Showing posts with label Anonymous Political Scientist blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anonymous Political Scientist blog. Show all posts

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Here At Last: PJMedia Welcomes Dr. Drew as Blogger

As you may know, I am very honored to have my first article appear in PJMedia this afternoon. This is a top-notch publication which supports the work done by the on-line television programs of PJTV. This article was called, "Barack Obama's Marxist Ghosts of Christmas Past."

This imaginative title inspired a series of cartoons from Chris Muir over at Day By Day Cartoon.



All in all, I'm grateful that we are going into the 2012 presidential campaign with a lot more visibility regarding Obama's past than was the case in 2008. Back then, no one knew I existed for that my story could be verified. Now, it is up and running at American Thinker, Brietbart.com and PJMedia. It looks like my testimony of young Obama's ideological extremism is now available despite the mainstream media.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Obama Fail: Media Dumbfounded by Obama's Lies About His Kenyan Birth

I have been thinking that if Obama had a son, he would tell him to pretend to be born in Kenya too. 

All in all, it is really strange to read the dysfunctional liberal group think in the mainstream media when it comes to the news that Obama's book agent promoted him by saying he was born in Kenya. It is unthinkable that this copy was not run by Obama for approval. That’s not how that book agent business works.

We know, as a matter of fact, that liberals like Elizabeth Warren lie about their ethnic status to get ahead in the world of academic affirmative action. It is not surprising that Obama did the same by touting his supposed Kenyan birthplace. This latest story is a great confirmation about a long-standing pattern in Obama’s life – lying about his past.

For the record, Obama lied about the closeness of his relationship with Bill Ayers. He lied about listening to Rev. Wright’s extremist, anti-white hate speech. Obama lied about his political views at Occidental College hiding the fact that he was an out and out Marxist-Leninist when I met him in 1980. Obama lied in Dreams about seeing an article about a black man who had bleached his own skin. Obama lied in Dreams about his “composite” girlfriend, Geneveive Cook. He lied about her background, her ties to Indonesia, her Australian heritage – even the color of her eyes. Obama lied about Cook breaking into tears because she could never be black.

Obama is a serial liar. He hid his intense relationship with convicted felon Anthony Rezko until FBI surveillance revealed the full extent of this relationship. Obama does not have the integrity needed to succeed as president. Those who justify his lying about his Kenyan birth are defending a man who is not worthy of their time and attention.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Not So Bright for a Liberal Prodigy: Dr. Drew Dismantles Nate Silver's Attack on Political Science Election Forecast Models

As a student of charismatic leadership, I'm usually skeptical about the so-called "prodigies" so admired by the leftwing media outlets like the New York Times.  Consequently, I like to think that I was the political scientist who first got under Nate Silver's skin in terms of pulling apart his arrogant predictions of electoral results based on last minute polling data.  I suggested that it really wasn't very interesting to predict elections results from polling data since all we were doing was assuming that the voters would not do much to change their minds between now and the upcoming election. Silver, by the way, rose to fame as a predictor of baseball outcomes.

Nevertheless, young guys like Nate Silver and Ezra Klein have been elevated by the liberal media because of their style of writing has a sort of pseudo-science quality about it which - I suppose - is the only plausible justification for having a young white guy writing for a liberal, extremist entity.  When you look into their credentials, for example, there is not to much to be impressed by their records.  Klien only earned a B.A. in political science at University of California - Irvine.  In 2000, Silver graduated with Honors with an A.B. degree in economics from the University of Chicago. Only in the crazy world of leftwing journalism is either one considered an expert.

As far as I'm concerned both of them are still undergraduates when it comes to understanding politics, economics or sociology.  As such, I enjoy poking holes in their pretentious, arrogant takes on contemporary politics.  As a political scientist and an eyewitness to young Obama's ideological extremism, I'm particularly irritated that folks like Silver and Klein do not seem to appreciate what is obvious to most of us: Obama's extraordinary ties to radical Marxist socialist thought. 

As part of my larger effort to bring these "prodigies" to Earth, I left a comment for Silver months ago that pointed out that political scientists could predict presidential elections far in advance simply by looking at variables like the economy or the success or failure of a war.  In reaction to my critique, Silver has launched a full scale attack against the very idea of political science and the usefulness of making predictions far in advance.  In one of his most recent articles, for example, the title of his article makes the absurd claim that political scient models based on ‘fundamentals’ have "failed" at predicting presidential elections.  This headline, of course, is absurd when you consider, as John Sides writes:

Of the 58 separate predictions that Nate tabulates, 85 percent of them correctly identified the winner — even though most forecasts were made two months or more before the election and even though few of these forecasts actually incorporated trial heat polls from the campaign.


