Newsweek editor Jon Meacham brought his professorial tones to National Public Radio on Wednesday and Thursday’s Morning Edition, discussing the Obama and McCain memoirs and what they say about the candidates. The oddest moment came in Wednesday’s chat on Obama, when NPR anchor Steve Inskeep raised Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear, by which FDR meant global arms reductions. Inskeep explained "Obama seems to suggest that while they are all important, that freedom from want and freedom from fear are the things that have to come first."
Meacham agreed that these liberal conceptions of freedoms are more important, but stressing them is a "very conservative" argument coming from Obama: "Yes. If you are hungry, you're not that interested in freedom of the press. If you are impoverished, you are interested in keeping yourself warm against the cold, and it's harder to think in Jeffersonian rights-of-man terms. Once those first two freedoms are secured, the others tend to follow. It's a very conservative argument that without order, nothing else is possible."
In making the case for Obama’s alleged deep conservatism, Meacham felt by concentrating on global freedom from want, Obama can reduce foreign threats to America: "That idea has not appeared to be part of the strategic approach to our desire to transform parts of the world that have wished us active harm."
In an essay on Real Clear Politics, Charles Kesler quotes lines that sound a lot like the Obama radio interviews of 2001 on the inadequacy of the civil rights revolution without spreading the wealth around: "it matters little if you have the right to sit at the front of the bus if you can't afford the bus fare; it matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch."
The broader Meacham interview seemed devoted to the idea that with his international roots and childhood experiences, Obama brought an entirely unique perspective on how other countries perceive America as an ignorant bully, an unparalleled empathy that somehow even Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton didn’t have -- a greater consciousness "of what American power feels like on the receiving end than on the giving end" -- when most Americans can find countries like Indonesia on a map. You would think Obama was already a foreign policy scholar in his grade-school years in Indonesia:
Anchor STEVE INSKEEP: Obama arrived in Indonesia during a period of turmoil. A U.S.-backed military ruler had just taken over. And as Barack Obama tells the story in "The Audacity of Hope," that government killed or imprisoned hundreds of thousands of people.
JON MEACHAM: You did not know from day to day or week to week which side of the regime you would be on. It was a fickle regime. And that very directly affected 's stepfather. He and his mother had waited a good while to come to Indonesia from Hawaii. And the reason was, his stepfather had gotten on the wrong side of the regime and had been sent off. So I think it's a very tactile experience of foreign policy.
And I think the takeaway is that foreign policy has real-life consequences, and it's not something that is simply talked about at the Council on Foreign Relations or in the hearing rooms on Capitol Hill. Obama has been right in the thick of a messy, asymmetrical, fluid situation in a country where power moves quickly and which can be a pawn in a larger game, in this case, the Cold War.
INSKEEP: He makes a few basic points about this complicated country. He points out that it is the world's largest Muslim country in terms of the number of Muslims who were there; that it is, in his view, a very important country, rich in natural resources; that it is nevertheless a country that most Americans could never find on a map. And yet, he says, it's a country where the U.S. has had enormous influence.
Mr. MEACHAM: When you look at how he wants to govern if he were to win, he is someone who I think is more conscious of what American power feels like on the receiving end than on the giving end. And Americans are accustomed to being, since - I would argue - since the summer of 1945, to being the person who sits in the control seat and decides what other people are going to do.
INSKEEP: We're in charge of the world, or imagine that we are.
Mr. MEACHAM: Right. And occasionally, that crashes into reality, as it did in Vietnam. But interestingly, I think that Obama has experienced the implications of America's Cold War policy in his own life in a distant land in a way that, you know, Ronald Reagan or Walter Mondale or George Herbert Walker Bush simply did not.
INSKEEP: What insights do you think from his writings - or any other sources - what insights do you think he draws from this that are relevant to some of the problems of today: how, if at all, to try to spread democracy around the world, how to deal with terrorism, other issues?
