Bernie Sanders is Bad for Indian-Americans and America

The 2016 US presidential election could easily be called the 'rage election'. Both parties are witnessing full blown revolts by their respective voter bases and voters are literally hoisting certifiably lunatic candidates and showering electoral success on them. Electorates of the past have gone to the polls and vented their ire against status quo but the candidates they chose to be the vessels of their hopes were candidates of hope like Reagan or Clinton or Obama but this election cycle see the voters running behind a socialist peddling hare brained schemes that promise utopia and a hate mongering billionaire clown.

The danger that Donald Trump poses is apparent and needs no sophistication to unravel but the danger posed by Bernie Sanders, self styled 'Democratic Socialist, is more subtle but no less poisonous because it comes wrapped in good intentions and therefore very attractive to the gullible. Policy makers sympathetic to Democrats have come out openly and issued a signed statement debunking Sanders's proposals as fantasies that if enacted would wreck the American economy. Sanders's socialism has found wide acceptance within the Democratic party which is intellectually predisposed to such an ideology. Indian-Americans are mostly democrats and have surprisingly become supporters of Sanders overlooking Hillary Clinton. How did an ethnic group that ran away from a socialist country become cheerleaders for a socialist? Why does an ethnic group that has enjoyed the fruits of capitalism become supporters of socialism? How did an immigrant group end up supporting a anti-immigration advocate?

Bernie Sanders (Image courtesy Wikipedia)

The most attractive proposal of Sanders that has literally caught fire is his 'medicare-for-all'. Sanders's proposal is to institute a single payer system akin to what countries like UK, Canada and other European countries have. The woes of America's healthcare system are well known. Essentially America spends more capita on healthcare and results like mortality rates are no better than that of any industrialized country. Until Obama passed his legacy making healthcare overhaul legislation insurance companies refused coverage for pre-existing coverage amongst many other issues. Sanders makes the argument that for a modest tax increase on all, an average $500, everyone can get coverage that would save $5000. Those cost and savings projected are based on estimates arrived at by his campaign and have become the fiercest contested detail by especially left leaning economists.

Sanders often cites the example of Denmark as a model of a country that takes care of its poor. What Sanders conveniently forgets to mention is that Denmark has a top income tax rate of 60% and that rate starts at annual gross income of $60,000. If Sanders even offers a tax rate close to that from a debate stage his supporters will get a jolt of electrifying reality. Sanders presents a rosy picture of the single payer system without even hinting at why such a system is plagued by troubles in every country it currently exists. Sanders's own home state Vermont tried instituting a single payer system but eventually abandoned it because the projected costs exceeded the total revenue of the state despite stiff increases of taxes on businesses. Sanders argues that in a single-payer system there will be cost efficiencies because the government, the single-payer entity, can bargain better prices from drug manufacturers and hospitals. What is unsaid is that such cost-efficiencies entail deep cuts in how doctors and hospitals are reimbursed. It is a problem that the current medicare system faces with doctors and hospitals exiting the system due to paltry reimbursement.

A critique of Sanders's health plan by left leaning economists, a New York Times report noted, none of whom are aligned with Clinton and are not republican friendly, said that Sanders's plan "will increase the size of Federal government by more than 50%" and add "two trillion to $3 trillion to the deficit each year". Yes, that's each year.

An AP-GFK poll on support for Sanders's medicare for all illustrated the limits of what Americans are ready to support. 39% expressed support while 33% opposed the plan. When the supporters where asked if they'd still support the plan if the plan meant tax increases the support flipped with 39% now opposing. Essentially everyone loves socialism only when somebody else is paying the bill.

UK's much vaunted NHS is practically facing a revolt by junior doctors and an exodus of doctors to countries like Australia and New Zealand is happening. In Canada some private insurance is required to supplement the single payer insurance provided by the government and of course taxes on income and sales taxes are considerably higher than the US.

To make his health plan work Sanders needs to completely overhaul one-sixth of American economy ranging from how much doctors are paid, hospital reimbursements, drug pricing, ability to see specialists, even ability to sue doctors or hospitals for malpractices (nearly 75% of US malpractice lawsuits are frivolous lawsuits. But Democrats who are controlled by the multi-billion dollar Tort lawyers lobby will not touch Tort reform with a ten foot pole). Indian-Americans boast of having large number of doctors and many hope their children will become one, therefore it's ironical to see this group support Sanders's fantasy plan.

