If you’ve paid attention to Mandela, then you really have to be impressed. Here was a man who certainlydidn’t seem like a statesmen. He was an agitator. And having spent years in a pretty rotten prison, it seemed even less likely that he would make a good leader. In fact, I think most people at the time probably thought he was about to become the next African warlord who started a civil war to drive out whites and destroyed his country without helping anyone but his friends.
But that’s not what happened. Instead, he took off on a very reasoned course. Indeed, even though his party, the African National Congress, was essentially a thuggish communist party, he rejected communism and redistribution. He worked with the whites rather than against them, hoping to trade his goodwill and lack of retribution for their continued expertise. He took down all the laws that ensconced inequality, he neutered the secret police, dramatically shrunk their military and put the resources into helping the people, and he turned South Africa into an honest broker which helped fix a lot of Africa’s bigger problems.
That’s pretty impressive. And in the end, I think you have to rate him as one of the few people to change the world in a positive way. Is South Africa perfect? Hardly. They still have rampant poverty. They are awash in murderous crime. But he avoided the bloodbath and brain drain everyone predicted. Did he end inequality? No, but he stripped the inequality from the law and he did his best to set the country on the right course economically. At this point, most everyone outside the fringe left and fringe right genuinely respect him for what he did.
So let’s talk about the lessons Obama hasn’t learned from this.
● Inclusion: Why did Mandela succeed? Mandela had the rare desire among politicians to want to make the world better for everyone. He didn’t see himself as the leader of the blacks or the ANC, he saw himself as the leader of the country. So when he took over, he resisted the ANC push to confiscate white property, to jam blacks into all the political jobs, and to push a communist ideology. Instead, he took his role as President seriously and he tried to balance the interests of whites, blacks, including the ANC’s political enemies who are primarily Zulus, rich, poor and everyone else. The result wasn’t as dramatic as many on the left hoped, but it was stable and it was productive.
Now compare Obama. When Obama ran in 2008, he sounded like a moderate. He talked about being pragmatic and working with everyone. Then he took office. He faced nothing like the divides Mandela faced, yet his first term was marred by hyper-partisanship as defined by his utterance of: “We won.” He didn’t bother with natural disasters that affected states that didn’t vote for him. He played favorites to help his friends and supporters to the point of harassing his opponents. And when it came time to work with the Republicans, he instead choose belligerence. And the result has been a wasted presidency that achieved nothing and whose few achievements are falling apart because he lacks the friends he needs to repair the mistakes he made.
● Inequality: Obama gave a speech the other day in which he whined about inequality. As I noted the other day, inequality is a growing problem for many reasons and conservatives would be wise to grab this issue, but let’s not lose perspective. Comparing inequality in America to inequality in South Africa, as Obama did, is like comparing a paper cut to a bullet wound... from a 50 caliber. Inequality here is a question of fairness, of lower incomes and of slowed opportunity. In South Africa, it’s a question of abject poverty and life and death. Obama using Mandela to whine about inequality in America, is a sick joke. At best it’s evidence that Obama doesn’t know jack-sh*t about the world and has no sense of perspective.
● Oppression: And that brings us to the third point. So many people want to feel oppressed today. Obama wants you to believe that blacks in America are oppressed because states want everyone to show ID when they vote or because cops stop and frisk people who look like gangbangers. Palin wants you to believe that Christians are oppressed because Walmart greeters are told to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” Gays want you to believe they are oppressed because they can get all the substance of marriage, and the trappings, but not the official word. And so on. This is all phony oppression. This is oppression for jerkoffs.
What Mandela faced was actual oppression. He spent 27 years in prison in a country where the government made opponents disappear. Torture and murder by the state were a fact. This was a country where the law specifically placed limits on where you could live and what you could do if you were black or “colored.” It was separate and very unequal. Only the votes of whites (and before 1930 males) counted. There were few civil rights, and certainly nothing like Americans enjoy.
So it’s pretty shocking when Obama, who apparently got walked through college and through Harvard Law School and who was given a job he didn’t earn at the University of Chicago and then in the Illinois legislature, compares his life favorably to Mandela. I don’t know Mr. Mandela, Barack, but it’s pretty obvious you’re no Mandela... you’re not even close.
Finally, let me go back to the issue of inequality. Obama whined about inequality the other day and he talked about how unequal things became in the US between 1979 and 2007. That is true. As I point out in my book, the rich got a LOT richer (+275%)... corporations got a LOT richer (Dow up 2,200%)... government got a LOT richer (budget increase 714%)... but the middle class (-12%) and the poor (-26%) got a lot poorer.