MEACHAM: I think he understands the law of unintended consequences. Because if you spend part of your childhood in a country in chaos in which America has played some role in creating or trying to capitalize on that chaos, I think you have more empathy with the people whose lives we are affecting. I'm not saying that you're sympathetic to them, let me be very clear, but I think you can imaginatively put yourself in the position of another country, of another region, and how that region or that country may respond to overtures of American power.
INSKEEP: You hit an important distinction there between empathy and sympathy. I suppose you want someone who totally understands the other side, but is still acting in American interests.
MEACHAM: Exactly. And I think that's something that has been lost in the hurly-burly of the autumn campaign, as things tend to get lost. But I do think that's an important distinction because empathy suggests that you will be able to think a couple of moves ahead of what the implications of an expression of American power would be. And so I think the direct lesson of what Obama has written about, both in "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," is that what we do is often uncontrollable. When you unleash forces abroad, it's very, very hard to manage them.
INSKEEP: He writes about Franklin Roosevelt's famous "Four Freedoms," four freedoms that Roosevelt considered important: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear. Obama seems to suggest that while they are all important, that freedom from want and freedom from fear are the things that have to come first.
MEACHAM: Yes. If you are hungry, you're not that interested in freedom of the press. If you are impoverished, you are interested in keeping yourself warm against the cold, and it's harder to think in Jeffersonian Rights of Man terms. Once those first two freedoms are secured, the others tend to follow. It's a very conservative argument that without order, nothing else is possible. That idea has not appeared to be part of the strategic approach to our desire to transform parts of the world that have wished us active harm.
INSKEEP: It's interesting the different directions you can take that line of thinking, though. You can say, well, I'm not going to be an idealist and demand that everyone have a democratic election, which sounds nice and realistic. But it can also be, I'm not going to be an idealist, and I'm going to embrace whatever dictator brings stability, as long as they're relatively friendly to us. You can go to places that people would find dismaying in different ways or delightful in different ways.
MEACHAM: Yes. And I would say, welcome to a fallen world and diplomacy in a world that is destined to some extent to disappoint us. This is something that interests me about both Obama and McCain, is they are both essentially tragic figures. They understand that the world does not conform to our wishes. The fact that Obama's religious views are as informed by Abraham Lincoln and Reinhold Niebuhr as they are the Gospels, to some extent, I think that comes from having grown up and seeing firsthand that the world's more complicated than it seems in headlines. It's a messy, unfinished world out there. And America can be a force for good. But as he's [Obama’s] quoted before, we'll always want to make sure we're constantly checking ourselves. As Lincoln would have it, we know that God isn't on our side, but to try to make sure we're on God's side.
Text of FDR's Four Freedoms speech from 1941 is here.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Conservatism
October 31, 2008 - 12:45 ET by Fist of EtiquetteIf you are hungry, you're not that interested in freedom of the press. If you are impoverished, you are interested in keeping yourself warm against the cold, and it's harder to think in Jeffersonian rights-of-man terms. Once those first two freedoms are secured, the others tend to follow. It's a very conservative argument that without order, nothing else is possible."
I guess getting yourself tossed in prison is the most Reaganesque thing you could do. A cot and three squares a day.
Actually...
October 31, 2008 - 12:54 ET by The DistributistIn Obanics it's known as "3 hots and a cot".
"Modern man is staggering and losing his balance because he is being pelted with little pieces of alleged fact which are native to the newspapers; and, if they turn out not to be facts, that is still more native to newspapers." -GKC
Yo Distr,
October 31, 2008 - 13:01 ET by HillbillyKingI like your tagline, but who's GKC?
