Connect with us

News

Pinkerton: Barack Obama Is A Machiavellian Fox In A Promised Land’

Published

on

Barack Obama’s new memoir, A Promised Land, bills itself as “a riveting, deeply personal account of history in the making—from the president who inspired us to believe in the power of democracy.” And of course, it’s an instant mega best-seller, eagerly bought by blue-dot believers everywhere, fully justifying the 2017 book-deal by which Barack and Michelle Obama jointly sold their reminiscences for $65 million.

So okay, now that Barack Obama is firmly and forever instantiated among the one percent, we might ask: What does A Promised Land have to say about, for instance, income inequality and high-end financialism? This is a particularly pertinent question because much of Obama’s presidency was defined by his relationship with Wall Street, including the bailouts, the cost of which a 2010 estimate put at $14.4 trillion.

As they look back at the Obama years, Americans might ask: Why did the stock market get so high? Why did Manhattan real estate get so expensive? Why did the Democrats get so many large campaign donations? For answers, Americans might look to those bailout trillions because the money had to go somewhere.

In the meantime, from 2007 to 2010, the banks and other lenders foreclosed on an estimated 3.8 million homes.

We can see that this was, indeed, a scandalous situation: many trillions of dollars was sloshed around for the very fatcats who had helped provoke the meltdown, while the lives of millions of ordinary people melted.

So what did President Obama do? Well, first he hired Wall Street-friendly officials, such as Tim Geithner at Treasury and Larry Summers at the National Economic Council, and then he sat passively as his Justice Department did little or nothing about obvious wrongdoing. In the words of iconoclastic leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald:

One of the greatest and most shameful failings of the Obama administration: the lack of even a single arrest or prosecution of any senior Wall Street banker for the systemic fraud that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.

In his memoir, Obama has little choice but to take up these matters. He writes that while it was “tempting” to view high finance as honeycombed with crooks in need of “Old Testament justice,” that was not possible. He argues:

The trouble was that in the midst of a financial panic, in a modern capitalist economy, it was impossible to isolate good businesses from bad, or administer pain only to the reckless or unscrupulous. Like it or not, everybody and everything was connected.

In other words, Obama is saying, the national and international financial system was too connected—too delicate—for anyone to be prosecuted. The memoir’s obvious filibustering about bringing the law to bear on grifting greedheads moved Harry Siegel of The Daily Beast, in an otherwise mostly admiring book-review, to splutter about his rationalization, “What chickenshit!”

The bailouts might have been justifiable in terms of preventing another 1929-style Depression, and yet they were going to be popular only if they had been accompanied by clawbacks of ill-gotten gains and criminal prosecutions. Such a plan wouldn’t have been so much “Old Testament justice” as simply justice.

Interestingly, Obama seems to have had some second thoughts about his passivity, writing,”I wonder whether I should have been bolder in those early months, willing to exact more economic pain in the short term in pursuit of a permanently altered and more just economic order.”

But Obama’s second-thoughts-ing doesn’t last long. After contemplating in print for a little bit, he concludes that he had it right the first time: “I can’t say I would make different choices.”

The truth is that Obama was a Wall Street-friendly president. He started with bailouts, then moved to free trade deals and a lenient attitude toward financial concentration. So is it a coincidence that Wall Streeters, hedge funders, and wheeler-dealers loom so large in the Democratic Party’s financial support structure? And that financiers mostly paid for the Obama presidential library? Probably not.

Of course, one good way to defend Obama from the criticism that he was a Wall Street tool is to point out that his immediate predecessors were little different: George W. Bush filled his administration with Goldman Sachs executives and other financialist monarchs, as did Bill Clinton. And Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, hired as his Treasury Secretary yet another Goldman Sachs alum, Steven Mnuchin.

The point here is not that Wall Streeters are automatically bad—Mnuchin, for example, has been energetic and effective in dealing with the impact of Covid-19. Instead, the point is that Obama wasn’t so different from the presidents around him; seen from a distance, his administration blends in with most others of his era.

Audacity? What Audacity?

That blending in—the existence of more similarities than differences between his presidency and those of others—is what jumps out of Obama’s tome. Indeed, the book speaks to his instinct simply to get along and go along. A Promised Land is studded with words that speak to the limitations that the author felt as president: words such as “maybe,” “process,” and “still,” as in, High hopes notwithstanding, it was still the case that . . .

Wading through such waffling, it’s hard to remember that one of Obama’s previous books was entitled, The Audacity of Hope.

We can add that another word oft seen is practical, as in “as a matter of practical politics” and “as a practical matter.” And another “p”-word is pattern: “I didn’t like the deal. But in what was becoming a pattern, the alternatives were worse.”

