Is Michael Ledeen Serious?
Here is his latest effort at The Corner:
Is Obama naive?
I don’t think so. I think that he rather likes tyrants and dislikes America. I think he’d like to be more powerful, I think he is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can, so that he can put an end to the annoying tumult of our public life. As when he said (about health care) to the Congress, “Okay, you’ve talked enough, now it’s time to do the right thing (my thing).” And he’s trying to end American power in the outside world. He’s saying “I’m going to stop us, before we kill again.”
There is nothing unusual about elitist hatred of freedom. Back in the 18th century, when book publishing really got going, British authors were infuriated that they had to submit to the judgment of a marketplace. They didn’t want to be judged by people who were obviously inferior to them, and there was a great rage among the intelligentsia, including some very famous men. And in modern times, we can all name famous intellectuals who fawned all over Mussolini, Stalin, Fidel, and even Hitler.
American politics are very fractious, and always have been. Leaders are constantly frustrated, and some of them come to yearn for an end to our freedom. They think they know best, they just want to tell us what to do and have us shut up and do it. I think Obama is one of them. He’s not naïve. It’s different. He doesn’t like the way things work here, he thinks he can do much better, and he’s possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world, and should be prevented from doing such things ever again. The two convictions mesh perfectly. It’s The Best and the Brightest run amok.
Democratic leaders’ envy of tyrants’ power can be understood. But it can’t be forgiven.
This is criticism from the Andy McCarthy and Victor Davis Hanson school. The conceit is that unlike less savvy observers, these men — due to their long experience, clarity of mind, and exceptional discernment — understand the true psychological motivations of President Obama.
So on health care, it may appear to the untrained observer that President Obama is pushing his agenda because he deems it wise to reform health care, and naturally enough judges his own policy preferences to be the correct course. Ah, but Michael Ledeen is knowledgeable about Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, and Hitler, who also thought their policy preferences to be correct, and implemented them, so he can see the true colors of our president. Why, if Hitler were alive today, he’d probably forgo setting buildings afire, instead marching right down to Congress to say, okay, enough talk about health care — now pass my bill!
And of course the neo-fascist Obama also wants to end his country’s influence on the rest of the world, um, just like Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, and Hitler, because that’s what Democrats who envy powerful tyrants do? That explains President Obama’s choice of a radical dove as Secretary of State, his refusal to use force to free American hostages or kill terrorists, and the pacifist attitude he’s taken toward Pakistan.
Yes, if only we could have a president like the one Mr. Ledeen, Mr. Hanson, and Mr. McCarthy last supported, one who doesn’t bully Congress and try to radically increase the power of the executive. Perhaps some of you might object that President Bush asserted the ability to declare American citizens enemy combatants without offering any evidence for his designation, that he secretly wiretapped the conversations of American citizens, that his administration developed an assassination program that it kept secret from Congress — but leaders are not to be judged by their actions! Only a sophisticated analysis of their inner psychology can truly enlighten us as to their character and motivations.
UPDATE: Rich Lowry agrees that Mr. Ledeen’s post is wrongheaded.
It’s a natural instinct to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you in an effort to figure out how they could be so wrong. (See, e.g., George W. Bush, the dry drunk with daddy issues motivated by his ne’er do well childhood and his rivaly with Jeb to declare war on Iraq and privatize social security).
I think that Ledeen might have part of a point, though — I suspect that the Obamanaughts are willing to turn a somewhat blind eye to Chavez’s, Castro’s, Zelaya’s anti-democratic impulses because those guys get important stuff done on health care, etc., and because the democratic forces that the lefty autocrats oppress are on the side of the bad guys.
With that said, our side isn’t any cleaner on that front. Sometimes, you hold your nose and make a deal with a Fujimori or whomever because even though you know he did some bad stuff, you’re not sure he had an reasonable choice, and the alternative is worse.
Of course, it’s wrong.
— J Mann · Sep 24, 04:10 PM · #
Seriously, what is going on in that Corner? At least, give Rich Lowry credit for trying to pull the conversation back to a semblance of civility:
That’s way over-board. It’s a horrible speech, accompanied by dreadful policies from Honduras to Eastern Europe. But it’s not that Obama positively likes tyrants and thugs. It’s just that he thinks the policies we’d want to see him adopt vis-a-vis those countries are flatly mistaken, short-sighted, not worth the cost, or all three. E.g., I’d like to see him prevent a Taliban takeover of a chunk of Afghanistan. But if he pulls out and (based on a political judgment or flawed cost-benefit analysis) adopts a stand-off strategy that allows the Taliban to regain lots of territory in Afghanistan and perhaps even topple the government, I’d never conclude that he therefore likes the Taliban. There’s no doubt that Obama has an allergy to American power and a hostility to American exceptionalism, but, alas, these tendencies themselves are firmly within the American tradition. Is he left-wing and very wrong? Of course. But he’s not rooting for the Basij militia.— Dustin · Sep 24, 04:44 PM · #
There was a time when William F. Buckley admirably used the National Review to marginalize the Birchers. I’ve got real questions whether today’s National Review would ever do such a thing.
