Obama Thinks We're Losers?

That's what Adam Brodsky wants us to think. Of course he makes his argument in the op-ed pages of the New York Post, which is so far beyond "rag" that it would take three winning Powerball tickets to bring it to riches. This opinion piece does illustrate however the type of socialized mentality that exists among the Right that Fox-ifies reality in order to suit the needs of the would-be Hannitys of the world. I'd like to take apart Mr. Brodsky's piece a bit after the fold.

The piece in question is titled, "BAM'S LAND OF LOSERS: HIS PATHETIC ADVICE TO GRADS" and refers to the recent address Barack Obama gave at Wesleyan University on behalf of the ailing Ted Kennedy. Brodsky starts us off by saying:

FOR all his soaring, hopeful rhetoric, Barack Obama chose an odd message this week to send Wesleyan's graduating seniors.

Face it, kids - he basically said - Americans are losers. Pathetic, needy dependents who can't make it without help. So forget your dreams, dear graduates. Go forth and aid your fellow deadbeats.

Repug tactic #317: Restate a target's words in the least flattering way, regardless of the accuracy of your translation into trollish. Then, run with this premise until people forget that it isn't even remotely similar to the actual words in question. He admits that he's exaggerating here (what a revelation) and offers the real quote:

Our collective service can shape the destiny of this generation . . . Individual salvation depends on collective salvation.

It's clear that this piece is an attempt to smear Obama as a Marxist or a typical radical leftist that wants to denigrate the golden hearted pioneers of business that fuel the great American engine of commerce. Those fine people who brought us Enron, Exxon, and Halliburton. Those people of lofty dreams and patriotic sentiment who will lead us into this new century a nation of soaring promise and wealth unparalleled in human history......Or some such nonsense. If you don't believe this is where Brodsky is going, look at this (my notes in bold):

Obama's America has two groups: those in need - and those who care for them. (How paternalistic) Missing are the folks who produce real wealth (for themselves) - the goods and services all Americans enjoy (except the 37 million people living below the poverty line).

Sure, helping others is a noble pursuit (sure...). And Obama's GOP rival, John McCain, certainly honors public service (especially when it serves the wealthy). But America's success owes much (but not all) to its high regard for individualism - personal rights and responsibilities, and individual self-advancement. If Obama truly appreciated that (which he does), he might have challenged the students to dream big. And to pursue those dreams with gusto (cause gusto will put bread on the table and insure everyone with quality healthcare).

I just love that Brodsky has to qualify his critique of Obama by pointing out that McCain cares about public service too. I can play the "translation" game here as well. Ahem....And Obama's "Party of Reagan" rival, John McCain, certainly honors public service, although you might not know it by his policies, words, deeds, voting record, associations, or photo ops with the current President. But, honest, he does.

America didn't rise to great wealth and power because its population was steeped in social work, political agitation and collective care-giving.

Yes, a strong social fabric was vital to our national growth. But it was the competitive drive - the lure of money, fame, influence - that led to the automobile, mass production, wonder drugs, personal computers . . .

In a nutshell, here is the difference between progressives and conservatives. Conservatives believe that the greatness of America is fueled by greed, vanity, and power mongering. The automobile, automated production, medical breakthroughs, and communication technology spring not from the human characteristic of endeavor, exploration, the pursuit of knowledge, or the betterment of our fellow man, but from the worst possible instincts in our psyche. That's how these people think. That's how they manage their own affairs and see no reason to apologize for it because it's the key to our greatness as a society.

The conservative paradigm is one of rugged individualism, but not the rugged individualism that Teddy Roosevelt represented way back when he was a Republican. It's the rugged individualism of spitting in the face of the weak and the downtrodden. Kicking them to the curb for being unable to make it. Social Darwinism is the law and the violators of that law are to be shunned and cast aside. That's why Katrina was handled as it was. That's why Barbara Bush said, "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." It's a pervasive mentality. It's a socialized identity.

Brodsky goes on to say:

[Obama] favors higher taxes, "fair trade" over "free trade," a higher minimum wage, bailouts for subprime "victims," penalties for "predatory lenders," bigger subsidies for health care and housing.

For Obama, such stands - and a communal spirit - offer "change" and "hope."

This election is about more than just Obama and McCain. It's more than just Democrats and Republicans. It's more than just the war or healthcare or gas prices or torture or the Supreme Court. It's about more than the sum of the issues that are being bandied about on the campaign trail. This election is about a national identity that has been co-opted by those who believe we are all essentially weak and undeserving. It's a repudiation of a culture that values the powerful and their quest for greater power, wealth, and control. It's a shift towards fairness, compassion, community, and shared experience. The progressive vision.

People like Brodsky are just cheap versions of Hannity, Limbaugh, Colter, and O'Reilly, who are in turn just cheap versions of Kristol and Buckley and Will. This collection, of whatever intellectual merit or training, are all the mouthpieces of the think tanks and business roundtables that make up the GOP. They are the communicators of this particular cultural identity, the identity of our darkest instincts.

Barack Obama spoke at Wesleyan about being present for one another in a society that has seen its American Dream fall out of reach for too many. He spoke of consideration and care for members of this American community, and the importance of restoring our collective wealth, rather than our fractured and lopsided economic landscape. His appeal was not a pity party for losers who have failed to make it, but rather the kind of Christian spirit of generosity and fellowship that Jesus preached. The brand of Christian doctrine that Brodsky's party has endorsed has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, but rather favors the Temple on high. Ironic, isn't it?

Paying no attention to rags like the New York Post or idiots like Brodsky seems like the sensible thing to do, except that even in a Blue bastion like New York City there are people who read this kind of nonsense and buy into it. If that can happen in a city like New York, it can happen in any place in America with a newspaper and a cadre of conservatives willing to use it to appeal to the worst in all of us, calling it our human nature. Ignoring these people is giving them a free pass and allowing them to define us before we can make our case to the American people. The progressive case is the one that appeals to the best in all of us, and I think it's safe to assume that a message of hope is a message that the majority would choose, given the chance. That choice is present in this election season. The choice of a progressive cultural identity for our nation, led by an inspirational agent of change. Barack Obama.

Remember, Obama represents political change and a chance at new policies and a new direction for Washington, but more than that he represents a cultural sea change. The identity of our society is the largest stake in this fight for the White House. Make no mistake about it.