Candidate of the Left – by David Horowitz

ObamaChavez

[Editor’s note: Today, on the anniversary of the U.S. election, we have decided to reprint a slightly edited version of an article by David Horowitz that appeared on Frontpagemag.com on October 31, 2008.]

“A candidate may well change his…position on, say, universal health care of Bosnia. But he … cannot change the fact – if it happens to be a fact – that he …is a pathological liar…”  – Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is normally able to make the sharpest distinctions, but this ability is strikingly absent from his electoral ruminations, which have led him to vote for Barack Obama. Perhaps his instincts have been blunted by the new company he is keeping among the bigoted hysterics of the political left, to whom distinctions appear as mere distractions from the righteous Path of Truth. “The Republican Party s has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic, and a proud boastful ignoramus,” writes Hitchens, adding that on November 4, those who care for the Constitution and reason will “repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.” The wickedness and stupidity are more aptly reflected in baseless, mean-spirited remarks like this.

Anti-God is not great either, Christopher. While you refuse to cut Governor Palin slack in an election season, look at the gaping latitude you provide to her opponents. Obama’s election (should it come to pass) will not put him a heartbeat away from the presidency but anoint him commander-in-chief. This makes your burden of responsibility that much greater, particularly since as a man of the left you understand exactly who Obama is.

Some years ago, you wrote a memorable book about Bill Clinton called No One Left To Lie To. When you wrote it, you shared many of Clinton’s political agendas but parted ways with him over his moral corruption. Your defection turned on the issue of presidential character. You were repelled by Clinton’s easy ways with the truth. But Obama’s lies make Clinton’s pale by comparison.

Consider that Obama’s closest counselor and spiritual guide over a twenty year period is a racist kook, a Jew-hating, terrorist-loving acolyte of Farrakhan. When confronted with this fact, Obama responded he had no idea who Jeremiah Wright really was. What Clinton lie comes close to that in brazen coolness? Or this one: My name is Barack Hussein Obama; I grew up the son of a Muslim father and went to a Muslim school in an Islamic state, but I wasn’t raised as a Muslim – I’ve always been a Christian. I do not believe being raised as a Muslim should matter. But I believe the lie should.

For his entire adult life, Obama’s closest political allies have been pro-Soviet progressives like state senator Alice Palmer who chose Obama as the politically appropriate figure whom she chose to inherit her state senate seat; or anti-American radicals like Bill Ayers, who organized a terrorist army in the 1970s with the intention of launching a race war in America, and bringing down the “empire.” Others may be under the illusion that the Weather Underground was organized to protest the Vietnam War. But you know better. Ayers and his comrades were still bombing during the year of America’s bicentennial, 1976, and into the Jimmy Carter administration. They were still in the trenches four years after our withdrawal from Vietnam, because their agenda was a war to destroy the imperial beast, America.

“I was eight years old when Ayers set his bombs.” (More likely 16.) But Ayers’ reputation was legend in the Hyde Park “liberal” community, where Obama met him and embraced him as a political comrade and ally. It was in Ayers’ living room that Obama launched his campaign for Alice Palmer’s left-wing seat. It was Ayers’ father who got Obama his job at the law firm of Sidley Austin, and it was Ayers himself who hired Obama to spend the $50 million Ayers had raised to finance an army of anti-American radicals drawn from ACORN and other nihilistic groups to recruit Chicago school children to their political causes.

When confronted by his association with Ayers, Obama had another characteristic memory lapse. Ayers was just a “guy in the neighborhood” whose children went to school with his. What other crucial facts about his life and what other essential clues to his character has Obama lied about? Or perhaps more appropriately: What has he not lied about? Syrian criminal Tony Reszko, who gave him his house (and received what political favors in return)? If you ask Obama, he never read all those front page stories about Rezsko’s indictments.

And of course, nobody ever bothered to ask Obama why a pro-Soviet trooper like Alice Palmer would want to give her senate seat to him rather than some other worthy. But we can pretty well guess Obama’s answer if they had. When you peel away the subterfuges and get down to the facts, what you are left with is a life-long radical posing as a political liberal to win the trust of a larger constituency. Schizophrenic disjunctions make up his political character.

