here why the charge that Obama is a socialist is once again off the mark? Obama is quite happy to rally the corporate capitalists to his side with the promise of big bucks—as long as the corporate capitalists are willing to succumb to a government leash and to being told what to do by Big Daddy Obama. The president is eager to create an alliance between the government and big corporations when it serves the anti-colonial agenda. The cost, of course, is borne by the American taxpayer. In the case of health insurance, the tab is estimated to be in the range of $1.6 trillion over the next decade.
I’m not a math major, but even I can add up the numbers. The bank bailout: $700 billion this year. Stimulus: between $800 billion and $1 trillion this year. Proposed environmental and energy regulations: approximately $1 trillion over the next several years. Health care: $1.6 trillion over the next decade. What is Obama doing to America? The U.S. government is now $14 trillion in debt, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that another $12 trillion will be added over the next decade. Obama didn’t create these huge numbers, but he has been adding to them faster than any previous president. This fiscal year alone the Obama deficit is $1.4 trillion. These debts are liabilities owed by the American taxpayer, and they have to be paid now or in the future. About 45 percent of our public debt is held by individuals and governments of foreign countries, especially China and the oil-rich Muslim countries. China alone is sitting on reserves in excess of $2 trillion; if the Chinese demanded their money right now, it’s hard to see how America could afford to pay.
28
28
Debts, like ideas, have consequences. In their book,
The End of Influence
, economists Stephen Cohen and Bradford Long argue that as a consequence of American indebtedness to the rest of the world, American influence is likely to decline. “The United States will continue to be a world leader . . . but it will no longer be the boss.” A similar point is made by Fareed Zakaria in
The Post-American World
. America’s economic position “does not, despite the opinions of some pundits, signal the end of capitalism. But it might well mean the end of a certain kind of global dominance for the United States.... The crisis has had the effect of delegitimizing America’s economic power.... The current economic upheaval will only hasten the move to a post-American world.”
29
While most Americans are likely to view this change with foreboding, I see a lone man in the Oval Office watching these trends that he has helped to exacerbate, cheering them on and grinning in triumph.
The End of Influence
, economists Stephen Cohen and Bradford Long argue that as a consequence of American indebtedness to the rest of the world, American influence is likely to decline. “The United States will continue to be a world leader . . . but it will no longer be the boss.” A similar point is made by Fareed Zakaria in
The Post-American World
. America’s economic position “does not, despite the opinions of some pundits, signal the end of capitalism. But it might well mean the end of a certain kind of global dominance for the United States.... The crisis has had the effect of delegitimizing America’s economic power.... The current economic upheaval will only hasten the move to a post-American world.”
29
While most Americans are likely to view this change with foreboding, I see a lone man in the Oval Office watching these trends that he has helped to exacerbate, cheering them on and grinning in triumph.
CHAPTER 9
TAMING THE ROGUE NATION
F
or nearly a decade, America has been fighting a “war on terrorism” aimed at rooting out terrorist networks and undermining the “rogue states” that support terrorism. President Obama has called an end to this “war on terror”; indeed, he has instructed his leading Cabinet officials not to use the term, but to speak instead of police action against criminals.
1
Even as he attempts to wind down America’s war on terrorist networks and rogue states, Obama is fighting his own war. Perhaps more precisely I should say that he is fighting his father’s war. Barack Obama Sr. didn’t write about foreign policy—he was, after all, an economist. Even so, he espoused a broad anti-colonial perspective that viewed the West and specifically America as the invader, occupier and terrorizer of the world. In line with the senior Obama’s thinking, President Obama is conducting a war against what he considers to be the biggest rogue state of all: the United States of America.
or nearly a decade, America has been fighting a “war on terrorism” aimed at rooting out terrorist networks and undermining the “rogue states” that support terrorism. President Obama has called an end to this “war on terror”; indeed, he has instructed his leading Cabinet officials not to use the term, but to speak instead of police action against criminals.