But what Obama forgot to mention was that things got way worse under his term. Indeed, 2008-2013 has seen a shocking growth in inequality to its highest point since the 1930s. So during a period of the most massive increase in government spending since LBJ’s Great Society began, in a period where government spending essentially doubled to pay for various “stimulus” bills and to bail out bank and unions, when the Fed spent trillions to prop up the economy, when Obama imposed massive numbers of regulations... inequality skyrocketed.
Inequality is a problem, but any comparison to the inequality faced by Mandela is a joke. Inequality is a problem, but the things Obama wants are not the solutions – Mandela himself rejected them. Inequality is a problem, but Obama’s cronyist policies have only made it worse. Inequality is a problem, but liberalism is not the answer... it is the cause.
With the passing of Mandela, the world has lost a man who truly did change the world for the better. And seeing Obama trying to wrap himself in the mantel of this great man is like watching a dwarf try on the armor of a giant. It tells us nothing of Mandela, but it speaks volumes about the deficiencies of Obama... Obama who does not understand true oppression, true inequality, or how good he’s had it, and Obama who couldn’t spell the words “statesmen,” much less act like one.
35 comments:
i totally agree with that assessment, Andrew. Nicely written.
Obama is delusional and believes his own lies. Your assessment is spot-on, Andrew.
This is tangential to the point you've made, but I note that when folks on the left (not meaning far-left) praise Mandela, they like to first focus on his years in prison. Granted, perseverance through that kind of persecution is praiseworthy, but it is not what earned Mandela his place in history. That particular focus seems symptomatic of victim-culture where being persecuted (or harassed, or merely picked-on) makes one an instant-hero. Worse, it tends to gloss-over all of Mandela's achievements that you've outlined here.
Andrew
While I agree with your article I think that words like "inequality" or "redistribution" are leftist terms and their use even to refute the assertions the left are making in regards to these concepts are counterproductive to right leaning individuals.
The term I think we should be focusing on is "Production". If the populace of your country as a whole are producing enough then their will be enough to go around no matter what method you employ to redistribute it.
If the poor in a country are given enough of an ability to produce for themselves then it will not matter in any way if the rich are able to produce more through unfair means. Thus "inequality" becomes a pointless concept.
It is only when you punish production and limit people that these terms have any real meaning to the public. when you cannot produce more you have to worry about who gets what and why. This is in essence the defining aspect of Obama's Presidency. He does not produce anything, he redistributes...
Mandella when he took office despite his leftist leanings took the opposite path. He worried about what his country was producing and that his people could produce. This is why he did not tear down the white power structure but instead sought to bring blacks into that structure.
Inequality and Redistribution are concepts that assume failure. They worry about rationing what is there because they could not create enough for all. Production is the concept that we should embrace. If you have enough so that everyone can eat then they will eat.
tryanmax, that's a good point and it reminds me of a quote attributed to Abe Lincoln: "Anyone can show character when enduring suffering. If you want to know the true nature of a man, give him power." Though far from perfect, Mandela passed that test with flying colors; which is more than can be said for some of his neighboring rulers.
OT--For those who like to pick fights with O-Care supporters on Facebook, TheDC has a helpful article: LINK
T-Rav - That quote from Lincoln perfectly embodies Mandela. He had every right to seek retribution, but chose reconciliation instead. That not only is unusual in a leader, but especially in Africa. That Liberia finally followed the "reconciliation" path rather than continue on the civil war path is most probably because of the example that Mandela set.
BTW, Lincoln is another with whom Obama compares himself...and JFK and MLK and any other icon, so his greatness precede him. Most likely, Obama will not be compared to any of them in 10 years. More likely he will be compared to Nixon and/or Carter. Of course, he will be in at least one category with Millard Fillmore - Funkiest name for a President List.
Btw, is anyone uncomfortable with Obama, Bush, Clinton and Carter being on the same plane to South Africa? You know this means that Biden will be in charge, don't you?
"Though far from perfect, Mandela passed that test with flying colors; which is more than can be said for some of his neighboring rulers."
-cough-Mugabe-cough-
Thanks Jed!
Thanks Writer X! That he does. I'm amazed how utterly blind he is to his own behavior, the consequences of that, and how he is perceived.
tryanmax, Agreed. And to get even more tangential, that is what I hate about the Olympics. The networks seem to think that it's more important that someone's dog died when he was 10 or his mother got cancer and "bravely" chose to treat it rather and blowing her brains out, and that made him a hero. Oh, and he's in the Olympics now. Huh?
The focus on Mandela in prison is only relevant to the extent it shows that he didn't harbor a grudge, which is very rare in humans. His real achievement was in rising above being partisan and seeking to make his country a better place rather than just a different place. Ironically, the fringe left really dislikes him because of that choice.