He is a ruthless machine politician, who chose the Daley mafia over inner city school kids and crushed an incipient reform movement he himself had been part of. When the chips were down his loyalty was to the machine; but when he runs for office it is as a political progressive. In his heart, he is an economic radical distressed that the Constitution presents obstacles to socialist theft; but when he runs for office he inhabits the persona of an economic centrist. The balancing act is superb. His chief economic adviser this presidential run is Austan Goolsbee, an economic centrist, while Paul Volcker a much admired conservative has joined his campaign. Both men would do a Republican administration proud. But once in power will he follow their advice?

The economy is probably not where your heart is. Consider, then, the global war against Islamic fanatics, which is far from over. These are not people who want to “teach the argument” in public schools, like Sarah Palin. Their remedy for disagreement is not discussion but decapitation. Where is Obama on the war between barbarism and civilization? He was for keeping Saddam Hussein in power, when the entire Clinton national security team was against it. He was for capitulation on the battlefield once the war started, which would have left the Iraqis to the tender mercies of al-Zarqawi and crew.

In foreign policy, generally, his deceptions are world class. In practice he has spent his political life in league with anti-American, “anti-war” radicals who make no secrets among their friends as to the nature of their agendas. As a sitting U.S. Senator, he was a white flag appeaser. But as a candidate poseur he is able to pull off the credible impression that he is a foreign policy realist.

And maybe he is. Or maybe he’s not any of these things, because all that anyone knows for certain about Barack Obama – the only thing anyone knows for certain – is that he is not what he seems. What we do know, because we have the performances on tape is that he is the most seamless liar since Bill himself – smoother by far. Who is the real Barack Obama? Who can tell? We don’t really know anything about this man’s intentions, and what we do know about his deeds is bad.

We know that he is a man without loyalty. Wright, Ayers, Grandma – throw them under the bus (although perhaps only temporarily, while expedience requires it). When his benefactor Alice Palmer changed her mind about passing him her senate seat, he refused to give it back. When she and two other black candidates attempted to challenge him in the primaries, he went to court to prevent them from running at all. He preferred to disenfranchise their supporters than win in an election. When TV anchors posed uncomfortable questions to him and his running mate, he had his campaign threaten their stations with reprisals.

Michael Barone has written eloquently about the emerging “Obama thugocracy.” What counter-evidence could you possibly produce against this concern? You have embraced a Machiavellian liar and world class charmer, remarkably disciplined as a political actor, breathtakingly able to put on many faces. Should he become president, will you or anyone else be able to call him to account?

Here is another thing to think about. Consider what those who have known him best and longest think of all these bobbings, weavings, and deceptions on the issues – issues fundamental to America’s future. Despite his tacks to the center, his brave words about standing up to Iran and his claims to be ready to defend Israel’s democracy, every anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-Iranian Communist in America is supporting Barack Obama; every pro-Palestinian leftist, every former Weatherman terrorist – many of whom are active in his campaign (some even on his official website); every Sixties leftist and all their disciples whose hope all their lives has been that America would lose its wars, because in their perverse view America is the Great Satan, the imperial master of global capitalism; every black racist follower of Louis Farrakhan, who said recently that when Obama speaks you are “hearing the voice of the messiah”; every “anti-war” activist who wanted us to leave Saddam in power and then lose the war in Iraq; everyone who believes that America is the bad guy and that our enemies are justly aggrieved; every member of ACORN, the chief product of the anti-American Sixties left, which thinks nothing of conducting massive electoral fraud because it has massive contempt for the American way. Every one of these radical forces without exception and without defection is pulling for Barack Obama, along with al-Jazeera and Vladimir Putin and the religious fanatics of Hamas and the PLO. Have you asked yourself what it is that you think you know, that they don’t?

Of course all these leftists with their hostile agendas may be mistaken about Barack Obama. His distinctive talent, after all, is to appear all things to all men and women. In the end, Obama may be so faithless, and disloyal, and unprincipled, as to turn his back on everything he has ever stood for and everyone who has ever supported him for the last twenty years. He may throw them all under the bus along with Reverend Wright, radical Ayers, and racist Grandma.

But how certain can you be of counting on that? Can you even be sure that Wright and Ayers will not be invited back into the fold once the prize is achieved? What is it that you know that the anti-American, anti-Israel left in this country (and abroad), who are also supporting Obama, do not?

