David Frum has replied to my recent criticisms of his soon-to-be founded No Labels project. But my root-and-branch critique of his No Labels initiative goes unanswered, and in the process Frum introduces new distortions of my book on Obama.
Indeed, Frum’s reply continues to reflect the faulty analysis of American politics he advanced in 2008, which has left him isolated and estranged from the conservative movement. Frum failed to anticipate the revitalizing and unifying effect Obama’s radicalism would have on the Republican party. Obama’s leftism has undone Frum’s political plans, and Frum’s refusal to acknowledge that fact and climb down from the liberalizing limb upon which he has stranded himself has driven him to ever more self-defeating measures.
Advertisement
Frum fails to plainly state the core findings of my research: that Obama was an orthodox Marxist-Leninist in his early college years; that he certainly attended two socialist conferences, which converted him to community organizing; that these conferences sketched a vision of socialist-friendly political coalitions led by African-Americans who would emerge from the ranks of community organizers; that the groups, strategies, and theologies Obama spent a lifetime cultivating were presented at these conferences as the program of a modernized socialism; that Obama worked for his entire career with the very stealth-socialist community organizers in Chicago who had authored the political strategy presented at those early socialist conferences; that these stealth-socialist community organizers sponsored Obama’s political rise; that Obama supported these socialists by channeling foundation money their way for years; that Obama worked closely with this stealth-socialist community-organizing network throughout his time as an Illinois state senator; that Obama has hidden, and particularly in the case of ACORN, bluntly lied about these radical connections; that the tactics, policies, and strategies crafted by Obama’s stealth-socialist organizing mentors have guided his entire political career, including his presidency; and that the same stealth-socialist community organizers who inspired and sponsored Obama’s political career advised his 2008 presidential campaign and continue to work with him at shaping and marshaling support for his presidential agenda.
All of this is obscured or rendered invisible by Frum’s thin and mangled description of my book. Frum gets pretty much everything wrong, from details like how many socialist conferences Obama was certainly at (actually two, with a third also possible) to the much more significant issue of my discussion of Obama’s writings, legislative record, and presidency. I analyze all of these from the perspective of Obama’s socialism. Frum is free to disagree with my conclusions, but not to pretend that I make no case for the socialist content of Obama’s presidential policies and strategies. As noted in my earlier piece, John Stuart Mill thought you could tell who was winning a debate by how fairly participants represented their opponent’s point of view. By that standard, Frum is doing pretty poorly. He can’t rebut my take on Obama’s presidential socialism if he can’t successfully restate my argument and analysis.
It is sad to see Frum like this. I really used to enjoy him in NR. Too many conservatives went way to far in wanting to "get along" with liberals in fear that they would be shut out or lose more ground to the democrats. It is never wrong to stand on principle and what is right, and to give in to something that is wrong and will eventually hurt this great nation is no compromise. It is surrender. How does the saying go? "You either die on your feet or live on your knees."
God Bless this great Nation!
David Frum is just one of many moderates and conservatives snowed by the Obama charm offensive in 2008. Now that the real Obama has been revealed, including his radical and socialist past, one can either face reality or attack those who have revealed that the "Chosen One" has no clothes.
I read your book with great interest. It was especially well researched and footnoted. Frum is without a case in his criticism of your publication. Your response is especially good and makes a number of special points.
This has to be the most cringe worthy and self-serving series of articles I have seen on NRO. Come on, creating a fake argument that nobody really cares about to sell a few more books to hard-core idealogues.
I really think NRO should review its standards. Seriously.
David Frum should just come clean and admit his bias towards people who speak the proper way and went to the right schools. OMG! Does that smack too much of elitest cast-identification? That might also explain his bias against Reagan, Palin and the other great un-washed conservatives he so dismisses.
The professional partisans are so worked up by Frum because he's questioning their very livelihood.
There's an entire media-complex on both sides of the aisle that wants nothing more than perpetual political war because it keeps them on the air, on the speaking circuit, and in the bookstores.
And they think we're all too stupid to do anything but choose sides and cheer the team on.
@ Joel in SC - So anyone who says something you don't like is a troll? Why do you assume I don't really read NRO?
I literally read NRO every day over my morning coffee along with a number of other sites, and I have read a number of books by some of the writers here, most notably WFB. Mr. Buckley actually wrote books that moved the political discourse forward, though.
This is Frum's longtime M.O. My first exposure to him (which seems like many years ago now but I really have no idea) was a lengthy article he wrote for the paper version of National Review writing Pat Buchanan out of the conservative movement.
Want excellent proof that even within the conservative world there lurks "ruling class" elitist, proffering centrist, Rodney King platitudes all the while believing that those of us who disagree aren't up to his depth of understanding.
"John Stuart Mill thought you could tell who was winning a debate by how fairly participants represented their opponent’s point of view." Round Umpteen; point Kurtz again
Kurtz, I love your stuff, but look - anyone who starts a movement, the purpose of which is not to label itself or anyone else or anything they stand for, then labels itself "No Labels" and labels everyone who has a label already, as well as their entire labeled inventory, as being so hyper-labled that it's going to blow this country into pieces tiny enough that it will be impossible to label anything ever again, even if the No Labels crowd realizes, gosh darn-it, we've been labeling all along and drops all of its no-labeling labeling.
What you are up against is a man who celebrates un-birthdays and wears a hat with a card tacked on the side that says, "In this style 10/6."
Anyone who thinks the recent re-enactment of the Little Big Horn – more popularly known as the mid-term elections – was a clarion call to the Republicans to lower their voices, surrender hard-won territory in the name of civility, and generally return to fighting the Left with Nerf guns and balled-up Kleenex, will find no greater friend and exponent than David Frum.
In the wake of one of the most dramatic political victories in US history, won through the sweat-equity of people he openly contemns, and in which he himself played no discernible role, Frum has decided that the front-and-center issue now is finding some other way to surrender to Obama, and he for one is going to do something about it.
Frum's grand plan for "winning" is to orchestrate a mass defection of conservatives. Sure, if we all adopt liberal policies and there is only one side left, then everyone can be "winners," but what has that actually won the country?
Frum's brand of limp-wristed conservativism, if it can even be considered such, must be stopped at all costs.
@ Mark Mead - And last time Republicans controlled both houses, the increased spending by more than any other congress since Johnson. So they won the mid-terms. What are they going to do with it?
Winning is not an end in itself, there must be a real program.
