-
Wincing at Cumberbatch
May 21, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Pain & Gain
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
As She Likes It
April 30, 2013 | 13 comments
-
42
April 23, 2013 | 19 comments
-
56 Up
April 17, 2013 | 7 comments
Movie Takes
2016: Obama’s America
Are there hidden reasons to oppose the president’s re-election — or do we have enough real reasons already?
Near the end of 2016: Obama’s America, Dinesh D’Souza — who is the principal on-screen presence and co-director (with John Sullivan) of the movie based on his book The Roots of Obama’s Rage — interviews the former Comptroller General David Walker as part of an effort to sound the alarm about our country’s ballooning debt. There is, as you would expect, an on-screen graphic, in fact a graph, stacking up President Obama’s massive $5 trillion in new debt in only three and a half years against the more modest contributions of his predecessors — though his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, is lumped together with him for the convenience of making the point that these two presidents between them have piled up more debt than all their 42 predecessors combined. In any reasonably well-ordered democratic political culture this, you might think, would be scandal enough and to spare, but in our hyper-charged media environment today we have been mainlining scandal for so long that it apparently takes something a good deal more potent than looming bankruptcy to give us that longed-for high.
At any rate, Mr. D’Souza’s movie certainly gives us the hard stuff, as it imputes to President Obama an agenda culminating in nothing less than the prospective destruction of the United States. The bit about the debt comes across almost as an afterthought. Too obvious, I guess. Instead, with the promise of mystery and intrigue, the hidden truth that only they can get at which is always so congenial to the movies, 2016 concentrates on finding the clues in Mr. Obama’s not-quite-secret radicalism as to his secret agenda for his second term. It’s the secrecy that is meant to give the movie its kick. The tag-line is “Love him, Hate him: You don’t know him.” But of course we do know him — or we would if we took the trouble to look in to the publicly available record. The movie fills in the picture already made clear by the likes of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright with the less well-known figures of Frank Marshall Davis and Roberto Unger, but the general outline of the President’s radicalism will come as no surprise to anyone whose reading goes much beyond that supplied by the mainstream media.
And therein lies the film’s justification, such as it is, for it gives those of us on the right who have long been alarmed by the anti-American assumptions of the American left and the extent to which they appear to be shared not only by America’s president but by his political party, a presumptive way to get around the media’s indifference and into the consciousness of the mostly politically inert masses. At least in his survey of Mr. Obama’s intellectual influences, whom he cheekily calls his “Founding Fathers,” Mr. D’Souza has an interesting story to tell and he tells it well. My fellow conservatives are already helping to make the movie a big and unexpected success at the box office, and there must be many who are not conservatives and who have had their eyes opened to one of the least attractive and most alarming features of the liberal world-view, which our President completely shares.
Yet I would urge them to treat these criticisms with a degree of caution. For the problem with the film lies in the surely overblown sensationalism necessary to sell us on the connection between a bunch of idiotic but essentially harmless armchair revolutionaries — as even Mr. Ayers has become in his post-terrorist career — and what the President actually wants to do in office. By overhyping Mr. Obama’s supposedly secret radicalism and his supposedly hidden agenda to bring America down from its position of world leadership, the film runs the risk of making us pay less attention than we should to the non-secret radicalism and the agenda we already know he has, which are both quite bad enough and the real reason he deserves to be defeated. Moreover, the movie is on much shakier ground when it attempts to make the case for the biggest influence on him of all, which is that of the long-dead Barack Obama Sr.
I, at least, was unpersuaded when an academic psychologist, Dr. Paul Vitz, of NYU, was produced to confirm the importance of the Kenyan father’s absence to his infant American namesake and therefore, putatively, to explain the wholesale adoption by Barack Junior of Barack Senior’s dotty ideas — which apparently once included a proposal for 100 percent taxation. “Is this what Obama means by paying our fair share?” asks Mr. D’Souza ominously. Well, actually no. Not so far as anybody knows, anyway, and even if it were he would have no chance of imposing such a draconian measure on a democratically empowered republic. Not for the first time in watching the film, the viewer is likely to ask himself if there isn’t enough to disturb and frighten us about the measures we know the President and his party have in store for us if he and they are re-elected without our having to invent bugbears like confiscatory taxation imposed on us from beyond the grave?