Skyrocketing college fees is a nightmare for every American parent and Sanders the Santa Claus comes to the rescue with 'free-college for all'. Just as his single payer system was a failed idea in practice this too is a failed idea. A Washington Post article lays bare the stupidity of such an idea with a stinging title, "the false hope of free college". This is utter nonsense. Like anything given free the program when implemented by Georgia it was a disaster. When Obama offered a similar plan even left leaning think tank Brookings institution ripped into it saying that it is "bad for poor Americans". Again, Sanders will have to institute price controls for teachers salaries and college administrators. Elizabeth Warren, beloved lioness of the fringe far left and former professor at Harvard, was paid $300,000 for being a part-time professor.

Sanders airily dismisses talk of how to pay for his programs with a proposal to tax Wall Street transactions. He calls it a "tax on speculators" and rants that the business model of Wall Street is 'fraud'. His campaign cites very optimistic estimates of such revenue. The position paper on his own site states plainly that the revenue estimates from such a tax has little theoretical background since it has never been tried. A "financial transaction tax" will not hit just "millionaires and billionaires" but every American who holds retirement accounts and college savings accounts, both of which are heavily used by the high earning Indian-American community. When Obama floated a proposal to tax the wildly popular college savings plan even liberal democrats revolted, including a Sanders supporting colleague of mine. Again and again everyone loves socialism provided somebody else pays the bill.

While Sanders was filling stadiums with thousands of fawning supporters a friendly fire came from economists who had served in Obama's administration. When Sanders rails against a 'rigged economy' and calls for a 'political revolution' it discredits democrats who have fought in the trenches to advance liberal policies against stiff opposition. Sanders makes them look like weasels for compromises that they agreed to in order to advances a larger goal. The open letter bluntly stated that Sanders's economic proposals are not supported by evidence.

Sanders also hits Indian-Americans where it hurts most, immigration. He has always been anti-immigration arguing that influx of labor is inimical to native workers. Again, economic theory is not on his side. Running for the presidency in the Democratic party Sanders is spinning that his vote against a Ted Kennedy sponsored legislation for immigration that included a guest worker program was because that program was "akin to slavery". Hillary Clinton hit back that Ted Kennedy, a liberal lion of the senate, would not have proposed any legislation that treats workers as slaves. Sanders has muted his anti-immigration stance bending to political pandering for office. So much for truth telling.

Indians while being instinctively capitalist when it comes to their personal wallet and earning they are yet to become intellectually comfortable with capitalism as a philosophy. Many Indian-Americans who support Sanders are comfortable with higher taxes because they think he's only targeting 'millionaires and billionaires' and even if their taxes go up it'd only do so marginally in which case the benefits will outweigh the cost. Both are fallacious naivete. To finance Sanders's extravagant proposals taxes will have to rise steeply, on all. Sanders cannot have Denmark with American tax structure. There are some who'd argue "well so what if my taxes go up, after all someone has to pay".

During a debate Sanders pointedly accused Hillary of being unworthy of the label "progressive" because she's a "moderate". He could not have stated more clearly that in his mind being a progressive means a militant far left liberal and nothing to do with being a moderate. Moderation, for Sanders, is a vice. Sanders has a blind faith in the goodness of the government to the extent that when evidence piled  up against Veterans Affairs hospitals of corruption and venality he, according to a New York Times report, refused to believe it at first. On the contrary Sanders think an entire private industry is made up of criminals with fraud as business model. Sanders is a hypocrite who rails against Wall Street but is silent on how the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the darling of the liberals, created a man made disaster by flooding a river with highly toxic materials and indulged in a year long cover up of lead contamination in the drinking water supplied by the city of Flint. If any private company had done either of that Sanders would be baying for their blood.

A Sanders presidency will hurt Indian-Americans where it hurts most, college admissions for their children. Indian-American applicants to colleges face a steep challenge, especially for Ivy League universities, thanks to affirmative action and admission practices that practically border on discrimination. The passing away of dependably conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia has put the very ideological balance of the court at play. Sanders has already vowed to nominate a liberal judge. Asian-Americans have filed lawsuits against Harvard alleging discriminatory practices. A case against affirmative action is already pending in the Supreme Court. With a justice like Sonia Sotomayor, a self confessed affirmative action baby, is inimical to Indian-American interests and the absence of a Scalia poses grave danger to prospects of Indian-American kids.

