Obama's Global Ideology

Here's another op-ed that was forwarded by my former professor, Dr. Bom:

Obama’s Theo-Ideology 

Philip C. Bom

Much discussion has swirled around Senator Obama as the first African-American president. He is not, however, in the tradition of African-American politicians like New York Governor Paterson. If elected, Obama will make history with his Third World-ism perspective. His agenda will include sharing human, natural and financial resources as well as intellectual property rights with developing countries. His Africa-centered framework for development and his social gospel faith, which shape his agenda, warrant examination.

Historically, American presidential foreign policy has been so-called “euro-centered” based on a Judeo-Christian perspective of politics, law, and economics. President Obama will continue to enhance relations with Europe but will strategically seek to bring about an inter-connectivity between America and Africa and an integral partnership of the continents.

Obama’s whole-world view is different. He sees America and its place from his Leftist ideology and black liberation theology. If the late European socialist Olof Palme was radicalized merely by his travels in Asia and Africa, you can image how Obama’s outlook has been shaped by his roots in Africa and early education in Asia. 

Obama is not un-American; he is simply non-American in his global outlook. His views are not racist, but class based. From his left-of-liberal ideology, he envisions the transformation of the world and of America. He will move beyond the Clinton-Bush agenda for African development and will seek a transcontinental American–African partnership.

From a trans-Africa global perspective, Obama does not merely want to help develop democratic states but to invest in constructing new economic democracy in Africa and “building just, secure, democratic societies” on all continents. (Foreign Affairs July/August 2007)

His approach to human rights reflects a leftist perspective in the tradition of the 1981 African Charter a declaration of “Human and Peoples’ Rights.” While African civilization cherishes tribal community rights, the promotion of peoples’ rights is an import by African Marxists educated abroad. The Charter proclaims that “the satisfaction of economic, social and cultural rights is a guarantee for the enjoyment of civil and political rights….”

Obama agrees with the above Leftist ideology. From his perspective, “freedom from want and freedom from fear – are prerequisites for all others.” (The Audacity of Hope, 317 AH) He turns President FDR’s priorities upside down, as President Roosevelt believed that the fundamental freedom of religion is the cornerstone of social–economic opportunities and cultural expressions.

An ideological bridge between continents is already provided by the Leftist TransAfrica Forum, a liberation movement which seeks to promote political and economic democracy in Africa and the Americas. More accurately, the movement is active in the Americas, including Columbia and Venezuela. According to the Forum’s website, “We believe the success of Afro-Americans is bound up with the emancipation of all African peoples and also other dependent peoples and laboring classes everywhere.” (www.transafricaforum.org/about-u)

In order to achieve this “emancipation,” the movement promotes “progressive viewpoints in the United States foreign policy arena, … advocates justice for the people of Africa and the African Diaspora … [and] promotes solidarity with the oppressed … where people of African descent reside.”

With Obama’s encouragement, doors could open for the African Diaspora to find solidarity with indigenous peoples in the Americas. In South America, African-Venezuelans could seek solidarity with indigenous peoples in Bolivia and Columbia. Together, they could liberate themselves from the oppression by European Americans. In North America, those of African descent could stand in solidarity with First Nations and take steps to suppress the old Anglo-Saxon power structures.

It is revealing that the progressive Obama downplays national sovereignty, but his Party’s platform promises almost full political sovereignty to our “First” Nations peoples. It affirms “tribal sovereignty” and pledges to host “an annual summit with Indian leaders,” as if these leaders were a third federal level of “government-to-government relationship….” This plan to expand their sovereignty opens the door to potential civil war, as in the case of Bolivia.

With such threats in mind, President Obama will pursue a rights and duty strategy by seeking to unite peoples into “a world that stands as one,” a world that transcend races, religions, and regions. He has religious roots in three continents, but his political ideology is grounded in a “global faith” in world humanism and human development.

Reflecting on his religious experiences, Obama recalls that in “our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology.”  He grew up in “a country that easily blended its Islamic faith with remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions.” (AH,203,204)

Unlike most liberal democrats, Obama takes religion seriously. In Indonesia he was educated in an Islamic public school and can still recite parts of the Koran and say Islamic prayers. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim in America, provided one believes in the constitutional separation of state and mosque. He was attracted to his church in Chicago by its involvement in community organizing and its teaching of “collective salvation.” (AH,207) Under the preaching of his pastor, Obama was steeped in black liberation theology which is not a typical American social gospel.