The central importance of the father may be related to the film’s very personal tone. Dinesh D’Souza is himself so much front-and-center in order to stress his view that the similarity of his own background to that of his subject — since both are mixed-race products of former British imperial subjects who joined the American elite through the gateway of an Ivy League education — makes him uniquely qualified not just to expose but to explain Barack Obama’s radicalism, which he sees as differing in no important respect from that of his father. “I get this guy,” he tells us. And, in one sense at least, he probably does. The best parts of the movie come when he jets off to Kenya to interview family and friends of the elder Obama, most notably another son named George born only months before his father died in a car accident in 1982. George it is who scandalizes post-colonial studies’ orthodoxy by suggesting that maybe Kenya would today be a more developed country than it is if the white man had stuck around a bit longer. Granny Obama, who was paid off in goats, promised even fruitier stuff, but was got at by someone and persuaded not to talk.
Such stuff is interesting and engaging in itself, but of somewhat dubious relevance to the question of what may lie in store for us in the next four years if the President is re-elected. Mr. D’Souza’s sympathetic understanding of this post-colonial outsider emboldens him too far, tempting him to think that he understands more than he really can and to project an apocalyptic future that is at best highly speculative. One understands, of course, that his purpose is to frighten us, which is what movies are for, and that the unknown is more frightening than the known. But when there is so much genuinely to be frightened of, I can’t help wondering how useful it is, in raising the alarm, to concentrate quite so heavily on things doubtful and speculative at the expense of things open and obvious. The academic left whose ties to President Obama are pretty unmissable certainly ought to be a national scandal, but not because it is using him as its revolutionary catspaw. There is plenty to regard with alarm about its corruption of America’s intellectual life, as there is about what the Obama administration is doing to the nation’s defenses, its legal system, its economy and its Constitution, but a doubtful attempt to connect the two things will only give the left and the media an excuse to dismiss both.
About the Author
James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Articles by James Bowman
More Articles From Movie Takes
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/10/2016-obamas-america
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Stephie| 9.10.12 @ 7:17AM
Mr Bowan, getting as far in your article where you say that the armchair revolutionary Bill Ayers is harmless. You obviously don't know that he teaches young minds full of mush to hate their country. He has lied for obama in saying he didn't know him. I feel you don't know the seriousness of obama's past and how he uses the influences of the people in his past to "fundamentally transform America". I saw this film and found it well done and informative. Have you actually seen it?
Von Mises Jr| 9.10.12 @ 8:53AM
Obama’s Czar Ken Salazar and the EPA was not harmless when they falsified the Peer Reviewed Report on the BP oil spill changing the recommendation leaving Bob Bea and the other scientist signatures intact. Then Judge Feldman overruled the drilling moratorium that Salazar simply subverted a Federal Ruling by refusing oil leases.
Eric Holder is not harmless when he sues AZ for enforcing the laws on the books for immigration, sues SC for enforcing voter laws and runs 2,500 assault weapons into Mexico trying to repeal the Second Amendment.
Hillary is not harmless when she signs onto a UN gun ban Treaty.
Obama is not harmless when he refuses to enforce some laws such as immigration and DOMA while carving out exceptions in the former with the Dream Act.
This is the stuff of Banana Republics and tin horn dictators and the author thinks that there is nothing to see here?
I agree with you, Stephie. Mr. Bowman may think these people are harmless, but I don't.
TLP| 9.10.12 @ 4:18PM
Bowman's article reminds me of an Olde English Saying: He is too clever, by half.
As Freud so famously said: Sometimes a Cigar, is just a Cigar.
Sometimes a White Hating, Jew Hating, America Hating, Black Panther, Louis Farrakhan, Muslim Brotherhood Loving President, is just that.
A White Hating, Jew Hating, America Hatimg, Black Panther, Louis Farrakhan, Muslim Brotherhood Loving President.
OCCAMS RAZOR.
nathan| 9.10.12 @ 7:43AM
The best column written on this movie is by the vice president of the CATO Institute Gene Healy. It was in last Tuesday's Washington Examiner. Try to get a copy. It's worth the read.
Jacob McCandles| 9.10.12 @ 11:05AM
Yes, there is already plenty to be afraid of with regard to Obama's front and center policies. But what the movie is getting at is the WHY behind it all. Many of us doubt that BHO is simply too dense to realize the results of his policies. So that begs the question- why is he doing this? That's the missing piece of the puzzle. It's not just a left wing, radical socialist viewpoint. It's a genuine hatred of everything that made this country great. It's intensely personal.
LindaF | 9.10.12 @ 7:47AM
I have to dispute your characterization of the radicals that Obama hung around with:
"a bunch of idiotic but essentially harmless armchair revolutionaries -- as even Mr. Ayers has become in his post-terrorist career"
Ayers is hardly "essentially harmless" - he has quite NEGATIVELY more than 2 generations of teachers. As a member of the education radicals, he pushed his agenda on budding teachers, always with the smiling face of a harmless hippie. He speaks the language of one who would empower the parents, but his educational theories would undercut their influence on their children, unless they agreed with his agenda.