Indi, I very much disagree. "Production" is a very sterile term that equates people to economic inputs. The public won't know what it means and won't like hearing that they are numbers on a spreadsheet.
"Inequality," just like "fairness" and "justice" are powerful but vague words that people feel are overwhelmingly positive. The right makes a huge mistake when they abandon those words to the left. We need to use the words and define them as we see fit. Trust me, opposing "justice," "fairness," and "equality" is a suicidal battle rhetorically. It's time to stop running away from good things just because the left starts using them.
"Redistribution" is a different issue however. That word doesn't have a reservoir of goodness attached to it. It is a socialist word invented in the past 50 years with one single meaning and the public hears it as such. That's why leftists normally avoid it like the plague. They instead try to sneak the idea into the other words above.
T-Rav, Very true. It's easy to be noble when you really have no other choice. But once you are given the power to do anything, that's when your true character comes forth. And in the case of Mandela, I think he proved to be a truly amazing person. Was he perfect? No. Few are. But he deserves the praise he is getting.
Bev, The fact that Obama keeps trying to compare himself too greater men really just highlights the problem with Obama. He isn't his own man with his own achievements, he's a shadow trying to latch onto the achievements of others to make himself seem greater.
Agreed about Mandela. Like a lot of people, I figured he was going to become Mugabe II, but he really proved that wrong. And I think his example helped pave the way for a real sea change in Africa where they started trying to fix their problems rather than just change the names of the leaders. He is what a country like Egypt needs.
Bev, I thought they put Biden into a tupperware box whenever Obama left the country... to keep him fresh and away from power?
Kit, Yep. Prime suspect number one.
Andrew - Nope, as a security measure, they stick Biden in a paper sack. The national security plan has been worked successfully so far as he has not been able to find his way out yet...
Bev, That sounds about right.
Andrew
Inequality is a meaningless term and not only that counterproductive. If you don't get a promotion at work you can either work harder, try to find another job, try to get into a better line of work. All of these things involve Producing more.....
or you can sit there and complain it is unfair and try take away from other by being more equal. These words are only powerful in their ability to destroy. Production is the only thing that can address issues of poverty. It is not sterile economic inputs nor does it dehumanize people. It is the fruit of one's labors. It is probably the most important single thing any human being will generate in life. The means to live, to grow, to learn and to make a better future for their children.
Democrats address the issue of the poor by complaining how the rich have too much. This does nothing for the poor. The problem is that a poor person is not given the resources to produce for themselves. If the "masses" cannot understand the value of this word then the masses will be doomed to the very inequality they lament.
These concepts of social justice and inequality the left uses are an anathema to a person having a productive life. They are negative and promote failure. They reward people for giving up.
Indie, I see the point you are trying to make, but the problem is that the word "production" doesn't have any romance to it. It conjures up images of factories and bottom lines. Frankly, it sounds a little elitist. You can't talk to the producers about productivity without implying that their efforts are going to benefit someone else, because that is how most people encounter the term. Managers tend to talk about being "more productive" in conjunction with cutbacks, layoffs, and freezes. Working harder is how modern Americans keep their jobs, not advance into new ones.
Indi, I'm sorry, but that's totally wrong. Equality, fairness and justice are words with a tremendous positive cache among the human race. They are things we all want (well, outside of talk radio). We all want a fair shot, an equal chance, and justice from wrongs. Heck, even our constitution talks about all men being created equal. Superman stood for truth, justice and the American way. Equality under the law is fundamental principle of classical liberalism. These concepts are deeply ingrained in human nature,
That is why the left has tried to redefine them to their purposes... because they are powerful words. Abandoning those is utterly foolish. You are basically handing the left the very tools it needs to disguise its own motives behind words the public will view most favorably while letting the left define you as opposed to things everyone wants -- equality, fairness, justice, goodness. I can't imagine a worse idea... except reveling in the left's charge, see, e.g. talk radio.
And in exchange, you are offering "production" which is an unbelievably sterile word. No one use that word do describe their lives or their relationships, no one uses that term to define human interaction. That is machine language... language of the balance sheet... language of the bureaucrat. Seriously, can you imagine Santa asking little kids,"How has your production been this year?"
Also, let me point out that you are making two fundamental mistakes. First, you are wrongly accepting the left's usage of these words. That is the last thing we need. I'm talking about using these words with our own meanings attached... taking them for our own purposes, not embracing the left's ideas.
Secondly, when you say "If the 'masses' cannot understand the value of this word then the masses will be doomed to the very inequality they lament." you are repeating the biggest mistake talk radio is advocating right now. You have to deal with the world you have, not the world you wish you hand. And insulting "the masses" and wishing they thought differently is about as pointless as hoping for unicorns. If you want the public to follow you, you need to (1) understand the way they think and (2) speak to them on their terms, not lament the fact they don't use your terms. This is a serious problem on the far-right right now as they have decided that the public is just not worthy of their brilliance. That's a loser.