Sanders, as Hillary points out, is a single-issue candidate who knows nothing beyond ranting about income-inequality. To a question of Afghanistan he turned the answer to Syria and parroted his vote against the Iraq war in 2003 leaving the viewers scratching their heads. Indian-Americans still mostly view their adopted country as a foreign country and through the prism of foreign policy. Also, they are instinctively sympathetic to the ideas of America as an imperialist country without having taken any efforts to learn how an isolationist country underwent a metamorphosis post-Munich and Pearl Harbor. Sanders tries to present himself as reasonable by saying he's not totally against war but his record is anything but. The 1991 Persian Gulf war, sanctioned by UN Security council, funded by Saudis and had a clear definition of what constitutes victory, did not get his vote of approval in the Congress nevertheless. Sanders is a hopeless far left liberal pacifist who's intellectually incapable of understanding geo-politics.

Why should any of the above matter? Hillary adroitly recently pointed out that the dishonesty behind telling voters, especially the poor voters, that they can save $5000 by paying just $500 in taxes is cruel. Sanders's intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking. He shares, uncomfortably, several traits with Trump. Trump often beats back those who say his policies are unrealistic he retorts with a truism that anything he says is true because he says it and anyone refusing to accept it is tarred with a brush. Sanders labels his naysayers as "the establishment" and "reactionaries".

How does Sanders attract so many fawning voters? People love free stuff. That's an undeniable attraction for anyone. Who'd not like it if their kid can get free education, especially when somebody else is picking up the tab. Sanders's voters, in another parallel with the Trump campaign, have simply willed themselves into believing anything he peddles. Washington Post editorial board acidly wrote, "Mr Sanders's success so far does not show that the country is ready for a political revolution. It merely shows that many progressives like being told what they want to hear". The editorial was duly titled "Bernie Sanders's fiction filled campaign".

Why did Paul Krugman and Fareed Zakaria decry Sanders for promoting unserious ideas and for peddling intellectually dishonest economics? Both Krugman and Zakaria have repeatedly condemned Republicans for peddling intellectually dishonest theories about how tax cuts, however irresponsible and not paid for, would spur growth and compensate the loss of revenue. Krugman and Zakaria lamented how Sanders is bringing back an era of democratic politics when unrealistic economic proposals where freely dished out to entice voters about how paradise was waiting. Zakaria wrote:

"But this is nitpicking. He is painting with a broader brush, being an authentic man who speaks his mind, willing to present bold ideas geared to capture the imagination. Never mind that establishment elites criticize them as unworkable or divisive or radical.Am I speaking about Bernie Sanders — or Donald Trump?"

Bernie Sanders is bad for Indian-Americans and America.

References:

1. Fareed Zakaria's column "Bernie Sanders's outlandish plans make Republicans look serious" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanderss-plans-make-republicans-look-serious/2016/02/18/4dbddb40-d684-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html
2. New York Times article "Why left of center policy wonks are skeptical of Bernie Sanders" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/upshot/why-left-of-center-wonks-are-skeptical-of-bernie-sanders.html
3. NYT article "Left leaning economists question cost of Bernie Sanders's plans" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html
4. AP-GFK poll on support for healthcare http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-02-25/ap-gfk-poll-support-shaky-for-sanders-medicare-for-all
5. Obama administration economists's open letter to Sanders https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/
6. Paul Krugman's column on Sanders's economic policy "Varieties of Voodoo" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/varieties-of-voodoo.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2FPaul%20Krugman&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Collection&region=Marginalia&src=me&version=column&pgtype=article
7. Washington Post editorial "Bernie Sanders's fiction filled campaign" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
8. Washington Post oped "The false hope of free college" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/02/23/the-false-hope-of-free-college/
9. Brookings Institution paper on Obama's free college plan http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/20-obama-free-community-college-bad-idea-sotu-butler
10. Washington Post editorial rebuttal to Bernie Sanders who claimed that they oppose his plan because it's bold. "Bernie Sanders's idea are not too bold. They are facile" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-ideas-are-not-too-bold-they-are-too-facile/2016/01/28/e7125bca-c60a-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

Arizona's Intolerance, GOP's Bigotry and Liberals' Hypocrisies

I am often asked why is it that I don't write about issues and problems relating to USA. I usually don't feel like writing about them because US is very good at a vibrant discussion. Also, say on Ukraine, can I add to what Anne Applebaum writes? Today, having witnessed a good deal of debate on a shameful bill in Arizona I do feel that I need to write because I think some issues have been swept under the carpet or glossed over.