1
Even as he attempts to wind down America’s war on terrorist networks and rogue states, Obama is fighting his own war. Perhaps more precisely I should say that he is fighting his father’s war. Barack Obama Sr. didn’t write about foreign policy—he was, after all, an economist. Even so, he espoused a broad anti-colonial perspective that viewed the West and specifically America as the invader, occupier and terrorizer of the world. In line with the senior Obama’s thinking, President Obama is conducting a war against what he considers to be the biggest rogue state of all: the United States of America.
I am not suggesting that Obama is anti-American. On the contrary, he seeks a radical change in America’s policies because he considers those policies bad for America and bad for the world. America is, in Obama’s view, the last of the neocolonial powers. Obama sees America as having invaded and occupied two sovereign nations, Iraq and Afghanistan. Now America is, in effect, ruling those nations in much the same way that the British and the French ruled their colonies either directly or through surrogates. For Obama, America is a kind of rogue elephant, and Obama views his anti-colonial mission as one of taming that elephant. Once you understand this about Obama, all his foreign policy actions become coherent and intelligible.
It may seem odd to hear America described as a colonial or imperial power. After all, the United States was itself once a colony of Great Britain. After World War II, the United States used its influence to compel Britain and France to grant independence to many of their colonies, giving America an anti-colonial reputation. Even now Americans don’t think of themselves as colonialists; on the contrary, we see ourselves as champions of self-government and liberty. But anti-colonial writers point out that the white man settled America by displacing the native Indians and taking their land. The United States forcibly took large tracts of land from Mexico and annexed Hawaii. America also occupied the Philippines from 1899 to 1946, perhaps the closest thing to direct colonialism by the United States, and America still possesses other colonial spoils like Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa.
After World War II, America became the heir to European supremacy. The baton of Western leadership passed from Europe to America. In
The Audacity of Hope
, Obama faults America for its role in supporting the repressive Suharto regime in Indonesia. “Suharto’s army... targeted not just guerillas but civilians for swift retribution—murder, rape, villages set afire. And throughout the seventies and eighties, all this was done with the knowledge, if not outright approval, of U.S. administrations.”
2
Still, that was the era of the Cold War, and the Soviet Union provided a rival and a balance to America’s global engagements.
The Audacity of Hope
, Obama faults America for its role in supporting the repressive Suharto regime in Indonesia. “Suharto’s army... targeted not just guerillas but civilians for swift retribution—murder, rape, villages set afire. And throughout the seventies and eighties, all this was done with the knowledge, if not outright approval, of U.S. administrations.”
2
Still, that was the era of the Cold War, and the Soviet Union provided a rival and a balance to America’s global engagements.
Once the Cold War ended, however, America became the world’s sole superpower, a top dog without a rival, what one French minister termed a “hyperpower.” This power became evident after 9/11. President George W. Bush issued a new national security strategy that explicitly stated that America would seek global and unchallenged military dominance. This wasn’t mere rhetoric; during this period America responded to the 9/11 attacks by invading two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. One of these countries, Iraq, seemed to have nothing to do with 9/11. America didn’t get in and get out; it is still calling the shots in both countries, if not directly then through its local allies. This is precisely what the British and the French did in parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Deepak Lal writes in a book on empire, “The United States since the Second World War has at first surreptitiously, and since 9/11 more openly, taken on the imperial role.” Obama’s teacher Edward Said concurred. “Much of the rhetoric of the New World Order promulgated by the American government since the end of the Cold War—with its redolent self-congratulation, its unconcealed triumphalism, its grave proclamations of responsibility—all too easily produces an illusion of benevolence when deployed in an imperial setting. It is a rhetoric whose most damning characteristic is that it has been used before, not just by Spain and Portugal but with deafeningly repetitive frequency by the British, the French, the Belgians, the Japanese, the Russians and now the Americans.” And this is the way Obama sees it. In
The Audacity of Hope
Obama writes, “Roosevelt’s version of the Monroe Doctrine—the notion that we could preemptively remove governments not to our liking—was now the Bush Doctrine, only extended beyond the Western Hemisphere to span the globe. Manifest Destiny was back in fashion; all that was needed, according to Bush, was American firepower, American resolve, and a ‘coalition of the willing.’”