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Who is GKC
October 31, 2008 - 17:10 ET by airedaletwoMy guess Gilbert Keith Chesterton, not only was he a Christian apologist but
was a journalism critic and a prolific writer. If you want a quick read about him go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Keith_Chesterton Here is a little bit about him from that source:
"Chesterton wrote around 80 books, several hundred poems, some 200 short stories, 4000 essays, and several plays. He was a literary and social critic, historian, playwright, novelist, Catholic theologian and apologist, debater, and mystery writer. He was a columnist for the Daily News, the Illustrated London News, and his own paper, G. K.'s Weekly; he also wrote articles for the Encyclopædia Britannica, including the entry on Charles Dickens and part of the entry on Humour in the 14th edition (1929). His best-known character is the priest-detective Father Brown, who appeared only in short stories, while The Man Who Was Thursday is arguably his best-known novel. He was a convinced Christian long before he was received into the Catholic Church, and Christian themes and symbolism appear in much of his writing. In the United States, his writings on distributism were popularized through The American Review, published by Seward Collins in New York."
To know and not to know,
October 31, 2008 - 13:06 ET by katainkentGotta be kidding me
October 31, 2008 - 13:06 ET by KC Mulville"Once those first two freedoms are secured, the others tend to follow. It's a very conservative argument that without order, nothing else is possible."
Yeah. By the way, what was the surge in Iraq all about? Obama opposed the surge. There goes that theory.
This is a strange argument
October 31, 2008 - 15:18 ET by WingletDriverFreedom from hunger and the elements somehow didn't make it into our founding documents. And it certainly does not follow that other freedoms spring from these. There were a great many slaves well cared for because of their inherent economic value, not because of their aspiring freedom. Germans and Italians went from being impoverished to relatively wealthy under Nationalist Socialism and Facism.
Rather, our founding documents recognized Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is from these fundamental rights (endowed by our Creator) that Americans have always (and rightly) recognized that other freedoms spring.
"I think he understands the
October 31, 2008 - 13:07 ET by ThisnThat"I think he understands the law of unintended consequences. Because if you spend part of your childhood in a country in chaos in which America has played some role in creating or trying to capitalize on that chaos, I think you have more empathy with the people whose lives we are affecting."
Kinda sums it all up -- America is bad; we need Obama; Obama places global "comfort" above all; so when he supresses our Bill of Rights (press, religion, guns, etc) -- then that's ok. Those rights are clearly secondary to global comfort.
I have heard a little of the radical left's desire for a "2nd bill of rights". I wonder if this is a little window into that, brought to us by Dear Leader?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
It's called sophistry.The
October 31, 2008 - 13:17 ET by mattmIt's called sophistry.
The standard libtard modus operandi.
BTW: You're not free from want if you depend on the government for your bread and cheese.
Self-congratulations
October 31, 2008 - 13:21 ET by KC MulvilleHow would Meacham know anything about Obama's insight if he doesn't have it himself? Which leaves you with two possibilities:
You can't evaluate an experience you've never had. People who are born blind simply can't discuss vision. So when Meacham compliments Obama for his "insight" and empathy about what foreigners feel about America, that implies that Meacham understands it also. But that's the dilemma - if Meacham has the same insight, then all he's doing is complimenting Obama for thinking like Meacham does. It's just a form of indirect self-compliment.
In other words, it isn't worth a breath of air.
In making the case for
October 31, 2008 - 13:21 ET by dduckw0rthIn making the case for Obama’s alleged deep conservatism, Meacham felt by concentrating on global freedom from want, Obama can reduce foreign threats to America: "That idea has not appeared to be part of the strategic approach to our desire to transform parts of the world that have wished us active harm."
He's got to be kidding. Oh wait, he's not. For the 1,000,000th time to these Obama-like thinkers, the world IS NOT so simple. This thinking should be in the dictionary as an example of "Naivety". America already spends billions of taxpayer $$ on aid. And billions more are donated by Americans of their own free will. Heck, we're in Iraq right now trying to make it into a "more" free more democratic country, spending billions, and those who stand up for America's presence in Iraq are ridiculed endlessly. We don't have enough money in the entire country to eradicate "want" and that's a fact. Even if we did, what kind of world would that be? Think about it Meacham.