— Joel Mathis · Sep 24, 05:07 PM · #
JMann, that’s unfair. Whatever Zelaya’s undemocratic tendencies, surely the “democratic” side is to oppose the coup.
And that brings us to Chavez! I think the Bush administration screwed up royally in not denouncing the coup against Chavez immediately, just because we didn’t like him. At that time he still had solid democratic legitimacy if undemocratic policy leanings, and what they did made Chavez, who should’ve been podunk, look like a Player. One hardly had the feeling the Obama-ites have a lot of love for Chavez, not least because he trips them up with Colombia. But I don’t think they see a lot of virtue in blowing him into a big deal. That seems reasonable.
— Sanjay · Sep 24, 05:10 PM · #
“The conceit is that unlike less savvy observers, these men — due to their long experience, clarity of mind, and exceptional discernment — understand the true psychological motivations of President Obama.”
I tend to agree — all we have to do is criticize the actions and question what they actually state. That’s why on Poulos’ previous post, I thought the 10cent psychoanalysis of Beck was more babble than substance.
— mike farmer · Sep 24, 05:10 PM · #
Sanjay, I’m honestly baffled by the reaction to the coup. I have no idea how to react.
1) We have the wierd spectacle of the US State Department revoking the visas of the Honduran Supreme Court justices because we don’t like their decision.
2) Normally, the way out of a coup situation is that the coup plotters get amnesty, hold fair elections, and that a democratic government takes over. But since that is the coup plotters’ goals, we are in the wierd position of demanding that if the government holds fair elections in November, they must ignore the elections and make Zelaya president, even though the constitution forbids Zelaya serving beyond his first term.
3) I agree that it’s a coup and not something I want to see repeated. But it’s a coup orchestrated by the legislature, with the approval of the Supreme Court, leading to civilian control and (presumably) fair elections, which is a coup of a radically different sort than what we are used to seeing.
Assuming Obama finds Zelaya repulsive but is standing behind him on general principle, then I withdraw him from my list. But I sort of suspect that many of the Obamanauts think that Zelaya is somewhat admirable because, as anti-democratic as he is, he was taking his anti-democratic steps for “the people” and against “the oligarchs.”
— J Mann · Sep 24, 05:49 PM · #
Conor:
Ledeen isn’t trying to be a psychoanalyst. He is making observations that seem logical based on Obama’s words and actions. He is comparing him to intellectuals in the past—not so much to tyrants, per se. Your post is just a rather snarky criticism of Ledeen and “his ilk” and you offer no arguments to counter his points.
And sorry, but, once again, you’re misrepresenting Rich Lowry’s criticism of Ledeen. He says he doesn’t agree that Obama LIKES the Taliban, but then goes on to absolutely trash Obama’s speech, pretty much in agreement with Ledeen’s take on everything.
Hyperbole really gets under your skin, doesn’t it?
— jd · Sep 24, 10:32 PM · #
JMann,
You left out something conspicuous, and it’s the reason overriding the coup is in US interests. It was a coup initiated by the Army after the sacking of a general. Complete with the fake signed confession and everything.
This idea of Zelaya as doing great shit for the people is so thin that I really doubt the Admin buys it; nobody wants him back less than the Hondurans. But, geez, the guy’s term ends in January. Yes, he tried to organize a referendum to extend his power, and has no right to do so. But (1) it is highly, highly unlikely he could’ve won that referendum without the kind of blatant ballot-stuffing the Army, Court, etc. would’ve seen, (2) OK, so, the right thing to do it bring it before a Honduran Court, which never happened, and (3) he can damn well fire a general. The worst likely outcome is, he’d have been out of there by January. The outcome Arias and the administration have fought for is some kind of power-sharing agreement ‘til January (translation: we’ll all pretend there was no coup but the guy will be powerless and you’ll have to have a real election, not coronate Micheletti.)
That’s pretty reasonable. Left wing Chavez-leaning government, right-wing government, whatever: the overriding interest there is stability. Honduras has been pretty solid, which is why this had the administration alarmed: not love of Zelaya. And our priority should be, not returning to the military-run banana republics of the ’80s. It’s the same as the Chavez coup: y’all can go ahead and elect a goofball, and we’ll recognize his legitimacy while it’s all clean and aboveboard.
