Obama Likes Tyrants and Dislikes America?

Michael Ledeen wrote an article, Is Obama Naive?, that appeared on the National Review's web site on 09/24/2009, in which he claims that President Obama likes tyrants and dislikes America:


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."


Let's examine this article and see how it fails to support its own assertions.

Ledeen says, "I think that (Obama) 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."

How does he back up these bold statements? By allegedly quoting one sentence from a speech by President Obama concerning health care: "Okay, you've talked enough, now it's time to do the right thing (my thing)." Weak. Also, possibly not even an accurate quote. I tried searching the internet using that quote, minus the "my thing," and the only results were references back to Ledeen's article, not to any quote by President Obama. Ledeen even had to editorialize in that sentence by assuming that Obama only wanted Congress to act on the health care matter to support his "thing." How is this proof that Obama likes tyrants and dislikes America? Your guess is as good as mine.

Ledeen then goes on to say, "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." Where is Ledeen's evidence? Nowhere to be found in this article.

"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." Ledeen could have named some. After all, there were many British authors in the 18th century. Surely he could have provided some quotes. Wonder why he didn't?

Same criticism applies to Ledeen's next statement: "And in modern times, we can all name famous intellectuals who fawned all over Mussolini, Stalin, Fidel, and even Hitler." Is that right? I challenge any reader, off the top of your head, to name these "famous intellectuals." Good luck. Obviously, Ledeen didn't choose to name any. Picture him being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. "So, Mr. Ledeen, as I cannot come up with those "famous intellectuals," please name them for me." I can hear Ledeen's stammering now. One thing for which I admire O'Reilly, besides his penchant for increasing our vocabulary at the end of each show, is that he doesn't let politicians and newsmakers wiggle off his interviewing hook. He reels them in. Bill would have a ball with Ledeen.

"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." I agree with the first sentence. The next three just constitute more unsubstantiated hyperbole. Evidence please.

"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." I imagine that most politicians, regardless of party, don't like the way things work, and think they can do much better. But then Ledeen continues with yet another unsupported statement, "... (Obama'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." Yawn.

Drum roll, please. Ledeen concludes, not surprisingly, with, "Democratic leaders' envy of tyrants' power can be understood. But it can't be forgiven." He made clear his opinion that President Obama falls into that category. So who are the others? Names and quotes to substantiate that claim, Mr. Ledeen. Oh...I see...that would have required research and an intellectual discipline that you do not seemingly possess. Your comments, therefore, can be understood. But they can't be forgiven.

But wait. I must commend you on one success. Your article's title is, "Is Obama Naive?" You first sentence stated, "I don't think so." Yet near the end of your article, you wrote, "He's not naïve." This is a 313 word essay. Yet in that short time, you at least succeeded in changing the mind of one person, yourself, on the issue of whether Obama is naive or not. Congratulations.