I am stunned that you would give all these facts a pass in casting your vote for the mysterious stranger, and use Sarah Palin’s mild, mainstream religious faith as an excuse to condemn her and endorse him. Unlike Obama’s political commitments, Palin’s faith has been a consistently private aspect of her life. (Is there an act of her governorship you can point to that was dictated by the “religious fanaticism” you ascribe to her on the basis of a single appearance she made in a church she has long since left? There is none.) I am not so much surprised as dispirited by your thoughtless attacks on the religious faith of this woman, who has the support of Democrats and Republicans in her state, and who is seeking high office in a nation whose core principle, as you know better than most, is religious tolerance.

Perhaps it is precisely a misapplication of America’s tolerance that is the problem here. Perhaps it is this misuse of a good thing that itself has given rise to the passionate hatreds that are directed unfairly at Palin and McCain. These hatreds are justified by their protagonists as a defense in behalf of the first presidential candidate who is black. Perhaps in the rush to elect a black president, there is too much tolerance for lies, too much willingness to give a pass to Obama on matters on which he should not get a pass – to ignore so many obviously troubling facts.

I am dispirited that you who wrote so movingly about your own post-9/11 love for this country would attack in such an unrestrained and incoherent manner a woman whose candor in expressing similar love has earned her the contempt of the left. Leftists of course refuse to consider themselves nationalists, or patriotic defenders of a tolerant country. They think of themselves as “international citizens” whose allegiances are to international courts, and organizations, and to a United Nations dominated by dictators and racists, by women-hating, gay-hating, Jew-hating, Christian-hating and, yes, atheist-hating regimes. All of this doesn’t matter to them when they are faced with truly dangerous individuals like Sarah Palin.

Think again, Christopher. Vote for Obama if you want to, but don’t debase yourself by thinking (and hating) in lockstep like the left. Since your adoption of this country, you have written thoughtful appreciations of several of its Founders. You know, more than most, that religious freedom – and respect – is the foundation of all the freedoms we enjoy in this country, including the freedom of people to hate it. One thing you can count on from John McCain and Sarah Palin is that they will defend their country and its Constitution against enemies global and domestic who despise it, and seek its demise. What can you count on from Barack Obama?

  • ApolloSpeaks

    WHY IS CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS AN ATHEIST?

    Because God is not a socialist providing food, shelter, wealth and security from cradle to grave. God is not a socialist therefore He doesn't exist. At heart all atheists are socialists including those like Hitchens who find virtue in Democratic Capitalism and the blessings of God's invisible hand.

  • Robert Wargas

    “At heart all atheists are socialists including those like Hitchens who find virtue in Democratic Capitalism and the blessings of God's invisible hand.”

    This sentence makes no sense. You simultaneously posit that a) Hitchens is both a socialist and lover of capitalism, and b) that Hitchens “find[s] virtue” in God while still being an atheist.

  • Robert McGuigan

    The clarity, incisiveness, and amazing prescience of this piece speak for themselves. I do not see from a word search that Christopher Hitchens has ever responded to it. The only 'hit' for the words Horowitz and Hitchens is an event from 2007 that both participated in. I wish someone who can contact Mr. Hitchens would explicitly request a response, or an explanation why he won't or can't respond.

  • alancito

    The fact of the matter remains that John McCain made a terrible mistake by appointing Palin to the Republican ticket. Many independents who were teetering or even in favor of McCain switched their vote to Obama SOLELY because Palin was on the ticket. If only he had invited a moderate woman (preferably a minority) to join his ticket he would be the president today. Very simply, the possibility of McCain dying in office was very real and having a neophyte charlatan with no experience as his successor was just not stomachable. The case can be made that Obama himself is a neophyte charlatan, but utlimately it was a choice between two evils and frankly the (fool's) hope that Obama was going to be centrist. A simple risk/reward decision.

  • CowboyUp

    The GOP made a terrible mistake by nominating McCain for President. Palin brought more to the ticket than he did.

    Voting for hussein or sitting at home election day? Simply a bad decision.

  • tarleton

    Hitchens like Horowitz is a recovering Leftist , but unlike Horowitz , he's a fundamentalist atheist and true believer , who has allowed his hate for religion , especially christianity, to cloud his political judgement
    His whole life is dedicated to the ''belief'' that God is makebelieve……he could be right , but I doubt it
    furthermore , he , like the other Brit Twit , andrew sullivan , has allowed his ''worldview'' to be shaped by his anti religious pathologies
    Sullivan has allowed all of his political views to be distorted by the prism of his ''gayness''
    Both of them are unreliable allies in the war against the ''unholy alliance '' of Radical Islam and the new Left…..and both of them are much more trouble than they're worth

  • http://benfranklinslepthere.blogspot.com/ Texmom

    alancito, it sounds like you would have preferred McCain to have chosen a candidate like Dede from New York, just another RINO. What is the point? The choice in voting then becomes in name only, with most of their convictions being the same. Many of us are ready for true conservative candidates, and do not want them chosen by marketability and race, but by their actual ideology.