— Sanjay · Sep 24, 11:58 PM · #
Puh-lease –
This country has succeeded without govt control of health care for literally hundreds of years….With much success! I guess I’m untrained.
Obama is classic-fascist, in the Mussolini style, not neo-. Today I witnessed a demonstration against the bank bailouts (yea!) staged by the SEIU. Who knows who is being played by whom? Unfortunately we all pay.
The best example of Obama’s worship of power is the juxtaposition of the government’s stance/reaction on the “election” and subsequent violence in Iran vs. the constitutionally sanctioned process in Honduras.
If you want to be libertarian, it’s probably a good idea to be very skeptical of politicians. See: http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/standard-issue-pol.html
— Bill D · Sep 25, 03:06 AM · #
It seems to me there is real value in a value-laden foreign policy. My top reasons: 1) dirty hands and things get muddy, and 2) ethics are annealed in the crucible.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 25, 03:13 AM · #
By brow is furled; I can’t tell if my comment is serious.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 25, 03:56 AM · #
Well, yes, he probably would.
He just wants to accomplish it by other means—probably by the sheer force of his superior intellect and ideas.
At least Bush pretended that he was using his powers on enemies of the United States. Obama makes no such distinction—enemies, friends, the benighted who don’t know that Obama is from the government and here to help them—all people feel his overreaching. Except for SEIU, ACORN, UAW…and Congress.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t all these power grabs by Bush, especially the patriot act, subject to sunset provisions? How much of Obama’s power grab have sunset provisions? But then people would have to read them to know, wouldn’t they?
— jd · Sep 25, 12:19 PM · #
Back in 2002, Michael Ledeen thought we would have to invade France and Germany, because the only possible grounds for their opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq was their desire to destroy America.
(link: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdjNTRjYmY2MTFmN2I5NzRmYmM4OGYxNDhiZmZmYmE= )
Today, he doesn’t like some of Pres. Obama’s health insurance policy proposals; he concludes that Obama could only possibly be motivated by a desire to turn America into Venezuela.
Ledeen’s columns, substituting juvenile emotional projection for rational policy analysis, would be an embarrassment at a local newspaper. Ledeen, however, is a movement conservative, so he is incapable of embarrassment.
— the commentariat you wish you had · Sep 25, 01:23 PM · #
I know it’s been said— but holy shit. How is Ledeen’s article appearing in print anywhere? Hes been watching WAY too much Glenn Beck.
— mattw · Sep 25, 01:55 PM · #
“Obama is classic-fascist”
And actual fascists throughout history laugh themselves silly over the idea that a black guy in a white majority country could be a “classic-fascist”. You might as well call Obama a Baal-worshiper.
Mike
— MBunge · Sep 25, 02:23 PM · #
This discussion is absolutley typical of the type which seeks to label a democratically elected leader as a combination of Fascist, Communist or both and as someone who hates his own country and wants to bring it down. Anyone who knows the slightest thing about the realities of Fascism or Communism regards labelling Obama as such as pathetic rubbish. The labelling of European Healthcare as socialist when most of the systems are insurance based is a typical statement borne from ignorance. The statement that Obama hates America is demonstrably wrong and unjustifiable. The fact that he wants change is clearly a fact. The problem is that the change he wants chides with others view of the world both domestically and Internationally. He was elected on a change ticket so step up to the plate and argue the details. No one seems to have a debate around facts and real policy options. The one thing that America should have learnt during the Bush years is that starting wars and invading countries generally does not produce the expected results. Entertainingly from a distance it sometimes end up with America having to befrend corrupt governments such as the Karzai which is probably just as bad as the pre invasion government. Did no one watch the Russians fail in Afganistan when it was the country next door and gather a few hints about likely outcomes?
Perhaps its time to review the American constitution and change it from something which was designed for times past.
— Gnomestrath · Sep 25, 02:31 PM · #
There was no “coup” in Honduras, because a “coup” is the “unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government by a small group.”
Honduras validly and legally removed its ex-president pursuant to articles 239 and 272 of its Constitution, which don’t require trial or impeachment for certain offenses, and give the military an enforcement role.
Moreover, the ex-president’s removal was not supported by a “small group,” as the definition of coup requires, but by a unanimous supreme court (mostly from the ex-president’s political party), almost all of the Congress, most of the president’s own party, the Human Rights Ombudsman, and the Catholic Church.
Many legal commentators and foreign policy analysts have said his removal was legal, like Octavio Sanchez and Miguel Estrada and Dan Miller and Kim Holmes and Bill Ratliff.
