Transnational Progressivism and ObamaSeptember 27, 2009
President Obama has tried to have have his cake and eat it too, as shown in his speeches to the UN and then the G20 this week. On the one hand, he is the perfect transnational – far more concerned about how the people of Europe view him – as well as currying favor from well-known kleptocrats and dictators – than he is about how the American people feel. I really do believe he does not have a traditional view of American, why it has been the most successful nation in the history of the world, or why people here are able to do so much. As Limbaugh says, this is a man who is ashamed of his country, who feels he must apologize for it at every turn. While we have had weak presidents before (like the increasingly crazed Mr. Carter), I can’t recall a president who actually felt the direction his country has taken since its founding was wrong.
Wikipedia defines transnational progressivism thus:
Transnational progressivism is a term coined by Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte in 2001 to describe a movement and political view that endorses a concept of postnational global citizenship and promotes the authority of international institutions over the sovereignty of individual nation-states.
It is worth reading the full definition. Col. Tom Kratman calls such folks “tranzis” and describes the logical extension of their beliefs put into worldwide practice in some of his books, especially “Caliphate,” “Carnifex,” and “A Desert Called Peace.” I recommend them all.
I never thought one man could move the country in such a dangerous direction so quickly. Fueled by the promotion of a “historic” presidency and using the specter of racism as a way to quiet critics, President Obama has made it possible to do harm to our freedoms in less than a year that could take decades to repair.
Then, after showing the Iranians, the North Koreans, Hugo Chavez, and all the petty despots that the US is now a very tissue-paper tiger, he tries to talk tough – for him – about nuclear weapons production in Iran. Is there anyone out there with an IQ above the freezing point of water than believes the diplomatic approach will work this time, when it never has in the past?
Theodore Roosevelt has been beat up by conservatives lately for his goals of making the federal government bigger, and I’m not going to defend him for that. However, his adage “Speak softly and carry a big stick” is still the way to handle diplomatic issues – from a position of overwhelming strength. We can be strong and be moral, and we should. If we are strong and do not act in a moral fashion, we should be criticized by other countries. However, if we are strong and we work to helping the nations of the world live peacefully together, and with the maximum amount of freedom for everyone, it seems to me we are operating in a very moral way.
Obama wants the first just by wishing. That never works, and he is either incredibly naive or has another agenda. I rather hope it’s the former, since the latter is even more frightening. I don’t think he is interested in maximizing freedom for anyone, except maybe Hugo Chavez. The much-maligned Bush doctrine was an attempt at helping countries achieve freedom, with the idea that free nations do not make war on their neighbors. (See “The Case For Democracy,” by Natan Sharansky. It provided the important beginning of Bush and C0ndi Rice’s policy.)
So we come back to the subject of freedom, here and abroad. America has always been about freedom. We have had to restrict some of our freedoms over the years, and more and more have been taken from us by the government. We can’t drive a car without a seat belt, even though no one is harmed except ourselves. (I have a personal story about how I was saved in an accident because I was NOT wearing a seat belt, but today no one would even believe it.) Smokers have become second class citizens, discriminated against almost as minorities were a hundred years ago. And those who are overweight are the next targets of the Nanny State – enough so that I am looking for ways to save myself the hassles that I know are coming.
More and more of our wealth is taken from us, not just by our elected leaders, but through regulations and fees that we have no representation in changing. That’s why I am swinging more and more libertarian, and I suspect others are as well, if the September 12 march tells us anything.
More on taxes later. For now, I wanted to get across that I do not believe in transnational progressivism and to urge you to learn more about it. It is the road to ruin for our nation, and for the world as well. Be afraid for our nation, my friends, but do not be afraid to learn all you can – while you still can. Knowledge is power.