Yet even if Obama’s more ambitious policy goals were often easily thwarted—that’s not practical, Mr. President—Obama himself plays the starring role in his own internalized drama. Indeed, close observers have long noted his abundant use of the word “I,” and this book is in keeping with that solipsistic pattern.

As he writes of himself, he has “a deep self-consciousness. A sensitivity to rejection or looking stupid.” And he adds that sometimes he has “a preference for navel-gazing over action.”

Sometimes, to be sure, this inwardness helps him maintain perspective. For instance, in 2009, when it was announced that he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, his immediate reaction was “For what?” (In fact, during his first term Obama greatly expanded the Afghanistan war; such a military escalation is surely a first among Peace Prize laureates.)

In the summarizing words of another reviewer, John F. Harris, writing for Politico, “Obama as a writer makes clear: He spends a lot of time in his own head, and Obama as politician and president did the same.” And as Washington Post reviewer Carlos Lozada explained, A Promised Land “is less a personal memoir than an unusual sort of history, one recounted by the man at the center of it, a man who seems always to be observing himself in action, always wondering if he is guiding the currents or driven by them.”

Yes, Obama’s book is also a history, even as it is curiously truncated. After 700 slogging pages, the book ends in May 2011. The second volume, on sale in a few years, will take us through the remaining time of Obama’s presidency, as well as his post presidency.

Yet still, there’s some modesty here, too. For instance, Obama invites the next generation to “remake the world, and to bring about . . . an America that finally aligns with all that is best in us.” That’s a nice thought, although, of course, it only underscores the point that Obama as president did not “remake the world.” (Some will say, Just as well!)

Thus the author is left to justify his actions by his intentions, as opposed to the results. As reviewer Harris puts it: “[Obama] plainly believes if he can adequately explain himself—how smart he is, how conscientiously he agonized over questions, and with such keen perceptiveness about differing points of view—this will cause people to look sympathetically at the decisions he did make.”

Unfortunately, such keening self-awareness is not the same thing as candor or revelation. For instance, the book gives short-shrift—more like no shrift—to such dubious figures in Obama’s past life as Bill Ayers, Allison Davis, and Tony Rezko.

In addition, the reader does not have to believe the author when he tells us that he was never in the pews of the Trinity United Church of Christ on the Sundays when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was delivering “God damn America”-type sermons.

Yet at the same time, Obama shows awareness of others. Having padded the book with shout-outs to past aides and advisers, he is less complimentary toward political opponents; he writes, for instance, that Sen. Mitch McConnell “lacked in charisma or interest in policy,” and yet, he continues, the Kentuckian “more than made up for” those lacks through “discipline, shrewdness and shamelessness—all of which he employed in the single-minded and dispassionate pursuit of power.”

And Obama is even less complimentary to Sen. Lindsey Graham, describing him as like the snaky guy in the crime-caper movie “who double-crosses everyone to save his own skin.”

As for his vice president for eight years, Joe Biden, Obama praises him fulsomely, yet adds that he could “get prickly if he thought he wasn’t given his due.” Yes, Biden’s prickliness in the face of a slight could be an interesting dynamic to watch in the coming years. “Middle Class Joe” might never tweet much, but most likely, we’ll have good occasion to see how he reacts toward a perceived insult.

A Fox, Not a Lion

So we are starting to see Obama’s self-portrait of himself as a thoughtful guy—maybe too thoughtful to be an effective president. After all, one might say, a great president is one who can make great change.

It’s often said that politics is the art of the possible, and yet at its most profound, politics is the art of the transformation. One transformative president, of course, was Ronald Reagan. In fact, even Obama recognized the powerful impact of the 40th president; back in 2008, when he allowed, “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path.”

So we can see that Obama has always been aware of the possibility of transformative change; it’s just not quite his cup of tea. In the White House, Reagan faced plenty of obstacles, too, and yet he found a way to transcend them.

And that’s the irony of Obama: For all his “Yes, we can” rhetoric in 2008, he was content to say, at least to himself, “No, we can’t.”

Yet still, he isn’t the type to blame himself, at least not too much. For instance, he writes of the 2010 midterm elections, when Democrats lost the House and nearly lost the Senate, that the results “didn’t prove that our agenda had been wrong.”

But then he adds, damning himself ever so slightly, “It just proved that—whether for lack of talent, cunning, charm or good fortune—I’d failed to rally the nation, as FDR had once done, behind what I knew to be right.”

Indeed, as Obama seeks to explain away failures, he sometimes leans on arguments about structural racism. There’s no doubt that some Americans disliked him simply because he was black, and yet at the same time, he was elected to national office twice. So yes, it’s true that America has sometimes witnessed “centuries of state-sponsored violence by whites against Black and brown people,” and yet it’s also true that Obama benefited from enormous good will and the hope that he would succeed—and not just from Democrats. In 2008, after all, he carried Mike Pence’s Indiana.