I am a teacher, and I daily see the malignant influence of the educational radicals - they hold a Stalin-like visegrip on entry into the profession, and keep opposing ideas from surfacing in the academic world. Those who have been influenced by their "teachings" deny 1st amendment rights to those opposing their "values". To speak against this, an educator risks their job, even their very educational credential. They have imposed a stranglehold on their profession.
LindaF | 9.10.12 @ 7:47AM
That should be "NEGATIVELY influenced".
ElGordo| 9.10.12 @ 8:18AM
The film 2016 is a very effective anti-Obama message that explains why Obama does not like the U.S.A.
.
It'll be played out commercially in the next 4 weeks .
.
For those who have not seen it, the film's producer should put it on YOUTUBE for the 2 or 3 weeks before the election to be viewed free.
.
Also , as AOL mailed free discs to get customers, Romney should have 2016 put on discs and mailed free to those voters in the swing states.
.
As Romney's TV ads attack Obama's failed economy, super pacs such as Roves, should attack Obama's character, statements, associations, etc.; Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Acorn, Marxist Professors, Rezko, Frank Davis, "you didn't build that"', "electric prices will skyrocket", etc.
Stephie| 9.10.12 @ 8:25AM
Yeah, Romney and Ryan need to toughen up and get personal on obama or we are going to loose this election and our country.
Purp| 9.10.12 @ 8:33AM
And y'all didn't like Fahrenheit 911 - and this is the same anti-President screed that F 911 was.
So what? Neither documentary changed anyone's mind.
Bob Grant| 9.10.12 @ 10:14AM
Perp,
Tell us specifically what was inaccurate about the movie.
MOST of the reference material is directly from obama's two autobiographies.
Again, tell us SPECIFICALLY was was inaccurate about the movie.
Von Mises Jr| 9.10.12 @ 3:29PM
Bob, Obama was lying to his own autobiography. He even lied in his own words on audio. Sometimes liberals even lie to themselves in their own diary.
Dave Williams| 9.10.12 @ 6:21PM
Nice try, but the Purp-Twerp is incapable of rational thought...but that's liberalism for ya.
Who Knows?| 9.10.12 @ 9:34AM
ANY movie that exposes ANYTHING about Obama’s past is GOOD.
With over half of the country center right, a Michael Moore-like documentary of Obama’s radical upbringing, naming names of Ayers, Rev. Wright, and all the other paragons of non-virtue who trained our Marxist sock puppet president, would probably do very well in theaters.
Unlike the author of this piece, I don’t think “we” already know all this stuff about Hussein. Hell, most people rightly disdain politics, until just before the election—if they even bother to do other than automatically vote the same they always do, GOP or Democrat.
Putting 2016 on youtube is a great idea.
Purp| 9.10.12 @ 10:04AM
Nothing new ... nothing we don't already know.
Bob Grant| 9.10.12 @ 10:18AM
WE know but 95% of the Confused Knuckleheads (Michelle obama's description, not mine) don't!!
Youtube is a great idea.
MikeBee| 9.10.12 @ 10:32AM
Mr. Bowman,
I must, respectfully, disagree. There is, and has been for a long time, a political movement afoot called Anti-Colonialism. In most world colonies, this movement takes the form of trying to empower the colony and kick out the colony's owner. But, in wealthier countries worldwide, this movement has taken a slightly different angle, and is at the heart of the university teachings that the U.S. is bad and has caused all the world's ills.
In non-colony countries, this movement attempts to "equalize" all countries, giving all countries in the world the same political, economic, and military power. Those who are active members of this movement believe that, once all countries are of equal power, then there will be world peace, as every country will be afraid to attack any other country, as they have the same military power. The goal of this movement is twofold: 1) to radically reduce the power of richer countries while building up the power of poorer countries; and, 2) to radically reduce the wealth and power of larger, more successful companies while building up the mom and pop shops. Toward the second goal, followers of this movement in the U.S. have long wished to "take down" General Motors.
MikeBee| 9.10.12 @ 10:32AM
(continued due to lack of space)
To those who understand this radical political movement, it is no surprise that the U.S. has been hurting economically under Obama, and no surprise that GM was taken down under Obama. The future for the U.S. under the direction of these radical Anti-Colonialists is a very bad future, indeed. This movie played an important role in exposing this radical movement's emphasis on Obama.
Bob Grant| 9.10.12 @ 11:24AM
I think Mr. Bowman's criticism of the movie is well thought out but he seems to miss it's main point, which is The ROOTS of Obama's Rage drive that which he's accomplished, and that which frightens Mr. Bowman ABOUT obama.
