Obama’s international politics in Libya run counter to his past anti-Bush rhetoric

Annuit Coeptis: Public union pension rhetoric misguided and damaging

So long as freedom of assembly remains, people will be free to secure for themselves the benefits of association. The organized labor of yore fought for safety in factories and coal mines; they put a stop to abusive child labor and helped bring humanity to industry, but the same unions also brought endemic corruption and needless waste.

Annuit Coeptis: Coming out as a campus conservative

Life at Bowdoin College became much harder after I came out of the closet—and admitted that I was a conservative.What was supposed to be an open-minded, tolerant community suddenly became an unfriendly crowd. I lost friends and gained enemies. Professors never treated me the same. Campus became a political battlefield.My “coming out” moment occurred in the Orient. I wrote, “A society that places an ever increasing importance on tolerance and diversity is showing an astounding level of prejudice toward Republicans.” Shortly afterward I received an email from a coach at the school with the subject line, “Welcome to Bowdoin.” The coach explained to me that conservatives faced certain challenges around campus. He offered encouragement and told me to keep writing, but he made it abundantly clear I was not to share his message with others or write anything about our interactions. What was he afraid of? If this seasoned Bowdoiner feared being “out-ed” as a conservative, then should I have been afraid? Despite the bizarre omen, I resolved to continue writing for the Orient.Over the next three years, I wrote upwards of 30 columns for the paper, defending conservative principles and ideas—which is another way of saying I regularly and publicly antagonized campus’ liberal professors and students. I joined the Bowdoin College Republicans and eventually chaired the group.One day, at the beginning of a course on U.S. History in the 19th Century, the professor asked us to explain why we enrolled in his course. “Because I love of America,” I said. The class giggled. “Why do you love America so much?” the professor asked. It was a sympathy he apparently did not share.My peers were somewhat less restrained in their resistance to conservative ideas. For example, during a weeklong celebration of the American political tradition posters, table cards and displays were stolen or vandalized; a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush was kidnapped.And then there was the last event I organized at Bowdoin, which was set in motion by President Mills’ 2010 convocation address. Mills told a story about a golfing partner who interrupted his backswing, spouting, “I would never support Bowdoin—you are a ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons.” Mills said that he left the golf course “in despair and deep concern.” Despite this confrontation with a close-minded conservative Mills remained insistent that “[We] must be willing to entertain diverse perspectives throughout our community.”An essay in the Spring 2011 issue of the Claremont Review of Books revealed that Thomas Klingenstein was Mills’ aforementioned golf partner. Klingenstein claimed that Mills was incapable or unwilling to provide a solution to the problem of liberal bias—a problem Mills himself acknowledged in his convocation.Following the article I organized a forum on diversity and open-mindedness at Bowdoin featuring Klingenstein and the NAS President Peter Wood.The evening of the forum I ran into Mills on the Quad.“Where are you headed?” he asked. “Tom Klingenstein’s talk,” I said. “Have fun,” he said as he turned to walk away. “Barry,” I called to him. He turned back. “I want you to know that I’m doing this because I think it’s in the best interest of the College. I hope this doesn’t seem malicious,” I said. “Well, it does,” he said—the last words he’d speak to me before I graduated.Moments later at the talk, Klingenstein and Wood argued that Bowdoin was ideologically biased, and the Bowdoin students present denied the charge. This factual dispute culminated in the NAS report, of which every Bowdoiner is by now aware.The study is critical of Bowdoin, and keeping an open mind will be difficult for Bowdoiners. We are proud of our College—rightfully so. We instinctively defend it and react harshly to all who impinge its reputation. However, an institution as important as Bowdoin must be able to turn criticism into a resource.I encourage all Bowdoiners—indeed, all friends of the liberal arts—to keep an open mind toward the invaluable contribution the NAS has made to the history, culture and lore of Bowdoin College. To ignore the study would serve only to confirm that Bowdoin is not an open minded, tolerant place, but is instead a place where conformity to a rigid set of ideas is prized above the pursuit of excellence and truth.Steve Robinson is a member of the Class of 2011.
Life at Bowdoin College became much harder after I came out of the closet—and admitted that I was a conservative.
What was supposed to be an open-minded, tolerant community suddenly became an unfriendly crowd. I lost friends and gained enemies. Professors never treated me the same. Campus became a political battlefield.
My “coming out” moment occurred in the Orient. I wrote, “A society that places an ever increasing importance on tolerance and diversity is showing an astounding level of prejudice toward Republicans.” Shortly afterward I received an email from a coach at the school with the subject line, “Welcome to Bowdoin.”

Annuit Coeptis

Obama’s international politics in Libya run counter to his past anti-Bush rhetoric

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

April 8, 2011

Choirs of birds once again roost among us and the air is filled with the earthen pulchor of mud-season. Oh, how the coming of spring does brighten the spirit! Still, what really puts a smile on my face and a jump in my step is the smell of liberal hypocrisy.