Sides, by the way, is a political scientist who uses these forecasting models himself and sees them as ways of testing overall theory. The larger issue, for me, is that Silver's comments reflect the odd anti-intellectual bias of the left-wing media.  As far as I can tell, the most interesting, powerful and predictive work in political science is coming from conservatives like the late James Q. Wilson or Charles Murray.  Personally, I'm sort of proud that my modest contribution to political science - my child labor, child welfare theory - does such a great job of predicting when and where child welfare programs arose in the U.S. and around the world.

All in all, I'm skeptical of guys like Silver who exaggerate their skill sets to the extent that they imagine that their comments "sit at the intersection of political science and the mainstream media." As an award-winning political scientist, I think common sense alone suggests that a fellow writing for the NYT would be anxious to look for anything to back up his fellow liberals' hope that the horrible "Obama economy" will not cause Obama's defeat in 2012. As a real, published political scientist I have the following comments:

1. A Real Political Scientist Doesn't Play Games with the Dependent Variable: It is silly for him to change the dependent variable to one that the authors of these models don't hold to simply because Silver says, "I’ve always found this choice to be counterintuitive." Silver's bizarre new dependent variable, however, helps him make his case because, as he writes, this choice "increases the error rate of the models so that they are about twice as large."

2. A Real Political Scientist Pays Attention to The Comparative Political Science Literature: If the connection between the economy and election results was as tenuous as Silver suggests, then the comparative date should support Silver's thesis.

3. A Real Political Scientist Understands that the Data is the Variable: In truth, there are no special, unmeasurable things when it comes to political science.  In the end, the data says what the data says. The bottom line is that the economy matters a great deal when it comes to predicting presidential election because of what we know about voters, not what we know about linear regression models. This is bad news for Obama and his supporters.  Those of us who really understand economics and politics predicted as early as January 2009 that the stimulus package would fail, that the economy would remain poor longer than Obama expected, and that this would doom his chances for a second term.  Thankfully, one of the benefits of age is that you get better at political science, not worse.

Being a prodigy is great, but - in the end - there is no substitute for long years of specialized study in your field of expertise.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Dr. Drew Speaks Out at SOC912: Obama's Past More Important Than His Future

As you may know, my take on young Obama's ideological extremism has appeared in at least four books including Stanley Kurtz's meticulously researched Radical-In-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. I've even been featured on the Fox News website. Nevertheless, I have never been on television with my story.  I've been featured in radio shows by Michael Savage and Neal Boortz, but I have not been able to penetrate the slightest edges of the mainstream video. As you will see in the following videos, it may be I'm not ready for prime time.


In a set of new YouTube videos, Mike Munzing has recorded one of my most complete, and lengthy talks on my intellectual path, my first impressions of the young Obama, my debate with Obama on Marxist theory and contemporary politics, and my take on the mysteries of the Obama biography. 

I think my main point is that Stanley Kurtz got my part of the narrative exactly right. As Kurtz points out, on pages 9-10 of his book, my take on Obama's Marxist socialist ideology was first published by NewsMax in February 2010. Later, my perspective was validated by a liberal author, David Remnick, who reported that Obama and many of his closest friends at Occidental College were socialists. Accordingly, in these new video tapes I articulate my views on the young Marxist-Leninist friends of Barack Obama including his sophomore year roommate Hasan Chandoo and my ex-girlfriend, Caroline Boss, who was the co-president of the Democrat Socialist Alliance at Occidental in 1980/1981. I'm still amazed that my testimony has not been featured on a television program.


At any rate, the second video in this series contains my controversial, politically incorrect first impression of young Obama and his friend Hasan Chandoo.  All in all, I think my take is original and refreshing compared to accounts in almost all the other early Obama literature.  (I've been reading these book as part of my effort to better understand how Obama fooled so many people into thinking he was always a pragmatic centrist.) While Kurtz's account is the most detailed and supported work on young Obama to date, I don't think liberals really appreciate the quality of Kurtz's account or what Jeffrey Hurt calls Obama's deep dishonesty. I think liberals are too quick to ignore voices like mine concerning the young Obama's ideological perspective.


Nevertheless, there is still very little media attention focused on Obama's long-standing ties to ideological extremists.  To remedy this, my good friend Mike Munzing videotaped my recent speech to the South Orange County 9-12 Group.  There are four videos in total.  I'm expecting that they will be useful to opposition researchers seeking to understand the reality of Obama's Marxist socialist roots. I'm particularly encouraged by the third video which discusses how I got out of my Marxist socialist ideology and ask where is Obama's conversion story?