3
The Audacity of Hope
Obama writes, “Roosevelt’s version of the Monroe Doctrine—the notion that we could preemptively remove governments not to our liking—was now the Bush Doctrine, only extended beyond the Western Hemisphere to span the globe. Manifest Destiny was back in fashion; all that was needed, according to Bush, was American firepower, American resolve, and a ‘coalition of the willing.’”
3
If America’s current president sees America this way, he is joined in this respect by many of America’s adversaries. Venezuela strongman Hugo Chavez, for example, employs a rhetoric that is militantly anti-colonial and hostile to American foreign policy. Similar strains are occasionally heard from Russia, Zimbabwe, and North Korea. Radical Islam takes a similar view of the United States. A generation ago, the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb, who has become the leading intellectual guru of Islamic radicalism, wrote of Islam as the only force resisting first European and then American colonialism. “The spirit of Islam is like a rock blocking the spread of imperialism.” Today the influential Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who broadcasts frequently on Al-Jazeera, routinely calls on Muslims to fight against “American occupation.” In his videotapes and messages over the years, Osama bin Laden accuses America of leading a “Judeo-Crusader alliance” to massacre Muslims and dispossess them of their land and oil wealth. Bin Laden has said that terrorism is merely the Muslim defense against “the blatant imperial arrogance of America,” a nation seeking “to occupy our countries, steal our resources, and install collaborators to rule us.”
4
4
Obama clearly had no sympathy for Bin Laden and his radical cohorts, whom he views as gangsters and criminals. Even so, he appears to agree with their assessment that America is the neocolonial aggressor and that the best way to promote peace and security in the world is to curb America’s power and influence. Jonathan Alter reports in
Newsweek
that one of Obama’s first objectives upon taking office was to reduce the size and resources of the U.S. armed forces. Alter quotes Obama saying, “For the past eight years, whatever the military asked for they got. My job was to slow things down.” Writing in the influential journal
Foreign Policy
, Walter Russell Mead notes that Obama seeks to “create conditions that would allow him to dismantle some of the national security state inherited from the Cold War and given new life and vigor after 9/11.”
5
Newsweek
that one of Obama’s first objectives upon taking office was to reduce the size and resources of the U.S. armed forces. Alter quotes Obama saying, “For the past eight years, whatever the military asked for they got. My job was to slow things down.” Writing in the influential journal
Foreign Policy
, Walter Russell Mead notes that Obama seeks to “create conditions that would allow him to dismantle some of the national security state inherited from the Cold War and given new life and vigor after 9/11.”
5
But Obama must be supremely careful in how he carries this out. He cannot announce to his fellow Americans that he intends to scale down the nation’s defenses and reduce his country’s influence in the world; even many of his supporters believe they elected him to boost our national security and enhance or at least preserve America’s leadership. So Obama’s challenge is to achieve as many of his anti-colonial objectives as are politically feasible. Moreover, he must always camouflage his overall aim and take specific actions that can be defended in more conventional terms.
One of Obama’s first actions in the Oval Office was to repeal Bush’s national security doctrine. His rationale seemed reasonable at the time: “The burden of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone.”
6
Many Americans were pleased that Obama should solicit foreign support for America’s objectives, especially from our longtime allies in Europe. Why do things by ourselves when we can find others to join us? Yes, this sounds like a great idea.
6
Many Americans were pleased that Obama should solicit foreign support for America’s objectives, especially from our longtime allies in Europe. Why do things by ourselves when we can find others to join us? Yes, this sounds like a great idea.
Other books
La muerte de la familia by David Cooper
What Remains by Tim Weaver
Forever Loved (Forever Lost Book 2) by Laura Morgan
Harbinger by Jack Skillingstead
Midnight Marriage: A Georgian Historical Romance (Roxton Series) by Brant, Lucinda
The Darkness Beyond by Alexis Morgan
Where Is Janice Gantry? by John D. MacDonald
All Families Are Psychotic by Douglas Coupland
Deception by Marciano, Jane
The Thing About Life is That One Day You'll Be Dead by David Shields
