And Now for Something Completely Predictable: A Retro-Post for a Retro-Celebrity Part Two

By Michael Giometti-

(In the first part of this post we started to take John Cleese to task for his characterization of America, or at least that part of it that doesn’t swoon over Barack Obama, as “backwoods, racist, and redneck.” We set out to prove that there was very little in the way of “hope and change” that we could expect from an Obama administration (and so far we have not been disappointed). We numbered the ways that George Bush, far from being a” heartless, small-government conservative” when it came to social welfare policies, was actually a suitable heir in that respect to FDR and LBJ. Here we’ll continue the tirade by listing the ways that Barack Obama resembles George Bush and his ilk on national security issues.)

Left or Right?

On national security issues, the Bush administration was rightly characterized as fond of unconstitutional foreign military operations and domestic security measures. This behavior is considered typically right-wing, but a cursory look at modern Democrat administrations, from Wilson to Clinton, and their friendly Congresses puts the lie to this. Detailing the ways these “peace-loving” Democrats slashed and burned their way through the geopolitical landscape of the twentieth century will take another overly long post, so we’ll stick with Barack Obama for now.

Despite the constant shouts of “Hope and Change” that rained down like hammer blows from the Obama campaign, Democrats, and those in the media friendly to him (known as The Media), Barack Obama is no great agent of change. Consider his stands on various national security issues as Senator and candidate—and later as President:

· Senator Obama was always an outspoken critic of our involvement in Iraq and has moved to end that involvement as president. His commitment, like most Democrats in Congress, can be called into question, however, in light of his nearly complete reluctance to vote to defund the effort, as well as the leisurely nature of his exit plan as president, which will keep us there until at least 2012.

· Iraq aside, from listening to some of his campaign speeches one could be forgiven for seeing Senator and candidate Obama as an interventionist on the order of Bill Clinton or George Bush. While condemning our operation in Iraq, he nonetheless justified hypothetical large-scale operations in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, and Pakistan.

Just days after the inauguration, President Obama launched missile strikes against Taliban and Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan, continuing a recent Bush Administration policy of small-scale missile strikes there. In the ensuing months, Obama has softened his public comments on any intensification of American military activity in Pakistan in hopes of prodding Pakistan itself to take more active measures against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Toward this end he has secured a dramatic increase in aid to the country. Nevertheless, he has left open the possibility of more active military measures there.

· Like most Democrats, Obama has been an enthusiastic supporter of our involvement in Afghanistan. Indeed a common refrain among Democrats, including Obama, has been that the Republicans’ “obsession” over Iraq had caused the important struggle in Afghanistan to be “under-resourced.” As president, Obama sent 17.5 thousand additional troops shortly after taking office and has just announced a plan to send about twice as many more.

· Obama has a mixed record on civil liberties for American citizens. As a senator, though he did call for a liberalizing reform of the PATRIOT Act in 2005, he nevertheless voted for amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2008 that extended government wiretapping authority. Furthermore, as president, he is now calling for a renewal of those provisions of PATRIOT Act set to expire.

What hasn’t been brought up so far are the similar efforts under Bush and Obama to prop up/stimulate our ailing economy. This mare’s nest deserves its own post, but it suffices to say that Bush played Herbert Hoover to Obama’s FDR in laying the foundation (and the first few stories) of a vast government edifice of disastrous economic planning.

So again, Mr. Cleese, why all the breathless talk about some great choice to be made in this country?

(In the next, and last, part of this post interminable, let’s take a look at John Cleese’s political views—or at least what we can best determine them to be. For, you see, it’s hard to find anything explicit on that subject for about a decade. Watching him spew condescension from his seaside porch to an obsequious, nondescript interviewer or slap thighs with an equally unchallenging Keith Olbermann takes us pretty far, but we’ll nevertheless take a closer look. We’ll also show what these views have meant for Great Britain. More generally, we’ll consider why it is that the ideologies of Right and Left seem to converge, and why their respective members remain stubbornly oblivious to this fact and unjustifiably vituperative to their philosophical cousins. Finally, I’ll qualify my criticism of Europeans, but not Monty Python.)