  • LindaRivera

    LOYALTY to America and Americans is the top priority Americans desire from their president.

    From day one of his presidency, Obama has been eager to communicate to the Muslim global community that pleasing and submitting to Islam is his top priority.

    In October, 2009, the Obama administration co-sponsored a UN resolution with Muslim Egypt to ban speech that defames religion (Islam). A massive attack that threatens the freedom of every non-Muslim on earth.

    Obama's first official phone call was to PLO Muslim leader, Abbas. Highly respected by past and present U.S. administrations, Muslim terrorist leader Abbas, financed the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. Obama's first interview was with Al-Arabiya, Muslim TV station.

    Obama Bows to the Saudi King:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd425zfw5Ew&feat

    Obama: “My Muslim Faith”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

    Obama: MUSLIM Call to Prayer One of the PRETTIEST Sounds on Earth
    http://www.arkjournal.com/2008/06/obama-muslim-

    The Koran is radically different from the Bible.

    PA Muslims CELEBRATE Murder of 3,000 Innocents 9/11
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

    G-D's eternal Biblical requirement for ALL humanity is KINDNESS: Jewish Bible, Micah 6:8. 'And what does the L-RD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your G-D.'

    Obama: ” We are no longer a Christian nation . . . “
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOOrSAbU9z8&anno

  • dfghzidfio

    I rather like Hitchens' mind, but suspect where God is concerned – he (Hitchens) was damaged in his past by a proclaimed Christian on some deep personal level and/or perceives some grievous past wound as being “preventable” by the Being he now ceaselessly rails against. I'd still raise a glass with him anytime (even if he'd be offended by my praying for him). Excellent article and excellent points made

  • 2maxpower

    excellent article. I was also wondering why Hitchens has been so quiet about all things obama.

    I had sent an email asking him to square the circle regarding his voting for Obama and not calling him out on his actions since the election. No response from him.

    I can understand him not voting for McCain, but not excuse him for voting for Obama given it is counter to his writings.

  • nippersherman

    Alancito:
    Sarah Palin a neophyte charlatan with no experience? At the time she was selected as McCain's running mate, she had more executive experience than Obama. She was a mayor of a small city and governor of a large sized but sparsely populated state. She managed people, budgets and projects needed for those two entities. Obama was a three term state senator and a US Senator 2/3 of the way through his 1st term. While she no doubt had to make hard decisions about running her city then her state, he voted “present” on many issues rather than take a firm position.

    You are no doubt thinking of Obama when you saw neophyte charlatan with no experience.

    I will say this too, I missed George Bush. When he was president, I had a job, was safer and felt more free than I do now. Right now I have no hope and certainly no change.

  • ApolloSpeaks

    Hitchen's belief in Capitalism clashes with his brand of atheism, his non-belief in an intelligent Creator because of evil, injustice and suffering in the world.

  • TalkinHorse

    It's useful to look back to previous analyses and see who got it right. Isn't it obvious, in retrospect, that Horowitz had Obama's number?…that is, that Obama would likely govern from the hard left, instead of from the center-left as he had campaigned to do, and as Bill Clinton had done. Obama sold the nation a pack of big lies; can anyone deny it? And now we've got a severe case of buyer's remorse, as demonstrated in the vast electoral swings in Virginia and Jersey. But we got suckered and there's no “truth in advertising” law in politics. We're stuck with Obama and his ill-gotten gains until 2012 or the nation collapses, whichever comes first.

  • brenanc

    Obama's first two “fathers” (sperm donor and father figure?), thanks to his mother's hatred of America (and poor choices), were Muslims. The looney bitch even went to live in Indonesia for God's sake–where Obama went to Madrassa.

    Does anyone think Obama learned Christianity in Rev. Wright's bozoid church?

    I just pray the country gets a chance to re-do Congress in 2010.

  • brenanc

    John McCain was the reincarnation of Bob Dole 'nuff said.