At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Four years ago, Arizona Senator Republican presidential nominee John McCain shocked the world when he chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. 

McCain and Palin lost their race against Barack Obama and Joe Biden, but Palin has since achieved celebrity status.  Among other things, she became a Fox News contributor.

However, on Wednesday, Fox cancelled its scheduled interviews with the Alaskan governor.

Palin had planned to appear on Fox to comment on McCain’s speech at this year’s Republican National Convention.  Actually, according to her Facebook post, she planned to lavish praise upon him for his “positive contributions to America” and lament “what a biased media unfairly put him through four years ago tonight.”

Palin said that she was “sorry” about the cancellation, but, “more than any of the other convention speeches,” she “look[ed] forward to hearing” McCain’s “words to his fellow Americans [.]”

Fox released a statement to account for the cancellation of Palin’s interviews. 

“Our plans changed based on the fact that the RNC condensed the schedule of speeches from four nights to three.  We look forward to having Governor Palin back as soon as we can.”

Palin continues to maintain a sizable and impassioned following, but it is hard not to wonder whether this latest episode may not be an indication that the lime light that she has enjoyed for the last few years is beginning to slip from her grasp.

It is also hard not to think that, if so, this might be a well deserved turn of events.

In spite of her reputation as a traditionalist or conservative, Palin has made some decisions that cast this reputation into doubt. 

For one, she continues to praise John McCain.  This is telling, for neither in 2008 nor at any time before or since then have self-avowed conservatives regarded McCain as anything other than a “RINO” (Republican in Name Only).  Considering that, until he challenged Barack Obama for the presidency, the left-wing media lauded McCain as a “maverick,” the GOP faithful appeared to have had some reason for their judgment.

Secondly, McCain’s speech that Palin was anticipating more anxiously than any other was what those who know him have come to expect, a call for a foreign policy that is even more ambitious in scope than what currently exists.  Ever quick to dispel audiences of any illusions they may have that foreign policy is secondary in importance to economic woes, McCain remarked:

“It is said that this election will turn on domestic and economic issues.  But what Mitt Romney knows, and what we know, is that our success at home also depends on our leadership in the world.”  He continued: “It is our willingness to shape world events for the better that has kept us safe, increased our prosperity, preserved our liberty and transformed human history.”

Yet as such “Old Right” conservatives as Patrick Buchanan and scholar Paul Gottfried have long observed, the sort of foreign policy favored by the likes of McCain and Palin is a species of liberal internationalism.  It is the kind of foreign policy that Woodrow Wilson promoted in his quest to “make the world safe for democracy.”

That is, it is most definitely not conservative.

Thirdly, Palin has furthered the “reality” television craze by becoming a reality TV star herself.  But the transformation of herself into a pop culture celebrity undoubtedly came at the cost of diminishing the number of people who take her seriously.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Palin didn’t just become a reality TV star herself. She paved the way for her daughter, Bristol, to become one as well.

Bristol Palin, as everyone now knows, conceived a child at the age of 17.  When her mother made her debut at the Republican National Convention in 2008, Bristol attended while visibly pregnant.  She was accompanied by the child’s father, Levi Johnston, to whom Bristol was supposedly engaged. In December, Bristol gave birth. 

She and Levi never married.  In fact, they have long since broken up.

Since then, Bristol has been almost as visible a public personality as her mother has been. She has been on several television shows.  Not including her own reality show, Bristol has also appeared in ABC Family’s, The Secret Life of the American Teenager, and Dancing with the Stars.  She has authored her own memoir, co-starred in a music video, and become a teen pregnancy prevention spokesperson for The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and the Candie Foundation.

Reportedly, the Candie Foundation has paid Bristol more than $262, 000 for her work.

Although Bristol styles herself an advocate of teenage pregnancy prevention, critics have expressed concern that her good looks and plush lifestyle may contribute to the glamorization of unwed motherhood.  

For example, Bonnie Fuller, former editor-in-chief of YM, alluding to the “picture-perfect” image of a People spread in which Bristol appeared, accused her of being “the poster girl for teen momhood.” 

These criticisms are legitimate.  Bristol Palin is barely old enough to drink and yet from the time that she was a teenager, she has enjoyed an endless supply of fame and fortune—all because she is an unwed, teenage mother and Sarah Palin is her mother.   

