Hilzoy points out an intriguing discussion at The National Review. First, David Frum wrote:
But Bill Ayers? Does anybody really seriously believe that Barack Obama is a secret left-wing radical? And if not, then what is this fuss and fury supposed to show?
Then a whole bunch of NR folks responded that yes, they do seriously believe that Obama is Joseph Stalin and Emma Goldman’s love child, just pretending to be a moderate. The quotes Hilzoy pulled are pretty funny. Here’s the best one:
Obama’s radicalism, beginning with his Alinski/ACORN/community organizer period, is a bottom-up socialism. This, I’d suggest, is why he fits comfortably with Ayers, who (especially now) is more Maoist than Stalinist. What Obama is about is infiltrating (and training others to infiltrate) bourgeois institutions in order to change them from within — in essence, using the system to supplant the system. A key requirement of this stealthy approach (very consistent with talking vaporously about “change” but never getting more specific than absolutely necessary) is electability. With an enormous assist from the media, which does not press him for specifics, Obama has walked this line brilliantly. Absent convincing retractions of his prior radical positions, though, we should construe shrewd moves like the ostensibly reasonable Second Amendment position as efforts make him electable.
This is why Ayers is so important: it is a peek behind the curtain of Obama’s rhetoric.
This seems plausible to conservatives because they’re projecting George Bush’s behavior onto Obama. In 2000, Bush ran for President as a moderate; Bush campaigned on a platform of humility in foreign policy, ((“If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us; if we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that’s why we’ve got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.” — George Bush, October 2000.)) against extreme partisanship, and for fiscal responsibility. But even before 9/11 gave Bush a blank check, the Bush administration intended to break those promises. Instead, the Bush administration has governed from the extreme right.
I’d like it if Obama pulled a Bush (but from the left). But I doubt he will. Obama’s career shows a canny politician who has thrived by fitting in to the existing political culture, and there’s nothing to indicate that Obama shares Bush’s unwillingness to compromise, or inability to question his own beliefs and plans.
Bush’s reckless approach came with a political price; by digging in his heels and refusing to waver for reality, Bush trashed his own party’s reputation. ((When Bush took the oath of office in 2001, The Onion “reported” Bush saying “Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over.” Damn, were they ever right.)) The result is likely to be a strong win for the Democrats in a month, not only for the White House but also in Congress. Obama, who is the antithesis of “reckless,” won’t act the same way.
I’m not sure these folks actually understand Maoism. One of the major differences between Maoism and Stalinism is that the former is very agriculturally oriented, while Stalinism is firmly post-Industrial Revolution. The Naxalites of India, for example, are Maoists; they obsess over land ownership. Stalinists obsess over factory production goals.
But both hew to Marxism’s belief in a revolution, quite possibly armed. When did gradual change from within the institution become a tenet of any form of communism? (Except perhaps the one we’re headed toward…)
Obama is distinctly lacking in revolutionary instincts. It’s actually one thing that worries me about him: he seems so self-conscious, and people like that can freeze up and fail to get big things done. On the other hand, if he manages just to clean up the mess of the last 8 years, he should be ranked with FDR.
This is of a piece with Ann Althouse getting berated by her commenters for suggesting that Obama isn’t actually a socialist. She updated her post with a plea for pity. I left a comment with the dictionary definition of “socialist” and asked for someone to tell me how Obama fit it. Still waiting.