Arizona state legislature has passed bill SB1062, called in short as 'Freedom of religion' bill. The bill awaits Governor Jan Brewer's, Republican, signature. The bill was spearheaded by state GOP. Republican presidential nominees John McCain, senior senator from Arizona and Mitt Romney have called on the governor to veto the bill. Megacorp Apple has issued a warning that the governor should veto the bill. NFL has threatened to cancel next year's Super Bowl in Arizona costing the state many millions.

The bill gives the freedom to business owners to refuse service to customers if they thought such service, depending on who the customer is, would violate the owners' religious beliefs. If a gay or lesbian couple entered a store the store owner could refuse service to them on grounds of his/her religious belief. This, the bill's sponsors say, protects the religious freedom of business owners. And, forcing the owners to serve everyone would violate the personal religious freedom of a business owner.

A lot of ire, deservedly, is directed at GOP and Republicans in general for this bigotry. This is a shameful bill. Afro-American TV anchor Van Jones said on CNN that not too long ago considered blacks to be inferior based on their own interpretation of the Bible. Jones asked, a supporter of the bill, if such discrimination too should be protected as freedom of religion. The guest nonchalantly pointed to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to US constitution to say that it cannot be done because discriminating on the basis of race was illegal but there is no such amendment to protect against sexual discrimination.

Liberals are chortling over GOP's moment of harakiri. That's sheer hypocrisy. As part of Obamacare all employers were mandated to provide free birth control to women employees. Catholics who run a lot of hospitals and schools rose up in uproar saying that they, as Catholic employers, cannot go against their religious tenets and pay for employees birth control. Catholic hospitals also don't perform abortion. In Catholic Ireland abortions were such a strict no-no that an Indian Hindu woman was allowed to die by the hospital during childbirth rather than perform abortion. In an election year Obama buckled and declared, pompously, that Catholic employers need not provide birth control options to their employees. The erstwhile constitutional law professor finagled a loophole. Obama said the insurance companies, not the employers, will provide birth control options at no cost to the employees or the employers. This is utter nonsense. And of course insurance companies passed on the cost into the premiums. I'd have supported Obama if he had stood his ground and said "your religious beliefs are yours to keep but you cannot impose it on an employee who works for you". Surprisingly this has never been brought out by anybody.

I am a capitalist and even a libertarian to a great extent but I cannot support legislation like this saying "oh well employers and business owners who discriminate will lose customers and that, automatically, will weed them out in the market place". Thats idyllic laissez faire libertarianism. Many times employees and customers will not have a choice. Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights legislation on the grounds that the government should not interfere and that free market will weed out racist businesses. That will work in theory not in practice.

Few years back Somali Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refused to take passengers from airport if the passengers were found carrying alcohol. Not many Christians were too happy with that. Cabbies refusing a passenger have had their licenses suspend and fines imposed. The cabbies went to court against the fines but lost the case. Interestingly its only Somali Muslim cabbies who acted thus. An Iranian Muslim told Washington Post that he would service anyone. Somalia is home to very radicalized Islam. I am sure Arizonans who cheer religious freedom would be quick to condemn the Somali Muslim cabbies because they are Muslims. The Christian right loves to talk of religious freedom when it is theirs.

America's founding fathers revolutionized the world with the doctrine of separation of church and state. However, America remains a very religious country that still tears itself apart on the question of abortion and sex. Oftentimes public policy is driven by religious feelings. Its a shame that American Presidents preside over 'National prayer day'. I don't have anything against Presidents being believers but that belongs in his personal life. As constitutional head a President has no business presiding over any prayer. I am ok with something like George Bush holding a multi-faith prayer service after 9/11. Thats a President using a cultural binding force during a time of great national calamity and its not institutionalized unlike the Prayer day.

This bill again puts the GOP in a harsh light. If the GOP has any dreams of winning the White House any time soon they need to put bigotries behind them. Many republicans are decent egalitarians but this fringe element, the vocal minority, is bringing disrepute. Unless the lunatic fringe is curbed the GOP will send itself into oblivion.