The overwhelming majority of unwed teenage mothers who aren’t already celebrities forego opportunities that would have otherwise been available to them. Bristol has reaped opportunities because of her decision.  Her mouth may say one thing, but her very public life conveys a strikingly different message.

This is the concern that many have had with Bristol reaping the material fruits of speaking out against teenage pregnancy.

However, that her mother Sarah paved the way for her to do so is what has provoked some conservatives of a more traditional bent to lambast her for being a fraud. 

Conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel, for instance, wrote in 2009 that whether Bristol marries her child’s father is indeed “our business because the mother and chief enabler and financier of all of this is Bristol Palin’s mother, a woman whom people are touting as a conservative family values person who…has demonstrated that she actually isn’t one.”

As the days of the 2008 presidential contest recede ever further beyond the historical horizon and the media turns its attention to new stars, Sarah Palin just might—and maybe deservedly—find herself fading off into the sunset.


Dinesh D’Souza’s political documentary—2016: Obama’s America—is beginning to soar at the box office.

D’Souza’s film is based upon his book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage.  Now, while I haven’t seen the former, I have read—and reviewed—the latter.  In his monograph, D’Souza contends that it isn’t Marxism, racialism, leftism, socialism, or liberalism that primarily informs Barack Obama’s vision of the world. No, it is another sort of “ism” that animates the President, an “ism” that only a Third World immigrant like D’Souza can really understand and appreciate.

Obama, D’Souza argues, subscribes to what the author calls “anti-colonialism.

By virtue of having had their perceptions shaped in large measure by the Western colonial rule under which they had long lived, non-Westerners like the residents of D’Souza’s native India view the world very differently from the manner in which Westerners regard it.  To put it more succinctly, from distrust to contempt, varying degrees of animus toward the West characterize Third World peoples.

Obama, D’Souza tries to persuade us, is like an inhabitant from the Third World in this respect.  But now that he has amassed all of the power that comes with the United States presidency, Obama is on a quest to rectify what he perceives to be the litany of injustices to which America and the West have historically subjected the rest of the planet.

It is this obsession with redeeming America and delivering justice to the Third World that accounts for the vast plethora of redistributive schemes that Obama has been busy at work implementing since the day he took office.  It is this anti-colonial vision of his that informs Obama’s innumerable circumventions of Congress via “executive orders” and “czar” appointments, to say nothing of his utter neglect of the opposition party.

There is much to commend in D’Souza’s portrait of Obama. 

Ultimately, however, his thesis fails.

Obama is primarily motivated, not by an aversion to colonialism, but by devotion to Blackism.

“Blackism” is an ideology.  It is distinct from both biology and culture.  Biological blackness is an accident of birth.  Yet neither is there a choice on the part of most blacks to be reared in the traditions that constitute what we may call black culture.  But Blackism consists of a few basic tenets that any biologically black person can will to accept.

Blackism is a unique and simple device of which any black person in search of racial “authenticity” can effortlessly avail himself.  Like all ideologies, it is a cliff note, so to speak, the Reader’s Digest version of the complex of black cultural traditions from which it has been abstracted.  And, like all ideologies, it serves the function—the illusion, really—of making immediately accessible to all something that would otherwise require many years of (informal) education.

Blackism endows its adherents with racial authenticity, even if they are light-complexioned with as much Caucasoid as Negroid ancestry, like President Obama, and even if, like President Obama, they had no more exposure to black culture than has an Eskimo who has spent his life in the Arctic.

Blackism promises its adherents authentic blackness.  Yet belief in authentic blackness is also one of its tenets.  There are still others, namely, belief in a Manichean-like universe comprised of “racist” whites, on the one hand, and, on the other, non-white victims of white racial oppression.  The third and, for the most part, final tenet of Blackism demands commitment by its adherents to combating the legacy of white oppression “by whichever means necessary.” 

Malcolm X made famous this last line.  Indeed, it is to Malcolm X that any discussion of Blackism must refer, for Malcolm was the Blackist par excellence. 

Malcolm Little was born and raised in the rural Midwest.  While coming of age, the very light complexioned Malcolm—George Schuyler had said that Malcolm wasn’t black, he was yellow!—associated mostly—almost exclusively—with whites.  As Malcolm biographer Bruce Perry has shown, Malcolm’s fair skin gave rise to insecurities regarding his racial authenticity.  He felt that he had to prove that he was black enough, so to speak.