I thought it got better as I made my way through the speech.  Check out the question and answer period for some of the most crowd pleasing moments.



One of the most interesting things about the evening is that Orly Taitz was in the audience.  You can hear her question in the question and answer portion of the YouTube video. Meanwhile, I can report that Investors Business Daily is aware of my face-to-face testimony on the young Barack Obama - I expect it will make a difference in 2012.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Republican Challenger John Webb Scores Big Victory Over Congressman John Campbell

I just witnessed a remarkable political event.  This evening, the Orange County Republican Central Committee (OCGOP) denied its endorsement of a Republican incumbent, Rep. John Campbell.  To win the local GOP endorsement Campbell needed a 2/3 majority of the elected central committee members.  His effort fell short by just one vote. 


The evening began with roll call, recognition for elected officials and extraordinary volunteers.  Out of all the endorsements given out this evening, Campbell was the only incumbent facing a challenger - Republican candidate John Webb. 

As you may know, John Webb is new to politics.  He served in the United States Marine Corps and has been a California highway patrolman, and a police officer. In the private sector, John was a corporate executive with State Farm Insurance Company and currently owns and operates a successful insurance brokerage.  Locally, John has become a favorite among Tea Party activists.  I was honored, for example, when he asked me to be the keynote speaker at his upcoming fundraising event this Thursday evening. 

Rep. Campbell spoke first.  He stressed his role in warning about California's budget crisis and the significant role he played nationally in fighting against earmarks.  Campbell looked nervous and a little hyper-active with his edgy, scruffy beard.  Next, John Webb spoke.  Webb came across as calm, friendly, self-deprecating in his humility and honesty.  It quickly became obvious, however, that the most vocal members of the crowd were rooting for Webb to stop Campbell's effort to win the endorsement of the local Republican party. 

Webb, in particular, contrasted his views with Campbells saying that he would have voted against TARP and against allowing gays to serve openly in the military.  Graciously, Webb said that he did not want to attack Campbell.  He merely said that he offered a different "skill set" that was more appropriate to the new conditions faced by the Republican party and warned that voters would lose faith in the Republicans if we did not offer candidates who held tightly to strong conservative ideology. 

In the end, the OCGOP appeared divided over endorsing Campbell.  A number of speakers, for example, expressed unhappiness that Rep. Cambell had not spent more time in the district and had only conducted one townhall event.  Campbell sort of made things worse by suggesting that since he had more time to focus on issues as a member of Congress that he was the recipient of better and higher quality information than those in the audience who doubted the wisdom of his decisions. 

(I sort of took it as a personal attack when Campbell suggested that Webb was "pandering" to people in the district.  I really don't think that Webb's welcoming of my message was anything but a straightforward recognition that I'm telling the truth about young Obama's radical extremist ideology.  I don't see Webb pandering to me or to all the others who see Obama as a significant threat to the fundamental tenets of American culture and traditional economic success.)

In the end, OCGOP Chairman Scott Baugh asked the elected central committee members stand to record their votes and Campbell fell short of securing the endorsement.  Campbell got 41 votes for his endorsement, but needed 42 of the 63 total votes cast.  I have no doubt this will be big news around the nation tomorrow and that it will send a signal that plenty of people back home in Orange County are unhappy with Rep. Campbell's performance in office. 

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Andrew Breitbart Announces He Has College Video of Young Obama's Radical Perspective

I just got some amazing news this evening.  Apparently, Andrew Breitbart has video of young Obama in action which will document Obama's commitment to class conflict and racial division.  I'm expecting that these videos will provide further confirmation of what I've been saying since 2008 - that young Obama was a committed Marxist socialist looking forward to a socialist future. 



Up until now, I have enjoyed the fact that my take on young Obama's ideological extremism was supported by the newest developments in the Obama literature - especially by Stanley Kurtz's book, Radical-In-Chief.  I've always known that if I had pictures of me with young Obama, video, or audio tape of him discussing Marxist ideology that there would have been greater interest in my story in 2008. 

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Dr. Drew to Speak on Young Obama's Marxist Socialist Ideology at Fundraiser for OC Republican John Webb

As you may know, John Webb is a Republican candidate for California’s 45th congressional district.  I'm very honored that he has decided to feature my take on young Obama's ties to Marxist socialist ideology at his upcoming fundraising event in nearby Laguna Hills, CA. 


The title of my speech will be “Have You Ever Wondered About President Obama’s Ideological Beliefs While Attending Occidental College?”

