Obama’s Disgusting Rhetoric

Share Button

Many have been flabbergasted at the Presidents apparent lack of knowledge about the Supreme Court case of Mabury v Madison, which did indeed establish the power of the Supreme Court to declare a federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President as unconstitutional.

That is pretty astounding, considering he’s supposed to be a Constitutional scolar.

But there is something else he said this week that caught my ear. From obama’s speech at the Associated Press luncheon:

“Disguised as a deficit reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It’s nothing but thinly veiled social Darwinism,”

Excuse me?

My friend Dan at Gay Patriot commented on the significance of Obama’s comments in relation to the Clinton budget, but everyone is missing the real significance of the “Social Darwinism” comment.

Think about the term and how it’s been used over the last century and more. It has been justification for all sorts of atrocities and prejudices, from racism to eugenics to Nazism to state sterilization of the mentally challenged and infirm. I generally scoff at the notion that people use “code words”, which is usually an accusation tossed at Conservatives by Liberals to try and portray Conservatives as racists. Well, in this case, although he apparently isn’t that familiar with the aspects of Marbury v Madison, I think it’s hard pressed not to conclude that this was the “Unifier-In-Chief’s” veiled and half clever way of accusing Conservatives of wanting to off cleans society of the poor and minorities.

I find his use of this rhetoric to be vile and ugly. I wonder how the press would have reacted if the previous President would have said anything like this about his political opponents.

6 Comments to “Obama’s Disgusting Rhetoric”

  1. By David Schraub, April 5, 2012 @ 5:23 am

    Exactly what does Social Darwinism (the idea that absent state intervention the free marketplace sorts between more and less fit persons and thus encourages the survival and propagation of efficient behavior, by, in effect, killing off those who aren’t “fit”) have to do with eugenics Nazism, sterilization, etc (all state interventions in the development of society with the eye towards coercively making it “better” or “purer” or whatever)? Social Darwinism does see the poor dying off, but not through intervention of the state as through eugenics — that’s the exact opposite of the point. Your code word, isn’t.

    And the idea that President Obama is actually opposed to Marbury, as opposed to (accurately) observing that the Supreme Court has never once in his lifetime struck down a federal economic regulation, is simply ludicrous.

  2. By alanstorm, April 5, 2012 @ 6:33 pm

    David, maybe you should look up the term “Social Darwinism” and see what it inspired before making yourself look foolish. Too late this time, but better luck the next.

    “And the idea that President Obama is actually opposed to Marbury, as opposed to (accurately) observing that the Supreme Court has never once in his lifetime struck down a federal economic regulation, is simply ludicrous.”

    Um, that’s not what he said. He never limited it to his lifetime (why would that be relevant?) or economic matters. At least, not in the original. I don’t really care what he said in his attempted edit. See advice above.

    Doesn’t it get tiring defending an idiot like Obama?

  3. By Sonicfrog, April 5, 2012 @ 9:38 pm

    David… Thanks for stopping by. Always glad to have you here. Sorry I haven’t responded. Been busy w/ work… and taxes…. and getting the solo record arranged and recorded. Hope to have something of a reply by tomorrow.

  4. By David Schraub, April 5, 2012 @ 11:25 pm

    “Inspiration” is a fickle thing, but to say that eugenics is a part of social darwinism is, well, embarrassing. Eugenics and Social Darwinism are not just unrelated, they’re polar opposites. Perhaps you can stave off your own embarrassment by providing any logical linkage between the two other than “things from the early 20th century that are bad.”

    As for this idea that “context” is foreign to proper linguistic interpretation, well, let’s just say I’m amazed that you’ve actually gotten this far in your attempts to conquer basic literacy given your unfamiliarity with one of the basic elements of language. For that you should not be embarrassed, but proud. Good job!

    Let’s see if I can illustrate this: We’re talking about the Baseball all-star game, and as it turns out there are no players from the Detroit Tigers on the AL team this year. I say “it’s unprecedented for there to be nobody from Detroit on the all-star team!” You retort “Aha! First of all, Jon Smith is on the AL team and he was born and raised in Detroit — is he not “from Detroit”? Second of all, it’s not ‘unprecedented’ — in 1935 there also were no Detroit Tigers on the AL team.” I, and every other non-dysfunctional human being, respond “you’re a moron.” Why? Well, the first part of the statement is obviously just ripping the statement out of context — discussion of the health care litigation/baseball teams, not “every case ever”/all people “from Detroit”. The second part of the statement takes mild hyperbole and turns it into a crime against humanity. In both, I’m well within normal usage, and you’re an asshole with an axe to grind who’s annoying everyone around him.

  5. By Sonicfrog, April 6, 2012 @ 3:36 am

    Hmmm.. This is an interesting hole in your otherwise broad knowledge base. The relation and interconnection of Social Darwinistic theories and eugenics is something that is common knowledge. I’m kind of shock frankly that it hasn’t, as someone who is highly motivated by various race theory, crossed your path.

    Please google: “eugenics social Darwinism”

    The library is quite extensive.

    For instance, there is the second link that comes up; a PBS feature on the subject.


    The very first paragraph says this:

    “The specter of eugenics hovers over virtually all contemporary developments in human genetics. Eugenics was rooted in the social Darwinism of the late 19th century, a period in which notions of fitness, competition, and biological rationalizations of inequality were popular.”

    Getting yelled at. Have to go eat dinner.

    Will have more later.

  • GayPatriot » Smart Bloggers React to Obama’s Divisive Social Darwinism Rhetoric — April 5, 2012 @ 4:41 pm

  • RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

    Leave a Reply