Indi, This isn't aimed at you, this is to anyone on the right.
It's time to stop running away from words just because liberals try to steal them. That's the most amazingly self-destructive thing conservatives do, and yet they do it all the time.
It's bizarrely defeatist. The moment a liberal starts using a word, conservatives run away like routed children running from the boogeyman. We abandon words that fit our ideology perfectly, words the public embraces and which had rich emotional meanings to people, and we let the left have them... word after word. Thus, the hateful left becomes liberal, progressive, just, good, fair, equal... and the right retreats to technocratic words that only appeal to accountants. Not only that, talk radio then embraces the left's charge. This is rhetorically suicidal.
This needs to change. We need to stop defining the right as anything the left leaves us.
Frankly, if I were Obama, I would start talking about God and I would praise Rush sometimes, just to watch the right implode.
Andrew,
Amen.
Kit, So you're not a fan of Mugabe? ;-)
Nope!
It's funny how he gets overlooked though, isn't it? He's killed or driven out all but a few whites. He send thugs to kill and torture his enemies. He's made a country that was self-sufficient when it came to food into a starving state. He's destroyed whatever economy they had, shattered lives, and stirred the pot about enemies in their midsts. Yet, the world ignores him. They asked him to quit, he refused, time to move on.
Well, he's almost 90 years old so maybe they figure its only a matter of time before he croaks.
That, or they really don't care that much.
Kit, I think they don't care all that much. They seem fine with most types of repression, just so long as it isn't done for Western profit or Western values.
Great article. Mandela was more magnaminous than many expected him to be. He was certainly more forgiving than I would be.
I remember hearing Desmond Tutu speak in London more than two decades ago. He was worried that Mandela was going to let the trust and respect that so much of South Africa and the world had in him corrupt him, but in the end Mandela didn't abuse his power and didn't decide to become the president for life many resistance leaders did.
I think the Mugabe gets about the level of attention one would expect. He's a vicious dictator but he's bright enough to avoid non-conventional weapons and terrorism so he isn't high on any Western country's to-do list.
Based on the liberals I know, I doubt Mugabe has many fans in the West. I know people who defended him years ago (when he was redistributing farmland) but those who paid close attention to could it was going to end in tears.
He wasn't taking land from white farmers and giving or selling it to the blacks who worked the land (which probably wouldn't have worked either) he was chasing off the white farmers and their black workers and handing the farms to his city based cronies, most of whom had little interest in farming.
One question tht came to me today and sort of fit here is... What is the disparity of incomes between the richest dems and the poorest dems; what is the disparity of incomes between the richest reps and the poorest repss? i think that would be a very interesting stat to locate. Since the dems need poverty and won't permit anyone to rise out of it I think the stat I am seeking would be very telling.
Thanks Anthony! It's hard to say if any of us would have had the ability not to see revenge if put into those circumstances. Sometimes we can surprise ourselves. But it certainly flies against our natures to be merciful and fair to people who have been so rotten to us. Yet, Mandela did it, and in the process he really changed the course of history.
I don't remember Tutu saying that specifically, but I remember a LOT of people talking about him making himself president for life for the good of the country. When he didn't, he kind of became South Africa's George Washington and established the tradition that Democracy would be the order of the day. That's another one of those rare moments that we've seen throughout history where people turn down power.
On Mugabe, I think you're right he's smart enough not to push any hot button issues to get noticed. He never calls out the military or uses nerve gas or anything. Instead, he sends gangs of thugs to chase people off their land and kill the people who won't leave. That makes it hard for westerners to put up a clear case of why it's important to get involved... even though the truth is that he's destroyed the country and created an unstable mess.
That is correct about handing the land to his cronies. Hence, they are no longer self-sufficient when it comes to food.
darski, That's an interesting question. It would be interesting to see party support broken down by income to see what each party really consists of. Overall, both parties would have some of everyone. But the Democrats would certainly have the bulk of the non-working poor. They also, apparently, dominate the billionaire ranks. In terms of middle class and professionals, I think it's probably fairly mixed.
From what I've seen, income isn't the dividing line anymore, it's race and gender and religion.
My point was that the Dems claim to be so pure but their own wallow in poverty. if they are so altruistic it would seem that raising the level for them would be better than lowering the levels for all. Collectivism is only about shared misery but not for the "elite".
darski, I agree completely. Collectivism is about bringing everyone down to the lowest level so no one feels left out... at least, that's how it ends up.
Post a Comment