The spectacle of Pecksniffian liberals skewered by their own petard is a sight sublime; the once glorious crusade for a man thought visionary, now tainted by unfulfilled promises; the cacophony of yes-we-can and fatal optimism, now replaced by tongue-tied silence, hand-wringing and bitter apathy. Alas, the banquet has been prepared, let us begrudge it a feast.

At the dawn of the new millennia, corporations and maniacal neocons manipulated America to war for malevolent motive. Those dastardly Republicans sponsored the savage imposition of so-called Western ideals on sovereign nations.

So great was the iniquity of America's cowboy policy, that a few high-minded liberals even resorted to arguments based on an antiquated manuscript, known in the distant past as the United States Constitution: "The President," it was argued, "does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

The foregoing words, spoken in 2007 by the 44th President, deemed the Iraq War unconstitutional and seemed to indicate that if elected, he would never dream of bringing the nation to war for trivial reasons. Fast forward to the present and we find an altogether different constitutional construction dwelling at the heart of Obama's foreign policy.

Under the auspices of international multilateralism, the United States has been dragged into another expensive military conflict with an Islamic nation: "We are naturally reluctant to use force," croons the dear leader, "but when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."

The nations of Europe and the United Arab League (UAL), initially the driving force behind intervention in Libya, have proven less than willing to meet speech with deed. Sure, Nicolas Sarkozy attempted some rousing, Bush-style oratory and offered France's one aircraft carrier for the mission, but the Janus-faced UAL quickly rekindled their anti-western sentiment the moment bombs started falling.

Although Obama claims intervention was in our interest, America now finds itself spending millions of dollars a day on a third military conflict with an Islamic nation. Our reward? Reinvigorated antipathy in the Muslim world, weakened defensive capabilities and, potentially, a democratic Libya that, if we are lucky, will survive one election before being transformed into a Sharia state.

For those paying attention, Obama's discrepancy of principle is quite befuddling, and more perplexing still is the apparent divergence between his spoken word and practical action. Intervening in a foreign nation that presented no imminent threat to national security would seem contrary not only to his legal principles, but to his diplomatic demeanor as well.

Obama preaches the 'pragmatic' and 'peaceful' gospel, vows to make righteous the workings of government and promises an end to all suffering only to depart entirely from these sentiments in practice.

Obama's recent constitutional epiphany is not an anomaly. It is but another item in a pattern: he promised the most transparent government in history, but he heads the most secretive and opaque administration instead.

He opened access to the presidential archives, but now turns a deaf ear to the United States Freedom of Information Act's requests and hides behind serpent-tongued press secretaries. He promised the closure of Gitmo; he is now willing to tolerate indefinite detention there.

In short, he ran on an anti-Bush platform—change—only to adopt identical practices—not change. I wonder though, will collegiate liberals and the anti-war zealots now turn against the man who received a Nobel peace prize in the midst of two wars? Or will they conjure new opinions befitting of the moment, the post-post-racial, post-post-modern era and, of course, their feelings? Methinks the latter.

In the eyes of most American liberals, particularly of academic feather, the Constitution is a "living," "evolving" document. In this light, it is easy to understand our head of state's recent change of heart. Obama did not amend his construction of the Constitution out of expediency; it simply and predictably evolved.

Constitution O is stronger and more efficient than its predecessor; it has greater coercive capacity and fewer limits to the use of force, greater potential for mutability and fewer obstacles to the exercise of executive power.

Constitution O represents the evolution of the domestically imperial presidency; however, in terms of foreign policy, this evolution has been in the direction not of American empowerment, but toward symbiotic subservience to the U.N.

The president did not misrepresent his view of the Constitution or his penchant for progressive ideals. Instead, Obama is the living affirmation of cherished liberal principles—legal and moral relativism, the doctrine of historic inevitability, rapid mutability in government.

It is not that he does not care for established law or the principles of liberalism, he simply has a higher understanding of both. His visionary gaze is reserved for things of vastly greater import: the good of the international community.

Obama has substituted congressional agreement for U.N. consensus, declarations of war for non-binding resolutions, fidelity to the Union for obedience to international organization.

While the justness and advantage of Obama's war are open questions, and the tendency to outsource decisions of vital importance to global assemblies may originate in desires for peace, it is inevitably self-destructive.

The global world order may sound appealing to some, but while he is commander in chief of the United States military, I would rather his loyalty lay with the American people and not with the deity of international multilateralism.

Besides, he will have hoards of free time to commit to the good of the world after 2012, provided, of course, that his re-election campaign does not bring about some Aztec apocalypse.

Comments are permanently closed.