As a graduate of Occidental College and a former Marxist who met the young Obama, I think I can offer unusually clear and compelling insight into President Obama's ideological ties to the Marxist socialist left and help clarify where Obama wants to lead our nation if he is re-elected in 2012.  My college ex-girlfriend was co-president of the Democrat Socialist Alliance while young Obama was a sophomore at Occidental College.  She was one of the three featured speakers at the famous anti-apartheid event at Occidental College in Feburary 1981 where Obama made a brief appearance in a skit.  One of the other speakers was Obama's college roommate, the admitted Marxist socialist, Hasan Chandoo.  I can verify that both Obama and Chandoo were ardent Marxists when I hung out with them and debated the finer points of Marxist theory. 

This crucial fundraising event will take place at 6:45 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Thursday, February 23, 2012.  I'll be speaking at the Laguna Hills Community Center, Heritage Room “C” 25555 Alicia Parkway, Laguna Hills, CA.

The pricing for this event seems very reasonable to me.  If you RSVP before February 10 the tickets are $25 for individuals and $35 for couples.  If you RSVP on or after February 10 the price moves up to $40 for individuals and $50 for couples.

To get your tickets to this first ever fundraising event for John Webb, you can make a donation online at http://www.johnwebb2012.net/ or purchase your tickets at the door.  (If you purchase your ticket online, they will ask you to present your John Webb for Congress donation receipt at the door for entry.)

As you would expect, contributions to John Webb for Congress are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Corporate contributions are prohibited. Contributions from foreign nationals are not permitted. Federal law requires them to use their best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contributions exceed $200 in an election cycle.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Monday, December 26, 2011

Dr. Drew Reacts: Debunking Leftist Fogbow Propaganda

I thought it would be a good idea to debunk the false statements made about me at the famous Fogbow website.  For a look at the real people and the real names of the folks posting anonymously at Fogbow, please check out the excellent YouTube video at LiveLeak called Who's Who of Blog Talk Radio and The Fogbow Obots aka Obama's Brown Shirts.


First, the Fogbow Obots assert that I have described myself as a "classmate" of young Obama.  This, of course, is completely untrue.  I have always made it clear that I was a graduate student from Cornell who was visiting friends from Occidental College when I met young Obama.  Nevertheless, this initial lie tells you a lot about the ruthlessness and disregard for the truth which seems common at the Fogbow website.

On the basis of this untruthful claim, the Fogbow people pretend to catch me in a lie simply by repeating my basic statements.  For my full report on meeting young Obama, see my first article in American Thinker called Meeting Young Obama. 

Second, the folks at Fogbow try to make me look foolish by saying that I believe Obama is still a Marxist socialist simply due to the brief exposure I had to his ideas when Obama was a sophomore at Occidental College.  They write:
Based on spending just a few hours with the President when he was 19 years old, in a relaxed social setting at an age when most students enjoy exploring and trying new ideas and thoughts, Drew concluded the President was and still is a radical Marxist.
I would have to be mentally ill to say that I base my take on Obama today simply on my face-to-face exposure to young Obama's ideological extremism.  My take on President Obama's abiding commitment to Marxist socialist thought is based on a combination of factors including 1) his ties to Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Sen. Alice Palmer in the 1990s, 2) the lack of a conversion story in the Obama presidential history which would indicate he dropped his youthful radicalism, and 3) the continuing rhetoric coming from Obama - as a candidate and as president - which indicates a profound commitment to a class conflict model of economic development and an out and out hostility to our traditional U.S. economic system. 

I have also provided detailed rebuttals to the inaccurate information being promoted by one of the members of the Fogbow website, Anna Stoddard, who is the blogger at "Oh For Goodness Sake."  For example, I immediately responded to Stoddard initial attack on me - which she posted on February 17, 2010 - where she made the bizarre suggestion that I worked for Ann Coulter while she was an undergraduate student at Cornell University.  You can see my response in this article at my own blog site. 

In addition, I also responded immediately to further bizarre comments made by Anna Stoddard on March 10, 2011 which made the even more bizarre suggestion that I should have known that Obama drove a red Fiat when, in truth, I made it very clear in my own work that the fancy car I saw Obama riding in when I first met him was owned by his wealthy Pakistani friend, Hasan Chandoo.  You can see my rebuttal to this silly idea in this article at my own blog site.  As far as I can tell, Stoddard is an elderly retired lady currently living in Mexico.  I think the silly mistakes in her blog show that she is spending too much of her retirement money on things that are killing her brain cells.

