My Beauty Best Teacher

Walter Russell Mead makes an interesting argument in a recent article- in spite of Obama running as the anti-Bush and in spite of his supporters voting for him because he was supposed to be the anti-Bush, his recent actions show that he is in fact working his hardest now to push for Bush's policies in international affairs:

....President Obama’s speech to State Department employees today was billed as a major address on recasting American foreign policy in the Middle East.

It lived up to its billing. President Obama has deep-sixed the ‘realism’ that marked the first two years of his approach to the Middle East. He has returned to the foreign policy of George W. Bush.

The United States is no longer, the President told us in words he could have borrowed from his predecessor, a status quo power in the Middle East. The realist course of cooperating with oppressive regimes in a quest for international calm is a dead end. It breeds toxic resentment against the United States; it stores up fuel for an inevitable conflagration when the oppressors weaken; it stokes anti-Israel resentment when hatred of Israel becomes the only form of political activism open to ordinary people; it strengthens the hold of extremist religion and strangles the growth of liberal forces.

More, he attacked Iran. All that talk about avoiding polarization with Iran is gone. Instead, President Obama singled out Iran as an oppressive, tyrannical regime supporting terror and running an “illicit nuclear program” as well.

He also followed Bush in attacking some US allies, calling on Bahrain and Yemen to make changes. It was a speech that enraged almost every powerful actor in the Middle East and put America out on a limb. Like Bush, Obama is willing to confront some of America’s closest allies (the Saudis, who back the crackdown in Bahrain). Like Bush, he hailed Iraq as an example of democracy and pluralism that can play a vital role in the transformation of the region. Like Bush, he proposes to work with opposition groups in friendly countries.

His policy on Israel-Palestine is also looking Bushesque. Like Bush, he wants a sovereign but demilitarized Palestinian state. Like Bush, he believes that the 1967 lines with minor and mutually agreed changes should be the basis for the permanent boundaries between the two countries — and like Bush he set Jerusalem and the refugees to one side....

Obama is showing quite a bit of courage in abandoning all of his previous principles, opinions, views, and voting records to continue the previous policies of an administration that he personally attacked many times, and his supporters are very brave in supporting Obama's remarkable change in policies from George W Bush to George W Bush. But in spite of all of this change and togetherness and hope and rainbows, I can't help but feel that if Bush's policies are so good and wise now, what sort of damage did Obama do in fighting them in the Senate during the blink-of-eye that he was actually in government prior to becoming President, and what sort of damage did Obama do to our nation in resisting these policies during the first two years that he was getting his ears dried off while playing at being President?

I guess I'm just nit-picking though- I should be happy that Obama finally is learning that all of his instincts and ideas regarding foreign policy are wrong and that George W Bush was right about a great many things. Obama's greatest foreign policy successes have come by following on Bush's heels- from killing OBL to the surge in Afghanistan- and maybe one of these days he'll begin to follow in Bush's domestic policy heels too and we'll go back to the awful days of 5% unemployment growth and positive GDP growth.

UPDATE: To be serious for a moment, I still can't figure out why the Jewish community voted for Barack Obama so strongly last election. I've always thought that something about how he deals with Jewish people bothers me- he appears at times to be against Jewish people, demanding more evidence from them and less from others, not believing them and believing others, and being cold and vaguely disrespectful towards Israel's leaders while warm and inviting towards the leaders of Israel's enemies. The National Review Online actually did some analysis of his speech, and picked up on a couple of these tendencies of Obama- his tendency to blame the Jews, his tendency to order the Jews to do things, and his tendency to minimize threats to the Jewish people. These are all vaguely disturbing tendencies for the President of the United States to have.

As a teacher in a public school in Michigan, I naturally belong to the Michigan Education Association (MEA) and National Education Association (NEA). I have a radical idea that since I pay my dues to these groups, I am part of them, and since I vote in all the elections, I am a constituent of these groups, and thus these groups should be responsive and open to my views. You're probably thinking that's a rather naive view, but I choose to look at the world in a more positive and less cynical way, and work my hardest to make the world the way it supposed to be. Because of this, I have become more and more active in the MEA and NEA.

So it was with great interest that I read this secret report that was written by a conservative Republican teacher who was at the National NEA Conference in 2005. Here are some excerpts from this report:

“Intrigue, New-Age philosophy, adventure, conflict, deception, cunning craftiness, courage, heroism, and victory in the face of defeat” Never did I dream that I would be using such words to describe my weeks experience attending the 2005 national NEA conference held in Los Angeles, July 1-6. Such words fit the description of an action-packed movie like Star Wars not spending six days in a convention center surrounded by 9,000 liberal delegates. However, I soon discovered that the wheeling and dealings that go on behind the scenes at the NEA are very much like a Star-Wars episode with the plot centered around a small group of Conservative teacher- “rebel warriors” trying to penetrate and influence for good the gigantic, powerful, out-of-control, spinning in space, ultra-liberal battle-star NEA.

The NEA conference began with an ecumenical, Pluralistic, New-Age sounding prayer. I was quite shocked to even see a prayer listed on the program. I thought the NEA was opposed to schools having prayers because of “separation of Church and State.” But then I listened to the prayer. It was definitely different than any prayer I had ever heard before. It was given by David Sanchez, the Vice President of the California Teacher’s Association. Sanchez invoked the blessings over the conference of just about every god in the universe. He mentioned “Buddha, Allah, the Great Spirit, Gaia,” and, in all fairness, he even included the God of the Christians and Jews.