Thus, there is a sense in which it can perhaps be said that not only did Malcolm subscribe to Blackism, he did as much as anyone to shaping it as a doctrine. 

Malcolm X exerted considerable influence over Obama. Among the books to which Obama acknowledges his debt in his first memoir, The Autobiography of Malcolm X is mentioned exponentially more times than any other.  This is particularly telling when it is considered that, say, Martin Luther King, Jr. is mentioned sparingly.

There are a few considerations that militate against D’Souza’s thesis that it is primarily an anti-colonial mindset that animates Obama. These same points favor my contention that it is a commitment to Blackism that drives the President.

First, if you follow D’Souza’s logic to term, you are forced to conclude that Obama should be especially sympathetic to America, for America was never a colonial power and was, in fact, an object of colonial rule. In other words, if it is just colonialism that’s stuck in Obama’s crawl, then he should be equally disposed to favor any and all colonial peoples and just as disposed to disfavor any and all one-time colonial powers.

But as D’Souza himself inadvertently, but repeatedly, shows, it isn’t colonialism that Obama despises, and it isn’t the subjects of colonial rule to whom his sympathies extend.  It is white colonialism that he disdains and the non-white subjects of colonial rule with whom he sympathizes.

Second, like Malcolm X before him, Obama may very well view black Americans and the non-white inhabitants of the Third World as sharing in a common struggle. But this no more justifies concluding that Obama is an anti-colonialist than it justifies describing Malcolm X first and foremost in these terms.   Just as Malcolm X saw himself as a voice for black Americans before all else—just as he was concerned primarily with authentic blackness—so too is Obama most concerned with achieving racial authenticity.

Third, D’Souza grounds his thesis in the title of Obama’s memoir: Dreams From My Father.  D’Souza accentuates that it is his father’s dreams that Obama is intent on bringing to fruition.  Yet he ignores the subtitle of this book. He ignores that it is intended to be “a story of race and inheritance.”  D’Souza neglects the fact that Dreams recapitulates Obama’s quest for racial identity. 

Fourth and finally, not only does Dreams purport to reenact Obama’s odyssey from the wilderness of self-obliviousness to the promised land of racial identity and, thus, self-discovery.  As many a commentator has observed, Dreams is carefully crafted so as to fit the meta-narrative that has defined African American literature for at least the last half-a-century. Alex Haley’s Roots: The Saga of an American Family exemplified this template.  The Autobiography of Malcolm X—not, incidentally, also written by Haley—also typifies it.

There are undoubtedly many invaluable insights to take away from D’Souza’s 2016.   That Obama is primarily an anti-colonialist, though, is not one of them. 

It is to Blackism, not anti-colonialism, that Obama has pledged his allegiance. 

originally published at The New American        





The contest between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama for the presidency will end with a decisive, and possibly even a landslide, victory for Romney in November.

Polling data that hasn’t even come close to supporting this contention of mine is of no relevance.

Outside of political junkies, the rest of the electorate doesn’t begin paying attention to election races until after Labor Day.

Furthermore, Obama has heretofore outspent Romney vis-à-vis (intensely negative) campaign ads—in spite of the fact that Romney has by far and away outraised Obama in campaign donations.  Campaign finance laws preventing Romney from spending any of the monies that he has raised for the general election until after he formally becomes the Republican Party’s presidential nominee conspire to conceal this fact.  However, after the GOP convention in Tampa at the end of this month, Romney’s funds will be unleashed. 

In other words, Obama hasn’t really even gotten hit—yet.

These considerations aside, polling phenomenon depicting a razor sharp race or, more incredibly, an Obama lead, is irrelevant simply and solely because it contradicts a few basic facts that partisans of all stripes must concede.

The first of such facts is that Obama is no longer an unknown candidate.  He now has a record—a record of which everyone is painfully aware. So, even the most naïve, even the most ignorant of voters, will not fall for the same rhetoric of “hope and change” that Obama endlessly sprouted four years ago and that succeeded in mesmerizing legions of unsuspecting Americans who ecstatically consumed the notion that he was a “new” type of politician. 

That Obama himself knows this accounts for why he no longer even attempts to speak along these lines.

Secondly, the President’s approval rating has plummeted since the fall of 2008.  But it isn’t just that Obama’s numbers have fallen further and more rapidly than that of any other president.   