The folks at Fogbow like to position themselves as journalists who have a more accurate take on reality than their conservative opponents.  All I can say is that the Fogbow folks have a history of creating false documents and conducting dirty tricks.  Based on the gap between my real story and their out and out lies, I would think no one should take the folks at Fogbow seriously when it comes to getting the facts out about the young Obama.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Augustine25


The bright moon of March 19 inspired this year’s Christmas card. We still remember how we drove around town to find a high spot to view a rare moment when the Earth, Moon and Sun were all in alignment and the Moon was at its nearest approach to the Earth in 18 years.

Moon Lit Christmas Eve by John C. Drew, Ph.D.  Acryllic on canvas December, 2011.
In a similar manner, we spent much of the year in the grasp of economic and political forces beyond our control and uplifted by some powerful figures that disrupted our thinking and introduced us to better ideas. The tidal waves began in early January when we drove up to Beverly Hills to meet Stanley Kurtz and heard him speak about his new book, Radical-In-Chief, at David Horowitz’s Wednesday Morning Club. Kurtz credited John’s report on young Obama’s ideological views for encouraging him to research Obama’s beliefs.

Online, John debated MSNBC pundits like Ezra Klein and Keith Olbermann. Locally, Mike Munzing pulled John down to Earth and into local politics to serve as his alternate on the Orange County Republican Central Committee. With Mike’s help, John shared his own story at speeches to the Republican Women’s Federated Clubs in Laguna Niguel, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano.

Jay McDowell, a corporate-level business coach, brought order and discipline to our small business. With Jay’s guidance, we made changes including recruiting three new grant writing associates, finding a new grant researcher, and setting up new business management systems such as Foundation Search, Drop Box and QuickBooks. John’s speaking schedule took him to Anchorage, Alaska where he saw moose roaming the streets. “The moose are a nuisance and they are out to kill,” he said.

The year ended with a surprising bang as we won a number of new contracts for grant writing services. We are celebrating with jazz piano Christmas music and fresh baked cinnamon raison oatmeal cookies – even as our home is buffeted by strong winds. Although we remember 2011 as a year in which we were stirred and shaken, we are nevertheless pleased to top it off by wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Giving Up All My Secrets: Dr. Drew Interviewed by Historian David J. Garrow

I'm honored to announce I was just interviewed by Pulitzer Prize winning historian, David J. Garrow, even though I suspect that anyone who stepped foot on the Occidental College campus and met young Obama between 1979-1981 has received a similar visit. 




In my case, it was a particularly humbling experience. Right now, I feel like I endured a trip to the dentist. When I first heard from Prof. Garrow by e-mail I was not sure it was really him. I checked out some of his YouTube videos and then asked him to give me a call so I could be sure I was talking to the real guy and not some deranged Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protester.

As you may know, Garrow is the winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Biography and the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award.  His book, Bearing the cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was probably the most comprehensive book written about the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

At first, I was not certain it was a good idea to speak to him or not.  I called around to some of my friends and quickly figured out that although Garrow is a liberal he does have a reputation for doing fair and accurate historical work.  In Bearing the Cross, for example, he reported on how Martin Luther King, Jr. cheated on his wife and the impact that FBI disclosures of this information impacted the last three years of King's life. 

Garrow taped his interview of me.  My understanding is that nothing I said will be published until President Obama is out of office.

Nevertheless, it is not often that you meet with a presidential historian and I was a little startled by the experience.  To start off, I was surprisingly nervous.  I almost dumped a glass of ice tea on him.  It was also surprisingly unpleasant.  I prepped for the interview by sorting through old photographs and rereading about 30 old notes and letters from the 1980-1981 era of my life.  It was a shocking reminder of the emotional immaturity of my early 20's.  I confessed to one of my friends, for example, that my ratings as an instructor in the political science department at Cornell University had improved since the last semester because I had stopped laughing out loud at the students who said stupid things. 

I also found out that presidential historians have an awkward role in informing people of the deaths of those who used to be in their social circles.  In my case, I discovered that one of the Occidental College radical leaders I knew, Gary Chapman, 58, had died of a heart attack last December.  I had mentioned Chapman as a prominent leader of the student anti-apartheid movement in Meeting Young Obama earlier this year.

Nevertheless, Garrow made it pleasant to reminisce about old friends and to learn who got married to who, who succeeded in life, and who crashed and burned in a spectacular fashion. My attitude, of course, is that I'm going to be deceased for a lot longer than I have lived and consequently I provided him with my complete honesty - flaws and all. 

At a certain point, I have decided, you can no longer feel embarrassment for the things you have done, you can only expect future generations will learn from your mistakes.  