Obama is defined by his left-of-liberal ideology which provides him with an authentic identity. This ideology has given him a bona fide identity as a “global citizen.” He may not envision a religious syncretism, but all religions must be synchronized before the world can “stand as one.” He envisions one broad social gospel as the spiritual foundation for global community-building and global civilization.

Obama is a man of many religious traditions but one ideology. His presidency may be faith-based, but his fundamentalist faith is in global humanism. He is a global shaman whose mission is to unite everyone, every people group, every country and continent. He proudly proclaimed at the mass rally in Berlin: “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand.  These now are the walls we must tear down.” (Berlin speech July 24, 2008) To tear those walls down, citizens of the world must become one in global outlook.

In his global presidency, there will be no Western or Eastern civilization – no sovereign America – just one great human family on planet earth.

Philip C. Bom is a professor of International Politics at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA.

Anyone interested in reading more of Dr. Bom's keen insights into international relations should purchase his 1992 book entitled, "The Coming Century of Commonism:  The Beauty and the Beast of Global Governance."

"Senator Obama Could Well Become Our First Planetary President."

I recently received an e-mail from a beloved former graduate school professor of mine (and thesis adviser) who has played an instrumental role in how I think about matters of public policy in general, and international relations in particular.  The e-mail came with an attachment to an op-ed that my former professor, Dr. Philip Bom, has penned on what an Obama administration would mean for U.S. sovereignty and America's role in the world.  I'm am posting Dr. Bom's article below:

Planetary President Obama
Philip C. Bom

Senator Obama could well become our first planetary president.

Traditional bipartisan US foreign policy has been one of collective international security of independent nation states. In other words, nations cooperate together as independent countries to maintain international peace. This is in direct contrast to the world-order concept of “common security.”

Candidate Obama heralds change and hope, but his ideological message reads like a “copy and paste” from documents written by socialists of the past century. He presents himself as a new politician but has adopted an old “world order” agenda. Obama’s policies will certainly produce change—but a fundamental change which will shock most Americans.
 
The Democratic Party’s platform (authored by Senator Obama’s policy director) reads like a planetary manifesto for a new global order.

Senator Obama himself has said he seeks to provide “a world that stands as one” with “global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity” (Berlin speech and Foreign Affairs article, July/August 2007, FA). As president, Obama promises to “strengthen our common security by investing in our common humanity.”

Obama adopts the old framework of international socialists. He jettisons the traditional meaning of security and adopts the view of democracy as social economic democracy. In his writings and speeches, Obama consistently calls for “building just, secure, democratic societies (FA).”

Senator Obama ties the concept of national security to global poverty. In the FA article, Obama claims that “the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need.” He has the audacity to proclaim: “Like it or not, if we want to make America more secure, we are going to have to help make the world more secure” (AH, 304). For him, global security means eliminating world poverty.

According to the 1995 Commission on Global Governance (CGG), “…the security of people must be regarded as a goal as important as the security of states.”  In addition, “The primary goals of global security should be … the security of people and the planet.” The Democratic Party platform adopts this definition of national security (encompassing environmental security). The platform proudly promotes “Protecting our Security and Saving our Planet” as if they are one and the same. “We understand that climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern—this is a national security crisis.” 

Yet, while Obama promises to protect the American people, how often does he promise to protect the USA as an independent nation state? Following the ideology of CGG, he blurs the distinction between our national homeland and “our human homeland.” 

As noted, however, Obama’s political ideas are hardly novel. Concepts and phrases (e.g. common humanity; common security; one world; economic security) in his speeches and in the platform can be found in the agendas of international socialists like the late Willy Brandt and Olof Palme. Even Obama’s words of “change” and “hope” date back to 1981.

