The Obama Agenda And The New Global Elite

by L.E. Ikenga - September 22nd, 2010 - The American Thinker

A comment on the background to this article is required. Forbes started a major discussion on Obama's motivations with, "How Obama Thinks" by Dinesh d'Souza. The White House was incensed by that article. Their response is covered in the Washington Post by Howard Kurtz's, "White House rips Forbes article". George Neumayr added some insight with an alternative theory in his article "Neocolonial Dreams from Obama's Mother" in The American Spectator.

At issue in these articles is d'Souza's argument that Obama is motivated by an outdated opposition to fighting colonialism and it's residual impact on the former European colonies, a concept called anti-colonialism in socialist college circles. Anti-colonialism was the driving motivation of his father. Obama alluded to his adoption of this theme for his own thought processes in his biography, "Dreams from my Father". It clearly is one of his motivations. At issue is whether it is the primary motivation.

Several articles have been written in response criticizing d'Souza. It seemed useless to link to most of them since they are motivated by nothing but an attempt to smear anyone who dares think or write about what motivates Obama. I don't understand why so many think this is a topic that should be off limits.

However Ikenga has provided some useful guidance with an alternative hypothesis to the two already discussed above. At the least, Ikenga is not opposed to the idea that thinking about Obama's motivations is worthwhile.

In his article, Ikenga believes it is more likely that Obama has picked up the motivations of the "New Global Elite" on steroids - rather than being motivated by anti-colonialism as d'Souza claimed. Ikenga thinks Obama is a "multicultural globalist". It is an interesting hypothesis. His article includes insight to the relationship between the post-colonialist movement, (an actual movement that only insiders in black studies at our leading universities used to know about) and its morphing into the new "multicultural globalist" movement that has aspects of black liberation theology, socialism (or progressivism if you prefer), anti-colonialism, post-colonialism, anti-nationalism and Alinsky worship.

It is worth reading just for insight into the fevered search by those on the left for an intellectual underpinning for their hatred of free enterprise and white culture.

Obama's radical ambitions continue to go mostly unnoticed by the masses because Mr. Obama and those who think like him appear to be something that we are all familiar with: global elites, or as they like to call themselves, "citizens of the world." And this is where, going back to Mr. D'Souza's article, he gets it all wrong. Barack Obama is not, as he says, "the last of the anti-colonialists."

What Mr. D'Souza fails to understand is that post-colonialism ceased being a cantankerous "cause" or a "crusade" a long time ago. Instead, it now identifies a new way of thinking about the world in global terms. Post-colonialists have long since stopped attending "Reparations Now!" rallies and academic "roundtables" on race and politics. They are now the heads of liberally backed NGOs, Ivy League Institutes, or countries like the United States.

Barack Obama is a 21st-century example of a multicultural globalist -- fairly young, trendy "people of color," "well-educated," belonging to no specific tribe or cultural group (or openly shunning such memberships), obsessed with bourgeois leisure culture, moderately wealthy, and very successful in their respective professions. Barack Obama and his compatriots are those who "grew up" and, having abandoned their black turtlenecks, berets, and expensive, imported cigarettes, swapped their former post-colonial ideological talking points for ones that now appear thoughtful, pragmatic, and less antagonistic toward "oppressive capitalist systems." They calmly advocate the use of "smart power" to create "commonsense solutions for working families." But don't be fooled -- copies of "Black Skin, White Masks" still rest on their nightstands.

That so much energy is put into rationalizing black hatred for white culture, as this article indicates has happened, will probably surprise most average Americans. That we elected a President who can actually participate in discussions about these issues and has studied them should be more shocking. That indicates he thinks that the hate is rational and worthy of study. Whether he is an anti-colonialist, a post-colonialist or has moved on to the more enlightened multicultural-globalist as Ikenga believes, the key point is Obama is driven by a well concealed hate. My question. How can it possibly be that only now are these discussions taking place about motivations of the man who holds the most powerful position in the world?