The only real champion in this ugly mess is Capitalism. The threat of withdrawing big business from Arizona is what is really giving the governor a pause to think. Businesses are in the fore front today to foster diversity, racially, ethnically and sexually. Companies realize that diversity, of all types, is key to a vibrant and therefore successful organization. A less talked about angle is the role of capitalism in bringing down walls of bigotry. Slavery and racism were never about capitalism or labor rather it was about a people's bigotry. Slave holding agrarian south was defeated by relatively more capitalist industrialized prosperous North. Apple which is on the verge of opening a new Sapphire glass factory creating 2000 jobs. Apple CEO is gay and he has warned Arizona that passing the bill will make it difficult for Apple, an inclusive company, to operate in Arizona. I'd love to hear liberals cheer the power of a big corporation.

National Book Award winning author Andrew Solomon wrote critically acclaimed book "Far from the tree: Parents, Children and the Search for Identity". The book deals with how parents come to terms with mentally disabled children and accept them for what they are. Solomon said his experiences as being a gay son, the different one, gave him perspectives that he would not have had if he had been heterosexual.

References:

1. 'Some Muslim cabbies refuse fares carrying alcohol' -- Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501727.html
2. 'If you drink some cabbies won't drive' - CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/25/oppenheim.cabbies/index.html?eref=rss_latest
3. Apple warns Arizona Governor http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/25/3328891/apple-arizona-anti-gay/#
4. Arizona Bill SB1062 http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.htm

Is Barack Obama An Intellectual?

Barack Obama was the first black President of Harvard Law Review, the 5th black senator, the first black president of US in 275 years. He also has the dubious honor of becoming US president with the least governing experience in modern history and had mostly voted 'present' (not even 'abstaining') as state senator in Illinois legislature.

Is it even fair to ask, an Ivy league graduate and a man so many historical firsts, whether Obama is an intellectual? A legendary political strategist confided in a private conversation that "whoever becomes the US President, irrespective of the party, deserves to be there". Obama's candidacy for US presidency is a tale of ambition and strategy unparalleled even by Reagan and Clinton, both of whom were very experienced Governors who sought national office and had to fight their way to it within the party and nationwide.

Taking advantage of opportunities is a talent by itself. In the aftermath of the drubbing that GOP recieved in 2006 mid-term elections Bill Clinton is supposed to have told Hillary "unless the Democratic party nominates a felon we can win the presidency". Obama, in many ways, was like what Carlyle said, "the moment produces the man". Let us not forget that Obama started as an outlier candidate. Until his Iowa victory even within Afro-American community he was seen as sure to lose possibly gain experience now and run a better campaign at a later date. It is easy to talk of how he coasted to the Presidency from gaining popularity since his much lauded address at the 2004 Democratic convention.

It would be gross injustice to Obama's campaign to harp only on how the press treated him with kid gloves and was lost in blind adulation. Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to be re-elected since FDR. Democrats and Republicans thought Hillary was a shoo-in given that she would be supported by the political genius of Bill Clinton. Those were lonely dog days for Obama. When he romped home in Iowa (37% vote) and Hillary finished a poor third Obama became an overnight national sensation. But how he won Iowa is the question on which I intend to discuss what kind of an intellectual Obama is.

Beyond 'hope' and 'change' the only tangible thing Obama did in Iowa was pandering. He pandered to Iowa's notorious farm lobby for tarriffs against Brazil's sugarcane based ethanol. John McCain, later to become Obama's opponent, bluntly opposed the Iowa corn lobby on the tarriff against Brazil. Sugarcane based ethanol is more fuel efficient than Iowa's corn based ethanol. Economists continue to warn against using corn for ethanol in an artifical attempt to lower fuel imports. Corn diverted to brew ethanol to fuel American cars robs the world of corn based food driving up food scarcity. Pandering to sections of voters will be a recurrent pattern of the next four years.

Obama has never challenged conventional wisdom or populism. In midst of a world seething with fury against Wall street it does not take any courage to scold bankers or to call them 'fat cats'. What would have taken courage is to call for better and more capitalism. Wall Street's undoing was not capitalism but insufficient capitalism. It was Bush who, risking unpopularity and the wrath of his own party, bailed out Wall Street under terms that eventually benefiited the tax payer. It was also Bush who bailed out Detroit. Obama turned it to a reckless bailout to reward the unions and resulted in continued tax payer losses.

Withdrawing from Iraq was no brainer. The American taxpayer was exhausted, the war was controversial from the word go. What would have been intellectual was to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2009. The VP and many others counseled Obama to withdraw from Afghanistan too citing weak economy and the intractable mess the war was. Afraid of GOP backlash and with his eye on 2012 Obama tried to replicate Bush's Iraq 'surge' strategy. It is a grand failure today. If Obama had leveled with American people and refused a 'surge' for Afghanistan and vowed that pursuit of Bin Laden is still afoot that would have been a moment of leadership.