Meanwhile, unsurprisingly, Obama’s discussion of race includes swipes at Trump. The memoirist argues that no small part of Trump’s appeal in 2016 was to “millions of Americans spooked by a Black man in the White House,” adding, “He promised an elixir for their racial anxiety.” We can assume that in the forthcoming volume two, Obama will stick it to Trump, good and hard.

Yet as we think about the 44th and 45th presidents, we might be reminded of the typology set forth five hundred years ago by the Italian political philosopher Machiavelli. The political world, he asserted, was divided between two types: lions and foxes. As he explained in Book XVIII of The Prince, each creature had its strength and weakness:

The lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves.

Machiavelli’s idea was that the two metaphorical critters—in reality, of course, two types of people—would be best if they could work together. That is, the fox would identify the traps, and the lion would chase away other predators.

And yet by themselves, foxes and lions were each vulnerable: The fox lacked strength and courage, while the lion lacked the wisdom to steer clear of traps.

In our time, we can update Machiavelli: Obama is fox-like. That is, he saw the dangers, and so he slinked away from them. Yes, he was audacious enough to run for president as just a first-term senator, but once in office, he was sly enough to put his feet down carefully, thus avoiding traps.

As a result, Obama stayed in the White House for the maximum of eight years, and now, in active retirement, he is living prosperously ever after. And A Promised Land helps to show us how he went from a pot-smoking adolescence in Hawaii to life on Easy Street—where maybe he still sometimes sneaks a (tobacco) cigarette. The life of a fox might be long, and yet it most likely won’t be consequential. The ability to avoid traps is not the test of greatness.

Oh, and what about Trump? He is obviously a lion: In the White House, he has made change, that’s for sure, and he has fallen into traps—that, too, is for sure. Can he survive 2020 to roar again? We’ll have to see.

In the meantime, though, Obama, the never-trapped fox, is working on his next best-seller. And it, too, is sure to be full of cautions, meditations, and ruminations about avoiding traps.

Author: James P. Pinkerton

Source: Breitbart : Pinkerton: Barack Obama Is a Machiavellian Fox in ‘A Promised Land’

Continue Reading

News

FBI Knew Russia Collusion Story Was Bogus

Published

on

Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has released several hundred more documents from his committee’s investigation into the origins of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign for president. Included in the document dump was the transcript of closed testimony given last June by former Justice Department official Dana J. Boente.

Boente was acting deputy attorney general in charge of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation for several months in 2017 and told the committee that he was briefed on the program at least six times.

Washington Times:

“I felt that it was important to know something about it,” said Mr. Boente, according to a transcript. “I don’t know if and when I was told that. I think — I recall being told at some point, maybe not February, between February and April, because thankfully my involvement ended in April, that there was no evidence of collusion with the Trump campaign.”

The FBI not only didn’t shut down the probe, they expanded it.

During this time, the FBI also won a judge’s approval for continued wiretapping of campaign volunteer Carter Page. The FBI’s affidavit was based almost exclusively on evidence provided by a Democratic Party-financed dossier prepared by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and sourced to the Kremlin.

The FBI learned in January that Mr. Steele’s main source, Russian-born Igor Danchenko, had told agents his information was unconfirmed hearsay. But the FBI continued to rely on the dossier.

Graham was obviously upset when he spoke of what was in the transcripts.

The Sun:

In a statement, Graham said: “I believe that Crossfire Hurricane was one of the most incompetent and corrupt investigations in the history of the FBI and DOJ.”

The senator added the committee had released “as much material as possible” – but said some material had been withheld as it was still “classified”.

Graham slammed the leadership of the FBI under James Comey and Andrew McCabe, saying it was either “grossly incompetent” or they “knowingly allowed tremendous misdeeds”.

Why didn’t the FBI and Justice drop a bogus investigation into a sitting president of the United States? Graham said: “The only logical explanation is that the investigators wanted an outcome because of their bias.”

But the FBI would never let their biases interfere with their professional judgment, right?

Author: Rick Moran

Source: PJ Media : Newly Released Testimony Shows the FBI Knew the Russia Collusion Story Was Bogus

Continue Reading

News

Biden Signing Exec. Orders, Travel Ban, Paris Agreement

Published

on

Big changes are only days away

President-elect Joe Biden will sign about a dozen executive orders on his first day in the White House, reversing several key policies enacted by the Trump administration.

Biden’s transition team revealed on Saturday that the incoming administration would sign executive orders regarding climate change, immigration, student loans, and the coronavirus pandemic.