But, yeah Meacham, at least your brainwashing attempt will be successful on some people watching the program. You gotta do what the hive mind says you gotta do. It's just that it's becoming less and less effective as America slowly wakes up (at least, I hope that is what is happening).
Oh, and this concept of using our $$ to eradicate want and thereby foreign threats is NOT Conservative. Conservatives want people to be FREE, which in turn leads to less and less "want" and more prosperity over time. Keep hoping someone other than the brainwashees will believe that paying the world off will reduce foreign threats, maybe it will work. You're scoring points for Persistence.
Have a nice Day Meacham! Even though you will never read this - at least I feel better now. /rant
Reflection is a b--tch
October 31, 2008 - 13:25 ET by KC Mulville"The fact that Obama's religious views are as informed by Abraham Lincoln and Reinhold Niebuhr as they are the Gospels, to some extent, I think that comes from having grown up and seeing firsthand that the world's more complicated than it seems in headlines."
You mean, the press is presenting us with a simplistic and narrow view of the world? Who can we call to complain about how we've been disserved? Mr. Meacham, do you know the phone number of any editor of any influential news papers or magazines?
Typical coopt attempt by liberals of a the word conservative
October 31, 2008 - 13:26 ET by c5thenIt is a typically liberal thought that government should 'take care' of it's citizens like an 'uber-mom'. A true conservative would say that it is the job of government to protect it's citizens from foreign aggression, domestically maintain the rule of law and provide for a level playing field so that all citizens have the same opportunity to succeed at their chosen profession or vocation. And that is IT! Anything else is interfering in the free will of the people. The reason that the sports analogy is so often used (level playing field) is because the implication that there are winners and losers is also accurate. In order to be seen as successfull, there has to have been the chance of failure. In order for success to be percieved as desirable and something to strive for, there has to exist the opposite of success, which is not failure but apathy and sloth.
Even the Messiah said that there will always be poor people.
Mat 26:6 - 26:13
think about it...without the poor, there would be no reason for charity.
You want change? Give me a dollar.
"Mr. MEACHAM: When you
October 31, 2008 - 13:37 ET by KC MulvilleAl-Qaeda flew airplanes into the Towers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field, killing thousands of our citizens - not to mention a number of friends of mine ... because we remained in the Middle East after the Gulf War to prevent Saddam Hussein from taking hold of the world's oil reseves. Some of the people who wanted us to stay were part of bin Laden's own family.
We have a country that, despite the recent troubles, is still the world's most prosperous, generous, and freest in the world. Their governments are usually corrupt and authoritarian.
When do they have to start understanding us?
KC... Hear, Hear! Great
October 31, 2008 - 14:11 ET by bigtimerKC...
Hear, Hear!
Great post...you said it all.
I see Meacham, I click the channel...I despise him.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Typical liberal
October 31, 2008 - 13:59 ET by Chris NormanTypical liberal condescencion - the poor don't want to be free as much as they want material goods. I suppose, for a liberal, freedom is just another luxury for the well off...
McNotObama '08
and freedom from fear, by
October 31, 2008 - 14:54 ET by BDand freedom from fear, by which FDR meant global arms reductions.
Liberal jibberish!
October 31, 2008 - 16:27 ET by SlicksterLiberal jibberish!
...of the first order.
October 31, 2008 - 16:31 ET by BD...of the first order.
I always thought it was:
October 31, 2008 - 23:21 ET by TN MomI always thought it was: LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PERSUIT of HAPPINESS.
BTW, Persuit means to 'get off your a$$ and go get it'!!!
life under BHO
November 1, 2008 - 00:47 ET by porpoiseboyTen men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes:
The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing.
The fifth paid $1.
The sixth paid $3.
The seventh paid $7.
The eighth paid $12.
The ninth paid $18.
The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers', he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80'.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized
that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from
everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up
being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be
fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savi ngs).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.