A much touted Pew Research Center poll from earlier in the month supports what every poll reader now knows: Obama’s favorability rating is actually below average for a presidential candidate at this time in an election season.  It states that Obama’s “current favorability ratings compare poorly with the final pre-election ratings for previous Democratic candidates.”  The poll adds: “Not since Michael Dukakis in 1988 has a Democratic candidate gone into the election with favorability ratings as low as Obama’s are today.”  

In short, Obama is not well liked.

Thirdly, it stretches credibility to the snapping point to think that everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 will vote for him this time around.

Not even close.

Blacks will vote for him, certainly, but even within this demographic, his support is not likely to be quite as high as it was four years ago.

For one, the hope shared by far too many blacks that the election of the first black president would usher in a golden age of a sort for black Americans is now exposed for the patent absurdity that it has always been.  Unemployment rates are high overall, but they have skyrocketed among blacks, and black youth in particular. 

More importantly, though, Obama’s endorsement of homosexual “marriage” promises to cost him some support among blacks—a likelihood that no less a figure than Louis Farrakhan foreshadows. 

At the end of May, at the California Convention Center in San Diego, the Nation of Islam head—a close friend of Obama’s former pastor of twenty plus years, Jeremiah Wright, and one time Obama backer—addressed an audience and noted in disgust that our 44th president is the first occupant of the White House to sanction this practice.  Obama, Farrakhan said, is the first American president who has “sanctioned what the Scriptures forbid.”

In addition to Farrakhan, there is also the Coalition of African-American Pastors. Its members once endorsed Obama.  Now, they have publically repudiated him for taking this position.

Bill Owens asserted: “We were once proud of you, but our pride has turned to shame that you, the man holding the most powerful position in the world, would stoop to leading the country down an immoral path.”  Quinn Chapel AME’s Luke Robinson added: “His support for this un-biblical behavior will destroy even more folks in our already decaying and broken society.” Robinson declared: “His pronouncement is in fact a direct attack on the God of the bible and the Christian faith.”

But even if, from some sense of blind racial loyalty, blacks do vote for him in the same numbers as they voted for Obama in 2008, there are other groups that most certainly will not.

Take Roman Catholics, as a prime example. 

Although the media has done a splendid job of diverting the public’s attention from it, the Catholic Church has been besieged by the Obama administration.  The Affordable Health Care Act—“Obamacare”—is an unprecedented attack against both religious liberty and freedom of conscience.  Catholic clerics around the country have alerted their congregants to this. 

Catholics will not be voting for Obama in anything like their numbers in 2008.

Independents constitute another group that threw its weight behind Obama in the last election.  Precisely because, as with everyone else, independents now have a track record with which to gauge Obama, there is no way that he will garner nearly as much support among them in November.

Fourth, 2008 marked the end of George W. Bush’s second term.  As evidenced by voters’ readiness to cashier congressional Republicans in the mid-terms of ’06 and Bush’s 30% approval rating two years later, the country had GOP fatigue.

Matters are otherwise now.

The economy has gone from bad to worse during the course of Obama’s first term. And it is the economy that is voters’ top priority. Even in those polls that show Obama leading Romney, the latter consistently ranks higher in voter confidence when it comes to this most crucial of issues.

Small business owners and young adults who owe tens of thousands in student loan debt but who can’t find a job know about Obama’s abysmal handling of the economy better than anyone.

They also aren’t bound to be suckered by him again.

Fifth, when we consider that Republicans are more enthused now than they had been in a long time, Romney promises to elicit every bit as much and significantly more support than John McCain received in ’08.  From the rise of the Tea Party to the Republican tsunami of the 2010 midterm elections and the recent explosion of support for Chick-fil-A, there is no conceivable reason to deny this.

There is one final consideration that portends a sweeping Romney victory.

Congressman and former presidential contender Ron Paul has a significant and devoted following of young voters.  Their passion is second to none.  Doubtless, some of them will refuse to vote for either Romney or Obama.  But there is reason to suspect that some of them will.

Paul and Romney never showed any signs of having a strained relationship, and even though Paul hasn’t as of yet endorsed the latter, neither has he endorsed anyone else, like he did in 2008. 

Nor do I think it is likely that he will.

Ron’s son Rand, Kentucky Senator and a rising star in the Tea Party, has endorsed Romney.  Paul Sr. is retiring.  Junior is not, and the father doesn’t want to make unnecessary waves for the son.  Moreover,Rand has been allotted a speaking platform at the GOP Convention—a turn of events that can only help Romney among young Paul supporters.

