Getting a picture of the President
Writers all over the internet are putting in their perspectives about Obama. At times, I go to the opinion-writers-replete WorldNetDaily.com to see what that online magazine's array of writers (there must be close to 50 of them) have written. It so happened that today, Obama's former rival for the Illinois Senate, Alan Keyes, is having his say, as is the right liberal (or was that libertarian, now it seems to have changed to paleo something) Ilana Mercer, as well as the inimitable Pat Buchanan.
I think Alan Keyes' article is the most pensive, and perhaps the most admonitory. He is tackling the difficult subject of calling Christians to their words. And, in a long, ponderous tone, which almost sounds like it's coming from a prophet's mouth (or script), he is saying that Obama is using God's words in vain.
He further says that Obama, in making America's great success as having originated just from the toils and hard work of men - which Keye's says is a wrong proposition anyway because some Americans toiled hard, others worked hard to avoid hard work - is putting man before God. "America's true greatness” writes Keyes, " was given, by God's Providence". Obama doesn't understand, or accept, this, says Keyes, and by using God's name in his speech, Obama is thus using God's name in vain. Keyes' heavy and thoughtful piece is worth reading.
Then there is Ilana Mercer's short, mixed eulogy to Obama (for or against? Not clear, given her strong "anti-statist" positions.) There are some writers whose source or principle I can never quite decipher, and one such is Mercer. I get the feeling that she is trying out various ideas, ideologies, and viewpoints to get at what she considers the truth. And does this with force and aggression. But, I ultimately always get a jumble of confused messages. The crux of her article is almost exactly the opposite of Keyes'.
Mercer writes that Obama's election was "If nothing else...proof positive of how fair-minded Americans are..." Yet why would a group of people vote "generously" for someone who: a) sits in a pew for 20 years with a pastor who hurls vitriol in their direction, b) abandons this pastor for political expediency, c) and publicly denounces his grandmother who brought him up in his adolescent years? This doesn't sound like generosity to me, but like something else which needs to be analyzed (and cured). I agree on the inherent generosity and kindness of Americans, though, and how much that has become abused and maligned throughout the world, but in eulogizing Obama, she continues the eulogy where it is not needed. This is the problem with Mercer. A certain irrationality, or even a tendency towards hysteria, behind a supposed "rational" outlook.
At the end of her article, she lazily associates Obama's calm and confidence, and his commitment to family, to his Kansas side. I know Kenyans who have the very temperament that Obama has. I think he is very Kenyan in this regard. And whoever said that Kenyans couldn't have commitment to family and community? If she doesn't know for sure, why extrapolate to "make a point..."?
Read the comments on her blog, by what I presume are mostly fellow-libertarians. They are usually full of high praise for Mercer's "great writing". Most of them politely differ with many of Mercer's basic points on her simplistic assumptions which have already been refuted many times over in previous months.
Pat Buchanan seems to find Reaganesque references throughout Obama's speech. Keyes outlines all the points in which Obama has practically told us he's not Reagan-like. But Buchanan prefers to be mesmerized by a speech - which again Keyes warned against, as do the commenters on Buchanan's website.
Finally, to get out of the WND enclave and to Townhall.com, for the sole reason of reading an Obama article by the astute and ever-accurate Diana West, who writes how Obama is exaggerating the problems facing the country. She quotes an article title from nothing less than the New York Times, "It's Bad, But 1982 Was Worse", and compares Reagan's inauguration speech in 1981 to Obama's gloom and doom projections. "But they will go away." says Reagan. "They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom."
I think this is the proper way to describe the American spirit, and to evoke Reagan's great presence. Reagan's faith in Americans rings truer than Obama's; he at least shows faith that Americans will get rid of these problems. And he really did put faith in hard work, since his message was primarily that Americans do their part and not lean on a bloated government. This dependency was what set off Keyes' prophetic writing about Obama's big-government. Obama's faith is on government, and hence Man - ruler of that government - as Savior. Reagan was much more modest, and advocated against this all-enveloping man-made entity. And this difference was what Buchanan failed to see.
Addendum:
Please note my January 24 post on David Yeagley's (from Bad Eagle) fine satire on Obama. I read it too late to include it in this post. But, it stands alone very well.