While his removal from office was legal, his removal from the country by the military appears to have violated Article 81 of the Honduras Constitution. But that is merely reason to let him come back — not return to office.
— Hans Bader · Sep 25, 02:40 PM · #
Just for clarity, here is a definition:
Fascism (fascist) – Totalitariaism marked by right-wing dictorship and bellicose nationalism
How can you “hate” your country and be a facsist? Accusing someone of both is illogical.— Jmon · Sep 25, 03:39 PM · #
Ledeen calling anyone else a thug is rich considering his elbow-deep involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal…
— Herb · Sep 25, 03:50 PM · #
I too thought Ledeen was over-the-top. However!…
The comparison was not between Obama and fascists, but Obama and intellectual fascist sympathizers.
I couldn’t believe the accusation, so I read the article. He doesn’t say what you think he says. The “damning” quote.
It’s pretty clear he means a metaphorical war of propaganda, not an actual invasion.
Fascism != racism. Germany’s Aryanism was an aberration among Fascist movements.
Because the current manner and behavior of your country doesn’t align with your Fascist ideal.
Again, not defending Ledeen, but I’m taken aback by the sloppiness of these reactions.
— Blar · Sep 25, 09:06 PM · #
— the commentariat you wish you had:
What a pretentious bag o wind you are.
But I bit on your comment. I went to your link. As I suspected, you’re lying when you said Ledeen wanted to invade France and Germany.
You obviously found the article. You read it. And then you posted a link which shows you’re lying.
You remind me of Chet.
Please don’t come back to comment on this subject unless you’ve got something to back your garbage up.
— jd · Sep 25, 09:31 PM · #
Geez, Blar, you stole my thunder regarding “commentariat”. I should have read you first.
— jd · Sep 25, 09:34 PM · #
“his[Obama] refusal to use force to free American hostages or kill terrorists, and the pacifist attitude he’s taken toward Pakistan.”
This lie stood out at me like a soar thumb.
More Drone attacks in Pakistan then Bush. Killed three Somali pirates to free hostage. Broken up many terrorist plots, and added more troops to Pakistan. Has Killed Al-Qaeda members in Somalia.
What an idiot. Seems this article may tell us more about the mindset of Republican then Obama. Out of touch with reality, and is mad the Obama won’t fight a war in a crusade manner.(Their terms)
2010 is going to wipe out even more Republicans. To bad they are not smart enough to know a sinking ship when they are on it.
— Protactinium · Sep 25, 10:01 PM · #
Who the He_l is Michael Leeden?
Does anyone ever listen to him?
— Lu Franklin · Sep 26, 04:42 AM · #
Blar and jd— you can say that I was hyperbolic, but do you actually want to defend one sentence in Ledeen’s column? Do you really think that that column reflects well on him?
He is assuming the ONLY reason for France and Germany to oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq was because they were out to get America. Did that make any kind of sense at the time, or in retrospect? Does that demonstrate any kind of ability or willingness to comprehend or respond to a rational argument? It’s another example of the “I know you are but what am I?” style of argumentation common to neoconservatives. (link: http://www.tnr.com/blog/damon-linker/the-death-and-life-conservatism )
Also, please be aware that in March 2003, the US was preparing to invade a Middle Eastern country. So when Ledeen wrote at that time that European countries were working against us because they were corrupt and envious, and that “as in the Middle East, our <i>greatest</i> weapons are political,” (emphasis added) he was far from ruling out an attack. He was casting France and Germany as nefarious enemies of America. What do neoconservatives do with everyone they cast as enemies?
And really, Radio Free France? We’ll convince the French that we are right through our radio broadcasts? Such a plan would be significantly less evil than invading, but also markedly more stupid.
The important point here isn’t that someone on a comment thread may arguably have engaged in hyperbole; it’s that Ledeen, a prominent commentator, is incapable of rationality or good faith.
— the commentariat you wish you had · Sep 26, 09:18 AM · #
Um, no?
— Chet · Sep 27, 05:46 PM · #
jd
Again you have pushed yourself to the fore in our great struggle and shown a Kiplingesque manliness that is a blessed relief to one currently bathed in national politic reeking of estrogene tinged Obama-sweat. Your rock hard fortitude and icy intellect compelled me to stand up aquiver at my work station in a brotherly salute. Again, my friend (I hope we can be friends), know that I am here for you, whether you need vigorous “Here! Here!” or a friendly hand to kneed a tense muscle late at night after a hard days stuggle on the braracades beating back the swarthy hords of Obamo-Comuniso-Fascinistas.
— cw · Sep 27, 11:40 PM · #
cw:
I hope you covered it with a towel or napkin or something.
— jd · Sep 29, 10:25 PM · #