Incoming Biden chief of staff Ron Klain sent a memo to his staff on Saturday, outlining a 10-day plan of action. Included in the memo to the new White House staff, the Biden administration declared it would address “four overlapping and compounding crises: the Covid-19 crisis, the resulting economic crisis, the climate crisis, and a racial equity crisis.”

“All of these crises demand urgent action,” Klain wrote. “In his first 10 days in office, President-elect Biden will take decisive action to address these four crises, prevent other urgent and irreversible harms, and restore America’s place in the world.”

Biden will be inaugurated on Wednesday when he will reportedly sign a number of executive orders. On day one, Biden will allegedly sign executive orders to return the United States to the Paris agreement on climate change, which President Donald Trump withdrew from in June 2017.

“The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States,” Trump said at the time of the withdrawal, adding that it provided China and India a competitive advantage.

The incoming administration will also rescind Trump’s controversial travel ban of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, and certain government officials from Venezuela.

Biden will reportedly introduce a “groundbreaking legislative package” addressing immigration reform, and provide a pathway to citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.

The Biden administration will allegedly sign executive actions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic that will “change the course of the COVID-19 crisis and safely re-open schools and businesses.”

Biden will purportedly introduce the “100 Day Masking Challenge,” which will implement face mask mandates on federal property and for interstate travel.

The president-elect will reportedly extend the pause on repayment of and interest on student loans, and continue restrictions on nationwide evictions and foreclosures.

“Between Jan. 25 and Feb. 1, Biden will sign more executive actions, memoranda and issues additional Cabinet directives, including ones addressing equity and support in communities of color and underserved communities, and criminal justice system reforms,” USA Today reported.

Biden will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, and the swearing-in of the 46th president of the United States will feature an unprecedented security presence of up to 25,000 troops. The largest security force at an inauguration in U.S. history stems from the storming of the Capitol building on Jan. 6, and the subsequent threats of violence thereafter.

Author: Paul Sacca

Source: The Blaze : Biden to sign a dozen executive orders on day one in office — reverse Trump’s travel ban, rejoin Paris Agreement

Continue Reading

News

Trump Plans Unprecedented Military Farewell Event With 21-Gun Salute, Military Band

Published

on

Trump plans to leave town early so he can use call sign “Air Force One” on trip home

President Trump wants to go out in style.

Trump, who has announced he will skip Joe Biden’s inauguration as the 46th president and plans to leave Washington, D.C., Wednesday morning, is reportedly planning an unprecedented farewell event at Joint Base Andrews, an Air Force base in Maryland where Air Force One is hangared.

“Officials are considering an elaborate send-off event reminiscent of the receptions he’s received during state visits abroad, complete with a red carpet, color guard, military band and even a 21-gun salute, according to a person familiar with the planning who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement,” The Associated Press reported.

Leaving while he is still president will allow Trump to use the presidential plane and use the call sign “Air Force One” for his flight to Palm Beach, Florida. If Trump were to leave Washington after Biden was sworn in, he would have to ask Biden for permission to use the plane for his trip home.

“Trump told people he did not like the idea of departing Washington for a final time as an ex-president, flying aboard an airplane no longer known as Air Force One,” CNN reported. “He also did not particularly like the thought of requesting the use of the plane from Biden, according to a person familiar with the matter.”

“Final plans for Trump’s departure were still being laid a week ahead of time, but Trump has expressed interest to some in a military-style sendoff and a crowd of supporters, according to a person with whom he has discussed the matter,” CNN reported. “Whether that occurs at the White House, Joint Base Andrews or his final destination — Palm Beach International Airport — wasn’t clear. Trump is expected to be ensconced in his Mar-a-Lago club or his nearby golf course by noon on Inauguration Day, when his term officially ends.”

But Defense One, a military website, said the Pentagon will offer no farewell ceremony for Trump.

“The Pentagon, in a break with recent tradition, will not host an Armed Forces Farewell tribute to President Donald Trump,” Executive Editor Kevin Baron wrote in a commentary piece.

“It’s a shame, but not a surprise. Trump will leave office in disgrace, one week after the House voted a second time for his impeachment, two weeks after his supporters staged a deadly siege in the Capitol Building, six months after he dragged his Joint Chiefs chairman into a political firestorm, and after four years of nonstop assaults on truth. One of those disgraces is how he is ghosting the U.S. troops that he commanded,” Baron wrote.

The city is locked down after the violent riot that broke out at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Thousands of National Guard soldiers are in town to make sure violence doesn’t spark again.

Biden’s inaugural parade has been canceled to limit crowds during the COVID-19 pandemic. Organizers announced the decision earlier this month, saying that a “virtual parade across America” will be held instead.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire : Trump Plans Unprecedented Military ‘Farewell Event’ With 21-Gun Salute, Military Band: Report

Continue Reading

Join Our Mailing List

Recent Post

Trending

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!