In the song that the 9,000 delegates were asked to join in singing to show patriotism on the 4th of July, “I’m Proud to be an American,” the last stanza was changed. Instead of singing, “God Bless the USA,” the delegates saw that the words had been changed on the big screens overhead and now read, “We love the USA!” Christian teachers who were part of the Conservative Educators Caucus were very upset that God was removed from one of their favorite songs. No one else seemed to make any mention of it.

The Academic and Professional Freedom Amendment. This amendment was asking for the academic freedom of students, that teachers would “welcome intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas by providing an unprejudiced learning environment. The Association does not condone the indoctrination of students through intimidation, unfair grading practices, withholding of information, or by any other means.” One would think that most teachers and the NEA would agree with these words. But, that was not the case. Before any speeches could be given in support of it, a lady from the Higher Education group called for it to be referred to committee. The vote was quickly taken and passed, and the amendment was gone, never to be heard from again.

The other CEC (Conservative Education Caucus) (sponsored) amendments were all lumped together to be heard late in the afternoon of the last day. Those presenting their resolutions were at the mikes ready to go. Suddenly we heard NEA President Reg Weaver’s voice come on the mike instead, stating that he had a huge stack of slips asking for the next three amendments to be referred to committee. He then called for the vote. It passed, and all the conservative amendments were sent off to committee. And that was that! No other proposals presented by any caucus at the convention were treated like that.

Last year at the 2004 NEA convention, a new member of the Republican Caucus, Shawna Adams, got her self nominated to run for president against the conservative incumbent President, Diane Lenning. (Adams) has never been seen at any Republican meeting, nor can her name be found on any Republican rolls. On the day of the voting, Adams showed up with many friends who signed up to be new members, paid their dues, and then voted, all for Adams. She won, of course. She has now brought into the Republican caucus many liberal ideas that they would never have gone along with before.

As long as it did not smack of conservatism then every strange resolution, amendment, and proposals were allowed to be heard and over 80 were passed. Here are just a few of the amazing liberal topics that were allowed to go before the delegation and are now on record as having been approved by the majority of those present: Boycott Wal-Mart, Re-educate and re-program poor misinformed Republican members, Support Affirmative Action, and Anti-war efforts to get our troops out of Iraq.

This report, if true, and to be fair I have not yet had a chance to personally be silenced and hated by the NEA, is troubling. There are 2.7 million members of the NEA- all teachers, all in the classroom every day educating your children. They belong to, and most support, an organization that is shockingly and radically liberal.

That might not surprise you, but just saying "all teachers are liberal" glosses over the fact that when teachers stand up to speak about the right to life, they are shouted at and screamed at by spittle-spewing liberals at NEA conferences. It glosses over the fact that when a conservative teacher stands up to ask that students not be brainwashed and intimidated, they are the bad guys, they are the ones shunned and marginalized, and they are the ones to be silenced. It is bizzaro world in the NEA- good is bad, bad is good, and the goal of teachers and their teacher organization is not to educate your child in math, English, and science, but to re-educate them in liberal values and beliefs.

Just saying "yeah, I know teachers are liberal" is not enough. You need to know each one of these examples above, you need to really see the liberalness of the NEA for each individual crime against the morality and decency of our society. And you need to pass on this information to others. Anyone who has a child in education, anyone who pays their taxes for education, should know- must know- what they are supporting. Please pass this post along to others or link to it on your pages- as I become more active in the NEA, I'd like to think that someone will be there beside me, that more will gather behind me, and we can re-make the NEA so that it is no longer a radical promoter of all the worst liberal views.

Tunku Varadarajan writing at Forbes states that:

The most important effect of an Obama presidency would be to sunder the connection between "Western-ness" and whiteness--or, at the very least, to ensure that such connection is no longer viewed as contingent. I use Western-ness as a portmanteau word for the following: democracy; scientific reason; respect for, but not servitude to, religion and hence a belief in religious tolerance and pluralism; sexual equality; secular education; individual autonomy, including a right to privacy and personal identity; and a belief that governments are subordinate to citizens...This severing (or fraying) of the "West-white" connection would make it easier for the U.S.--and the West, more broadly--to take its ideas into those corners of the world that have been most resistant to them. Whether we like it or not, vast swaths of Africa, Asia and the Middle East still live in varying degrees of post-colonial confrontation with the West, and with whiteness. This makes it difficult (often impossible) for the West to get the non-West to embrace its better ideas...[continue reading]

photo courtesy of Forbes

Bart Dijkstra of Free Voice gave a speech where he outlined crucial components of democracy "...good government is all about respecting the freedom of others and to realise that your freedom is not an absolute right. In Africa this is known by the concept of Ubuntu. This means that if you overstep your boundaries, inflict hardship on others or deprive others what is rightfully theirs you inflict this hardship on yourself; you deprive yourself of what you deny others. I see this concept of Ubuntu very much alive in the countries in Africa I know. I lived some years in Zimbabwe and others countries in the South and I have noticed that this concept is an important cornerstone of the bottom-up democratic process, which even when the top down process fails, which happens to many countries on this continent at present, still will guarantee that democracy has a very good change to emerge even if the top-down process is in shambles..."

Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy writes:

Science can prosper among Muslims once again, but only with a willingness to accept certain basic philosophical and attitudinal changes—a Weltanschauung that shrugs off the dead hand of tradition, rejects fatalism and absolute belief in authority, accepts the legitimacy of temporal laws, values intellectual rigor and scientific honesty, and respects cultural and personal freedoms. The struggle to usher in science will have to go side-by-side with a much wider campaign to elbow out rigid orthodoxy and bring in modern thought, arts, philosophy, democracy, and pluralism.

via 3quarksdaily