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Monday, July 4, 2011

Dr. Drew Debates MSNBC's Ezra Klein on the Obama Stimulus Package

I started with Quora about seven days ago.  I already have 150 followers, so I guess I'm doing something right.  I was a little startled to bump into Ezra Klein, 27, from MSNBC.  Ezra only has a BA degree in Political Science from UCLA and I've been teasing him about his lack of expertise relative to a person like me. Here's a bit of the debate that I cleaned up.  I have also included a link to Klein's sheepish follow-up article in the Washington Post.  It is amazing to me that this inexperienced guy is featured so prominently on MSNBC - he really does not have the sort of credentials or practical experience needed to make sense of the data he is looking at.  It is sort of a textbook case of dangerous, misguided liberalism in action. 

Ezra Klein's Initial Post Attracts Quora Attention

Klein: I've come to think "what size should it have been" is, to some degree, the wrong question. At the time, Christina Romer and Larry Summers believed it should be $1.2 trillion, but the consensus was nothing that could be called "a trillion-dollar spending bill" would pass Congress. But even that $1.2 trillion was too small. We simply didn't have the economic data we needed to make a good judgment. That's the period when the administration disastrously predicted that, with the stimulus, unemployment would never pass 8 percent. If they'd known what was actually happening in the economy, they'd have known it would be above 8 percent before the stimulus even began. But the data has a lag. They did their best.

But there's something to be said for not getting in front of the data, and perhaps even for erring on the side of caution with these policies (I'm more of a shock and awe guy when it comes to combatting financial crises of unknown, but clearly large, magnitudes, but I see how reasonable people can disagree). The real problem wasn't that it wasn't big enough to start, when we didn't know the size of the recession, but that it wasn't made bigger when we did know the size of the recession. Indeed, the underpowered stimulus ended up discrediting itself, and instead of realizing we needed more, the fact that we were still seeing tremendous joblessness gave the opposition party an opportunity to argue that we needed less. It's as if we took too few antibiotics, and finding the disease still present, decided to give up on antibiotics altogether.

Dr. Drew to Another Quora User Regarding Klein's Unusual Post

Drew: Your liberal arrogance is showing. :-) I have Ph.D. in political science. I'm a published author in the field. I've taught at one of the best schools in the nation. There is no way you could have the same expertise as me with "a lot of work." Your comment is almost endearing if it wasn't sadly representative of the flawed thinking of many liberals.

If you look closely, you'll see that all Ezra is doing is citing other people.

He isn't even aware of the Japanese example and hasn't read a book like Burton Fulsom's Raw Deal. This sort of knowledge takes time...and it isn't taught to undergraduates at UCLA.

Political science, unlike physics, is one of those topics that you get better on with age and maturity. To be sure, I did my most creative and influential work while I was in my mid-20s...no one else had figured out the connection between child labor law enforcement and early U.S. welfare programs prior to me in political science. Nevertheless, I'm light-years ahead of where I was as a young man when it comes to predicting political events.

The bottom line is that I predicted the failure of the stimulus package thanks to my expertise. I don't think Ezra can make the same claim to having any predictive power in his political science observations.

Ezra Klein's Response to Dr. Drew's Comments

Klein: Without getting too deep into this, I think this conversation substantially mistakes the role of both expertise and journalists. For one thing, a degree in political science -- whether PhD or BA -- is not relevant to analyzing the macroeconomic effects of the stimulus. You'd want to ask a PhD economist for that.

Which is what I spend my time doing. I don't have, myself, a particular take on whether stimulus works or doesn't work. But I have the accumulated weight of many, many conversations with many, many topnotch economics from both sides of the aisle -- not to mention a lot of time spent reading the research and commentary on these subjects -- and what I present here, and in my other work, is my best read of the evidence. I might be wrong, or they might be wrong, but that's what journalists bring to these conversations: not our own expertise, per se, but the aggregate wisdom of the experts who give us their time and provide us with information. I wouldn't answer a question on physics because I don't talk to many physicists and have no way of accurately assessing the empirical work on various studies.

(And more specifically, the case of Japan is a complicated one, but those who've studied it, like Ben Bernanke and Adam Pozen and, for that matter, Paul Krugman, tend to think that the problem was inconsistent and underpowered policy responses, which is why they tend to advocate for more stimulus rather than less. Indeed, it's the people most familiar with Japan who've been most frustrated at the policymakers who are repeating their mistakes of doing too little, for too short a period of time.)

(And to your point, Craig, I think the evidence is that the stimulus has worked quite well, though not as well as its supporters hoped, but that it was also too small. If someone is very hungry and they have a hamburger, they might not be full, but that doesn't mean the hamburger did a bad job.)

Dr. Drew's Response to Ezra Klein

Drew: As an ex-Democrat, ex-Marxist, ex-friend of Barack Obama, I've been slowly won over to the conservative side that I once ridiculed at Occidental College and at Cornell University. Trust me. I'm not unsympathetic to your point of view.