The movie is about what drives obama: It's not socialism for the sake of socialism, it's socialism for the sake of his deep-rooted, anti-colonialist sentiments.
Mr. D'Souza's thesis is if one understands obama's anti-colonialist views of the World, one would have a better understanding of his thinking behind his plans for the country and what drives him to do the things the does.
For example, how many people scratched their heads in confusion when obama unveiled his NASA muslim outreach program? Mr. D'Souza's thesis makes sense of an othewise idiotic set of priorities.
Personally, I don't know if I buy into his thesis 100% but it is certainly intriguing and worthy of discussion.
Joe D.| 9.10.12 @ 11:30AM
James, I am unconvinced that you are a conservative and understand obama's book, "Dreams of my Father". This also, helps explain the movie that I and other feel is right on target and helps explain is foreign policy along with his economic policy as good as anything I have read. And I have read alot.
Finally, we need people outside of the conservative understand where he wants to take us if he can. And based on this first term he will try until someone has the guts to stop him. The congress does not appear up to the task yet.
MRD| 9.10.12 @ 12:17PM
I think Mr. Bowman misses the point of the movie. D'Sousa claim is simply that Obama is not a standard "liberal" who favors a top 35% marginal tax rate compared to say a 31% top rate or a 30% tax on capitol gains. Obama is a radical leftist, heavily influenced by radical leftists and according to Obama himself, the identity of his dead father. As such he has no interest in lowered unemployement, economic growth, and stability in the middle east. His metric of success is whether he can make the world and the USA a more just place via imposition of his leftist vision. If this means the Unemployment rate is 15% and Jihadists run wild in the Middle east, thats ok. Of course Mr. Bowman may have already known this, but he is not the target for the film. This is an attempt to persuade people who are not avid political junkies. Maybe it will fail but in desperate times its worth a shot. As for whether the MSM will dismiss this, of course they will. Not even the most subtle anti- Obama message would fail to be dismissed. At least one target group may change. Conservatives who argue that Obama does not "understand" the economy might get the message that this line of attack is simply false. Obama knows exactly what he is doing. Mere incompetence would not be nearly as troubling.
RJ| 9.11.12 @ 4:06AM
Bingo. Yes, Obama campaigned on change not economic recovery. He has succeeded in changing America into a less free, less prosperous, less self-reliant nation with a more corrupt, dictatorial national government. The incompetence of Jimmy Carter would be an improvement because we have never before had a national leader who was so hostile to the exceptional American political ideals of individual liberty, self-reliance, and opportunity.
Al Adab| 9.10.12 @ 12:29PM
Where can we contribute to buy time on MSNBC to air the film?
RJ| 9.11.12 @ 4:00AM
Does MSNBC have any viewers other than its employees in the booth?
obadiah| 9.10.12 @ 9:19PM
I liked the part where the spirit of satan entered into obama. "and it was night."
Duddio| 9.11.12 @ 2:36PM
Mr. Bowman,
2016 ties the threads together to give us a picture of the motivation of Obama's assault on our economy and military. I think you missed how important the message of the movie is. I have disagreed with Obama since before he was elected, but I could not get a handle on what his motivation could possibly be for alienating our closest allies while giving our worst enemies room to dig into us in our most vulnerable places.
This film provides an explanation for the unexplainable stances Obama has taken as President, and I had several "OMG" moments while viewing it. I am an avid reader and I search the Internet for the truth behind the media spin, but this movie is a huge heads up for what's coming if this man who hates America is re-elected.
Sadly, Mr. Bowman, I think you missed the whole point.... which most of us obviously got, judging by the comments here.
St Reformed| 9.14.12 @ 12:11AM
Towards the end of the filem, D'Souza speculates about a potential "United States of Islam"--a caliphate dominated by Iran--arising during an Obama second term. Critics panned this part.
But after this week's horror stories from North Africa, is it really that far-fetched?
owend| 9.14.12 @ 12:40PM
Mr. Bowman assumes that everyone who sees this movie already knows about Obama and his radical ideas. I disagree. I think there are many who really have never taken the time to delve into the radicalism of Obama. Nor, do they really understand how dangerous his radicalism is to our country and way of life. The film helps to clarify these points. As to Mr. Bowman's conclusions, I am not certain what point he is making: "But when there is so much genuinely to be frightened of, I can't help wondering how useful it is, in raising the alarm, -----------." And as to Mr. Bowman's conclusion, here is another question: Is Obama being used, or is he the user?
sasapm| 10.12.12 @ 9:59AM
Thanks for posting this. Today I watched this documentary film. After searching for long time, only I found this. I recommend you to watch this if you didn't watch yet.
http://www.thegreatplanet.com/.....rica-2012/