Unlike Bill Clinton's crusade in 1992 to reform health care in 2008 it was commonly agreed by all candidates and the American tax payer that the health care cost Leviathan needs to be hooked. The only contention was how to do it. Battle scarred Hillary Clinton presented a plan that included mandates. Obama cried foul and pontificated that his plan does not levy a 'tax', as he referred to mandate. Hillary and other experts disagreed that health care reform without mandate was not possible or cost effective. During Ohio primary Hillary exploded 'shame on you Barack Obama' for mischaracterizing her mandate as tax. As president Obama instituted mandate in his Affordable care act and the US Supreme Court later ruled that that was consitutional but called it a 'tax'

As President has Obama ever delivered bad news to a constituency that he depends on for re-election? Never. Not once. Standing before a gathering of hundreds of doctors Obama lobbied for his health care reform but started off with a stern message "I cannnot give you what you want" referring to doctors demand to reform malpractice lawsuits and institute caps on awards. Tort lawyers are a very influential democratic base and prodigious fund raisers too. It is easy to offend doctors than to risk offending his own fund raising base.This is not about opportunism. An intellectual articulates a difficult to swallow position and shepherds his constituency with logic and reason about a required change of course given new paradigms. Failing to do that is a signal failure of an intellectual.

America has a debt burden of $16 Trillion which is almost 100% of UD GDP. Entitlement programs are expanding exponentially beyond any fiscal sustenance. Obama's simplistic prescription is to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires under the pretext of asking them to pay 'their fair share'. Without going into the debate of whether millionaires and billionaires are paying their fair share lets look at the 'what-if' scenario of Obama getting his wish. The revenue thus raised will pay for only 72 hours of US Government expenses. This, to be polite, is intellectually dishonest shorn of any shred of intellectual integrity. A serious problem needs a serious answer not dishonesty.

That Obama, an Afro-American, became a President is justifiably characterized as a watershed moment, even a redemption. Many black commentators wrote that seeing a black first family inspires many afro-american kids. True. But within the Afro-American community there is widespread resentment against Obama administration, despite the immense pride that is there on the surface. Seeking to be seen as "president of all America" Obama, even where he could or should, has actively distanced himself from being seen as doing something targeted for Afro-Americans.

Jodi Kantor writes in New York Times, "At the first meeting of his top campaign donors last year, some black donors were dismayed when officials handed out cards with talking points on the administration’s achievements for various groups — women, Jews, gays and lesbians — and there was no card for African-Americans". Referring to Obama's quote that he is not only "President of Black America" Afro-American activist and scholar Cornel West said that statement “makes me want to vomit. Did you say that to the business round table?” he asked rhetorically. “Do you say that to Aipac?” (referring to a pro-Israel lobbying group).

Unemployment rages at 15%, twice the national average, for Afro-Americans. Appearing before the Congressional Black Caucus that was anxious to hear what President Obama can do. Obama borrowed a much revered Civil Rights era slogan and lectured "put on your marching shoes". That implied, for astute observers, that Afro-American community was sitting idle and not doing enough to lift itself. That was not Obama's intention. It was a speech delivered without much thought or sensitivity. Black Congresswoman Maxine Waters erupted "who was he talking to, we are hurting already". 

Even more shameful was the Shirley Sherrod episode. Shirley Sherrod, an Afro-American State Director of Rural Agriculture in Georgia, was falsely accused of being racist in refusing to help a white farmer. The whole incident was based on dishonest editing of a portion of her speech at a NAACP function. Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart broke that story. White House went into panic mode and was instrumental in making Shirley Sherrod resign. Sherrod is blistering in her recently released memoirs of how betrayed she felt that this happened in an Afro-American Presidency. Sherrod, as the full speech showed, had actually went out of her way to help the white farmer retain his land. When the full truth emerged the administration still did not offer her old job back, they only offered an 'equivalent'  position. Obama later called her and spoke telling her that he understands her and has written about her kind of experiences in his book. Sherrod simply told him that he could not have had her experiences. Sherrod grew up in racially charged in Georgia unlike Obama. Obama promised her to visit Georgia. Sherrod notes Obama is yet to keep his promise. If Bush had treated Shirley Sherrod like that the GOP would be called 'racist'.