Barring any unexpected revelations to the effect that Romney is a killer or a closet enslaver (Obama’s and Joe Biden’s attempts to convince us of this have thus far failed), it looks like it’s going be a clean Romney victory in November.

originally published at The New American


Newt Gingrich was mistaken when he referred to Mitt Romney as “a Massachusetts moderate.”  The author of “Romneycare” is a Massachusetts liberal.

Regularly, I hear from my fellow Ron Paul supporters (as well as many others) that Romney and Obama, Republican and Democrat, are for all practical purposes indistinguishable.  These same people inform me that under no conceivable circumstances will they ever again vote for “the lesser of two evils.”

While the impulse underwriting these sentiments is understandable enough, it nevertheless reflects a refusal to recognize that this isn’t the next “American idol” for which we are about vote in November. 

To put it bluntly: anyone who is interested in arresting “the fundamental transformation” of America that President Obama set in motion four years ago has no other real option but to vote for the liberal from Massachusetts.

The objection, launched not just by Paul supporters, but some others on the right, that this election is a wash because the difference between Romney and Obama is one without a distinction is easily met.

First of all, it simply isn’t true to say that there is no difference between the two candidates: a liberal Republican is not a hard leftist like Obama.

Secondly, let’s just suppose for argument’s sake that this is true, that the policies of Obama are interchangeable with those of Romney.

From the perspective of those of us who share none of Obama’s enthusiasm to fundamentally transform our country, Romney would still be preferable to Obama.

There is one crucial reason for this that, to my knowledge, no one has touched upon:

No country lives by policy alone.

Invariably, those on the right who equate Romney with Obama do so by concentrating exclusively on the policy prescriptions of the two candidates.  This approach, though, is as narrow in focus as it is politically immature.

Above all else, Americans at least claim to value liberty. But the liberty to which we have grown attached isn’t some abstract universal concept.  It is a concrete, particular way of life that is determined at least as much by extra-political or cultural considerations as the legislation—the policies—for which politicians advocate.

What this means is that things being what they are, our liberty is threatened as much by the environment that allows Barack Obama to advance his leftist agenda as by his leftist agenda itself.

It is an axiom to the lover of liberty that the greater the concentration of power, the greater the threat to the object of his affections. Now, the President of the United States of America is among the most powerful people on the planet.  As such, he must be vulnerable to every conceivable kind of criticism, whether fair or entirely baseless.

However, because Obama is widely heralded as our “first black” president, a “world-historical” figure of sorts, he has been inoculated to a significant extent from the same type of treatment to which past presidents have been subjected.

To put it starkly, because Obama is the first black president, legions of mostly white Americans are reluctant to express their true feelings about him for fear of being considered a “racist.”  And those Americans, from Republican politicians to working class folk, who are openly critical of the President almost always take exceptional care to speak only to his policies, or to reassure us that, as a person, they find Obama to be just dandy.       

Yet it isn’t just that Obama is black. A black conservative or Republican would have a much tougher go at the presidency than Obama could ever dream of having. 

What is far more relevant is that Obama is a black leftist, a black Democrat.

This is more relevant because, sadly, the vast majority of those who have traditionally served the invaluable social function of checking abuses of power—the media, popular artists (like comedians and actors), and academics—share Obama’s ideology. 

But this isn’t the only incentive that they have to aid and abet his program to fundamentally transform America.  Obama’s readiness to play the race card has succeeded in rendering “the watchdogs” no less fearful than the majority of their compatriots of being charged with the “r” word.

If, though, Romney is elected, his standing as the Republican Party’s titular head alone will suffice to relieve the press and others of the fears that currently inhibit full throated objections to Obama.  

Again, the President of the United States must be vulnerable to all sorts of criticisms, from the most intelligent in nature to the most satirical and unjust. 

Furthermore, the conservative base of his party will be sure to forever keep the pressure upon Romney to at least think twice about indulging whatever liberal proclivities happen to possess him at any given moment.  In contrast, Obama’s left-wing constituents, coupled with the fact that he will never again face another election, make it all too easy for him to plow full steam ahead with his robust socialist agenda.

So, even if Romney wanted to do exactly what Obama wants to do, it would still make better sense for right-leaning dissidents to vote for Romney.  

In other words, the lover of liberty who wants to halt the fundamental transformation of his beloved homeland must see to it that the Massachusetts liberal wins.

Previous Posts