Nevertheless, I don't buy your bizarre suggestion that you don't have a "take" on whether the stimulus package was too big or too small. Like Rep. Weiner, you seem to believe that you can tell an outright lie and get away with it. :-)  He could not, neither can you.

Nevertheless, I can say with much greater authority than you that your belief in the success of the Obama stimulus package is misplaced and completely wrong. The fact that I and a lot of other political economists predicted its failure - and explained why such policies have always failed (even during the New Deal) - gives conservative thought much greater credibility than your ability to pretend objectivity, call people on the phone and ask them questions.

As you mature and grow intellectually, I think you'll find that the truth has a funny way of winning in the end. I expect that swing voters have now had a harsh lesson in the simple truth that government stimulus programs always fail.

Ezra Klein Does More Interviewing

Klein: Update: Answering this question got me interested in looking into this more deeply, so I asked Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, two of the architects of the stimulus, for their answer:

Could we have had a bigger stimulus?

“A rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation is that $100 billion of stimulus creates 1 million jobs for 1 year (or reduces the unemployment rate by about 1/2 percentage point for a year),” Romer told me over e-mail. “So, if we needed to reduce the unemployment rate another 2 percentage points for two years, we needed about another $800 billion. So, we probably needed about $2 trillion given what we were actually up against.”

The problem, she says, is that more stimulus also means more problems designing the stimulus. “We had a hard time spending $800 billion quickly,” she says, and “with that much stimulus, the issue of diminishing returns could be important. We don’t have much experience with something that large, so I am less confident that the same multipliers would hold.” Perhaps making things even harder, “that much stimulus would have been irresponsible just on its own with no plan for paying for it. It could well have spooked financial markets. If we were going to go that large, it would have had to be with an explicit agreement on what taxes would be raised or spending cut in the future to pay for it.” Passing such a deal would’ve been almost impossible amid the crisis environment of 2009.

Bernstein’s calculation proved very similar. “The simple Keynesian answer is you take the GDP gap— actual GDP minus potential— sum it up over the downturn, and divide by the multiplier,” he wrote to me. “Using annual CBO potential GDP and the real GDP on the books for 08-2010, you come up with a GDP gap of around $3 trillion. Divide that by 1.4, and you’d need around $2 trillion, more than twice the ARRA.”

But, like Romer, he thought the abstract calculation a lot easier than the practical problems associated with shoving $2 trillion into the economy in a fast, effective fashion. “That $2 trillion ignores implementation constraints,” he continued, “which are also binding. I don’t believe we could have efficiently and effectively put that large a stimulus to good use with requisite accountability.”

Dr. Drew's Conclusion

As you can see, Klein did an article in the Washington Post that came out on July 5, 2011 called "Could we have had a bigger stimulus?"  What can I say?   I'm picking away at the defenses of the arrogant liberals who have done so much damage to our country, damage caused by their lack of experience, and painful lack of knowledge regarding economics, politics, and political economy.  As he writes this last piece, it looks to me like he is figuring out that high levels of government spending are inefficient and - in fact - dangerous to our economy.  What a tough lesson.  To me, it is eerie to see Ezra Klein's painful, irresponsible learning take place right before our eyes.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

The Seedy Side of the Obama Story: Dr. Drew Reviews Jack Cashill's Deconstructing Obama

Jack Cashill voices the pain of those of us who are doing the journalistic work we once thought was the sole responsibility of CBS’s 60 Minutes.  You can catch his appearance on CSPAN2 by clicking here.  I identify with Cashill. In his newest book, he indicates it is not so easy to balance his efforts to save Western civilization with his concurrent responsibilities for bagging leaves in time for the city leaf collectors. In my case, I have sought to expose President Barack Obama’s intellectual roots as a revolutionary Marxist while addressing my nagging doubts about the necessity of rinsing dishes prior to racking them up in the dishwasher. If you understand that neither Cashill or me are kidding about our lives, then you will be thrilled by the tone and fresh insight in Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America's First Postmodern President.

As an eye witness to young Obama’s Marxist ideology, I was excited to see Cashill busting up the myths surrounding Obama and replacing them with a simpler, easier to believe story that is a much better fit with accessible, on-line evidence. Cashill’s results are politically significant because President Obama's charisma is dependent on the images Obama created about his early life in his first book, Dreams from My Father. Cashill’s new insights about the real Obama should be particularly relevant to the sort of swing voters who tell survey researchers that they do not care for Obama’s results even thought they still like Obama as a person. After reading Cashill’s book, I suspect these swing voters will be disappointed by the titanic gap between Obama’s all-American myth and the cold facts of his real life.