In the aftermath of a rash of shootings that included hurting a congresswoman much was written about America's fetish for guns and the second amendment. The GOP, beholden as it is to the gun lobby, was shamefully, but understandably, silent on talking about gun controls. The acute disappointment was Obama's silence. The last President to sign a ban on assault weapons, A.K. 47's, was Bill Clinton. That ban lapsed in Bush's period and was not renewed. Obama, keen to be re-elected, completely ignored the gun control issue. This was a moment for a supposedly intellectual president to seize the issue and shape public opinion. Instead we only got more soaring rhetoric.

Obama is undoubtedly a very intelligent and very talented politician. But the more and more one looks at his record we only realise that this President is interested in only one thing, his political ambitions and success.

Eisenhower defined an intellectual as "one who takes more words than necessary to say more than what he knows". On that score Barack Obama is the most intellectual to ever occupy the Oval Office.

Brooklyn Book Festival: The Far-Left Exposes The Left On Obama

I attended the just concluded Brooklyn book festival. The festival was a complete domination of authors in the left and far-left with not even a nod to accommodating any opinion from the center-right let alone the conservative right. The book stalls and the audience were firmly in the radical camp. A conservative would be an endangered species there. The most interesting part of the day was the interplay between Obama loving authors and leading critics from the far left

Far left Marxist author Tariq Ali scolded the liberals "if a Republican president had killed an American citizen (referring to Anwar Al Awlaki) without due process using drones would you be quiet". He asked why liberals are silent about Obama's use of drones abroad and at home. Mr Ali wondered what moral authority liberals would have to scold a republican president in case Romney gets elected and pursues what are commonly thought of as republican policies of national security. To rub it in Mr Ali added, for effect, Obama acts like what one would expect of Putin. OUCH.



The discussion featuring Gail Collins, from NYT, Jodie Kantor, author of widely praised and very Obama sympathetic bestseller 'Obamas' and John A MacArthur was the most revealing for sheer fireworks.

The discussion opened with a question about what good does a long election season do for the people with regard to knowing the candidates. Gail Collins, working for New York Times and therefore a confirmed Obama sympathiser dived right into the video of the season. A surreptititously taped Romney talking to fundraisers that 47% of voters do not pay taxes and therefore will vote only for Obama as Romney's message on tax cuts has no relevance for them.Romney is right and that too only partially. It was a bad statement and one that might cost him the election. The Brooklyn audience tittered in agreement.

John MacArthur expressed disappointment that Obama broke his promises on renegotiating NAFTA and raising dividend taxes to 25%. MacArthur chided the liberals for focusing on Romney's much debated 15% tax rate on $22 million income but giving Obama a pass on his failure to raise the taxes on dividends when he had the majority control to do so. MacArthur also added that Obama was told sternly not to do so by Democratic party big-wigs because that tax increase would alienate their rich donors. He also flung the gauntlet to Gail Collins asking her to write a column on that. When Obama launched his attack ads on Romey's private equity career many Democrats distanced themselves from attacking an industry that was a rich source of donations. MacArthur alleged that the famously foul mouthed and self-confessedly vindictive Rahm Emmanuel was the 'enforcer to sideline the more radical elements within the party. He asked "where is Howard Dean today? why do we not hear a protest at redistricting Kucinich's constituency?"

Jodi Kantor then opened a can of worms with what she thought was a profound observation. Kantor said "Obama came into office with no experience, no foreign policy experience, no senate experience, no governing experience and yet he is very reluctant to talk about his 'learning curve' in the Presidency. Obama does not open up on talking about what he learned as President". I was stunned to see a columnist and author basically say that Obama had no experience and stumbled into office. Her naivete in expecting a sitting president to talk about 'learning curve' during campaign season is simply breathtaking.

All three talked of the debt ceiling fight last summer. None mentioned the fact that Obama, as senator, happily voted against Bush's request to increase the debt ceiling. He reasoned "the President had the requisite votes so I felt free to cast a 'no'". Bob Woodward in his book "Price of politics" and his interviews thereafter chided both sides for the brinkmanship. Woodward had tougher words for Obama though for failing to lead and to use the office of the presidency to lead. None mentioned any of that.