In the 1980 Commission on International Development Issues report, Chairman Brandt made “a plea for change.”  He yearned for a new generation that would “liberate people from outworn ideas, from the grip of narrowly conceived national interests and from the passions and prejudices inherited from the past. A new international economic order will need men and women with a new mentality and wider outlook to make it work….”  In his nomination speech, Obama agrees with Brandt on the “need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.”

Going back even further, the 1974 Charter for a New International Economic Order sought to establish a “just and equitable economic and social order” and promoted “economic security for development, in particular of the developing countries.” A few years later, Brandt advocated “steps along the path to what could genuinely be called a society of nations, a new world order” based on international economic justice (redistribution of wealth and power among all nations).  Note the similarity with Obama’s words: “sharing more of our riches to help those most in need.”

Brandt believed that world politics should move beyond an UN organization of nation states “towards a genuine society of nations.” In addition, the 1975 Human Manifesto rejected the principle of independent nation states and pledged to place “the human interest above the national interest, and human sovereignty above national sovereignty.” This is exactly what Obama has done in his emphasis on defending the American people (versus defending the USA as an independent nation state).

National security was redefined decades ago. The late international socialist, Olof Palme, (Chairman of the Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues) advanced a new definition. “The security – even the existence – of the nations of the world is interdependent.”  The report elaborated by stating “… that nations must come to understand that the maintenance of world peace must be given a higher priority than the assertion of their own ideological or political positions.”  “Common security requires that people live in dignity and peace, that they have enough to eat and are able to find work and live in a world without poverty and destitution.”

Brandt hoped that a future leader would arise from “among the young generations who will soon carry major political responsibility.” It seems that Obama may well be that New Leader for whom Brandt hoped.

Senator Clinton may be liberal Democrat, but the left-of-liberal Obama captured the Party nomination as a hero of hope and change. However, upon closer examination, his message of change and hope is anchored in old socialist doctrines. Obama launched his political career as a local community organizer. If elected, he will affirm his career as the great global community organizer—and will fulfill the dreams of world socialists like Brandt and Palme.

The great New Leader’s “heart is filled with love for this country” (AH, 362).  On the other hand, his political head is filled with love for a new global order. He appears to be enthralled with dreams of global transformation through common security, economic security, and economic democracy—concepts foreign to traditional American international policy. He could very well be a good UN Secretary General, but to entrust him with American presidential leadership will be a bridge too far. If elected, it will mean the end of America’s political, military, and legal independence.

Philip C. Bom is a professor of International Politics at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA.

Anyone interested in reading more of Dr. Bom's keen insights into international relations should purchase his 1992 book entitled, "The Coming Century of Commonism:  The Beauty and the Beast of Global Governance."

Obama Campaign Confirms Account of Iraqi Foreign Minister

In a shocking development, the Obama campaign has confirmed that Senator Obama tried to undermine negotiations between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government over military force levels. 

It's Time For NATO To Expand

Georgia and Ukraine need to be fast-tracked into NATO to quell any further Russian belligerence in the region.  The question of a speedy inclusion within NATO for these two countries needs to become a central issue of the presidential campaign.  The American people deserve to fully understand where Senators McCain and Obama stand with regard to the reassertion and growth of Russian power and territorial ambition.

Obama: Keep Russia in G-8

John McCain wants to toss Russia out of the G-8, partly as a consequence of Russia's invasion of Georgia.  Barack Obama doesn't.   Here's his reason why:

"Look, if we're going to do something about nuclear proliferation, just to take one issue that I think is as important as any on the list, we've got to have Russia involved," the Illinois senator said.

"The amount of loose nuclear material that is floating around in the former Soviet Union, the amount of technical know-how that is in countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain, without Russia's cooperation, our efforts in that on that front will be greatly weakened."

Maybe Senator Obama believes that those loose nuclear materials will be best secured after Russia soaks up all those former Soviet Republics like gravy on toast.

Russia Roars

Vladimir Putin has removed any semblance of doubt that the Russian bear is back and aggressively clawing for territory.  The invasion of a neighboring, democratic nation at a time when the world has come together to celebrate the Olympic spirit is especially galling.  I find it difficult to believe that, insofar as Russia's aggression is likely motivated by territorial conquest, Georgia will be the last conquest as Russia seeks to reassemble some of the land it lost with the collapse of the USSR.