MacArthur spoke of how much Obama was ready to cut in entitlements. True, but MacArthur did not add that Obama was ready to cut until he discovered that his own party will not go with him. MacArthur then added how Obama cold shouldered a Dennis Kucinich sponsored bill to raise minimum wage, a pet cause for leftists. Never mind that even liberal economists have debunked the theory of minimum wage. That a democratic President fails to even mention it in campaign speeches was MacArthur's point. He finished with a sting "Obama is not there for working people".

Kantor felt compelled to join issue and opined "I disagree with that". She narrated how Obama grew up in poverty (so did speaker and GOP rep John Boehner). Kantor then trotted out the famous excuse of liberals "he is not good at communicating to people and translating policy into a speech that people can relate to". Liberals want to have to have the cake and eat it too. On one side they are breathless about his eloquence and in the same breath add that he is not good at explaining policy to people. So, is eloquence to be defined as stringing empty rhetoric and unconnected to articulating ideas to a skeptical audience?

Not satisfied with excusing Obama's unpopularity to a simple messaging issue Kantor continued that Obama loves dealing with 'intellectual complex issues' where there are no clear options and any course of action come fraught with political problems. She cited the auto-bailout and killing of Osama. Basically she echoed Vice President Biden's famous bumper sticker phrase 'General motors is alive, Osama is dead". The implication being that the other non-complex issues do not interest the President. The president hates 'retail politics' we were informed. Collins added 'he looks down on retail politics'.

MacArthur sliced that excuse "if he dislikes politics so much and dislikes working with congress, including his own party, why is he the President?". Kantor jumped in to say "I spoke to Robert Gibbs, he said if you ask 'Michelle Obama a hundred times if he should run for the Presidency she would reply a 100 times 'No'". MacArthur sneered "Robert Gibbs was the White House spokesman and you would expect him to talk like that". No self-respecting journalist would take a spokesman's word as character witness.

I don't know what was intellectual and complex about bailing out Detroit which has hundreds of thousands of votes for Obama. The process of the bailout was nothing but a write off of Detroit to his union buddies. Wall Street bailout returned money to tax payers. Detroit bailout has tax payers still on the hook. Ask Ford and Alan Mulally over how the bailout was a giveaway to the unions.The killing of Osama was a brave gambit. But it was more tactical than a question of policy. Any American president would have gambled that. Kantor basically said that talking about jobs, deficit etc are 'unintellectual' for this supposedly intellectual president.

Both Kantor and Collins spoke of how Obama tried to be bi-partisan and failed. MacArthur sizzled in response "McCain sponsored a truly bi-partisan bill with a democrat to re-instate Glass-Steagall act and Mr bi-partisan refused to sign or lobby for that bill". I wish MacArthur had drawn a contrast citing how Bush worked with his ideological nemesis, Ted Kennedy, to reshape how America educates its children. Bush, a Republican, signed into law the bipartisan Mcain-Feingold bill that attempted to reform campaign finance.

Collins then imitated Harry Reid and said how this Congress was stymied by 380 filibusters compared to just one during Johnson's presidency. She also added that Obama hated working in the Senate. MacArthur shredded that excuse asking Collins to "read Caro's biography 'Master of the senate' to learn how LBJ worked with the senate to achieve his goals. That is why he could get things done". During 2008 campaign Hillary Clinton said "you campaign in poetry but you have govern in prose" and cited how LBJ shepherded the civil rights bill through the congress. She was right as Robert Caro detailed in his magisterial yet to complete 4 volume biography.

Jodi Kantor joined saying "Obama prefers being community organizer" and that "he does not belong to the  political machinery". MacArthur became livid and demolished that detailing how Obama was very much a part of Chicago's Democratic political machinery especially the much feared Daley's political machine. Obama broke with his controversial pastor only when the pastor committed the unforgivable sin of calling Obama "just another politician" in a widely telecast national TV press conference. Obama guards his "I am no politician" image with a zeal.

I will never agree with MacArthur or Tariq Ali, especially on their tirade against free trade and capitalism. Do I cheer their criticisms of Obama just because I disagree with Obama? No. Those are all criticisms I've articulated too. When it comes from the far-left camp it carries a heavy stamp. What is noteworthy is MacArthur is tearing down the image building by two journalists who are more intent on giving excuses for Obama instead of holding him accountable. Mr Ali is shining an inconvenient spotlight on the hypocrisies of the left and it carries a moral weight when he utters those words instead of coming from Obama's habitual ideological opponents.

I congratulated MacArthur for holding Jodi Kantor and Gail Collins to account. With Kantor, in ear shot, I told MacArthur that she was a disgrace to journalism.