One of the coldest facts is that there are now nude photos on the Internet of a woman who looks exactly like Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. This news was so unpleasant to me that I was nervous about checking up on Cashill’s report by searching for these photos through Google. (To my relief, the samples I found are clear enough to show the girl’s face, but cropped tight enough that I did not feel I violated any laws.) Along with Cashill, I see these photos as evidence of a much larger pattern of unfortunate mistakes made by the young Ms. Dunham. These photos are politically significant because they offer a convenient segue into a larger discussion of an unwholesome side of the young Obama story - the odd, deviant, dysfunctional world of Frank Marshall Davis. Davis, as readers may know, was a member of the Communist party and also handy in the craft of producing pornographic literature and photography.

Cashill reframes the Obama story by pointing out that Frank Marshall Davis and his friend Paul Robeson were Stalinist Communists, a political label which is shocking to most Americans and yet useful to me in understanding the roots of the Marxist ideology and earnest revolutionary fervor I observed in the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College in 1980-1981.

Cashill adds to the sheer seediness of the world surrounding little Obama plenty of new evidence that infant Obama had no conscious contact with his birth father. This unpleasant reality is an abrupt challenge to Obama’s claim, in Dreams, that his father left him and his mother behind in Hawaii after two years of dutiful fatherhood. Here, Cashill leverages the outstanding reporting done by one of our nation’s most intelligent and charming citizen journalists - Michael Patrick Leahy. Leahy interviewed a few of Stanley Anne Dunham’s childhood friends and reported the results in his book, What Does Barack Obama Believe? Leahy’s research shows Anne Dunham took infant Obama with her to Seattle, Washington in the summer of 1961 and did not return with her baby to Hawaii until Obama, Sr. was long gone from the island. Leahy, in my view, has been doing the hard work I assumed New York Times reporters should have been doing including interviewing members of the extended Dunham family, sharing freely available information from the Internet, and combing over public records to determine the precise details of Barack Obama's birth and early childhood.

Even as somebody who met young Obama in the early 1980s, I'm was still startled by Cashill’s most controversial argument – the theory that Bill Ayers was the ghost author of Dreams from My Father. Cashill’s thesis was supported, of course, by the independent reporting of a liberal author, Christopher Andersen. Andersen unwisely confirmed Ayers’ participation in creating Dreams in an otherwise flattering book called Barack and Michelle: Portrait of An American Marriage (2010). The weight of Cashill’s argument, however, rests on his careful textual analysis of the striking similarities between the language used in Dreams and the language used in Ayers’ own writing. Here, I’m most convinced by Cashill’s description of how Obama correctly applies nautical images to his life story. The accuracy of the nautical language in Dreams strikes me as much more consistent with Ayer’s experience as a merchant marine than with Obama’s experience as a community organizer.

I would like to add more details that support the idea that Ayers was a major player in drafting Dreams from My Father. The young Barack Obama I knew, for example, displayed absolutely no hostility to white people. He appeared to be culturally and emotionally white. The young Barack Obama I knew was not particularly close to the African-American students at Oxy either, but was - instead - deeply involved in the lives and political activities of the most radical foreign and Muslim students. The young Barack Obama I knew would have been excited to meet Bill Ayers, would have been comfortable with Ayers’ anti-American hostility, and would have been more than capable of persuading the jaded ex-terrorist that he was a sincere believer in the necessity of a socialist transformation of the U.S.

My only difference with Cashill is that I’m not impressed with the quality of Dreams from My Father.

This is true even after Cashill’s book single-handedly improved my taste as a consumer of contemporary literature. My reading of Dreams did not leave me with any useful paradigm shifts, any evidence of encyclopedic knowledge or any immediately relevant information. I think it is more accurate to assert that President Clinton’s book, My Life, articulates the insights and raw memory capacity of a true genius. In comparison to My Life, I found Dreams dull and boring - except for the parts tangentially related to my own intellectual development or linked to my nearly insignificant participation in what Obama reports were the pivotal, life-changing moments of his sophomore year at Occidental College.

Aside from this relatively minor disagreement regarding the quality of Dreams, I whole-heartedly agree with Cashill’s take on the challenge of confronting Obama’s charismatic power: The alarming sense that media elites greet one’s modest, factual, painfully obvious news tips with an astonishing lack of appropriate attention. I have come to believe there is something broken in American journalism. I would think a healthy, well-functioning democracy would include mainstream media outlets that would snap open the delightful fortune cookies Cashill has set out for them. For now, my confidence for winning our future rests in the outspoken courage of Jack Cashill, a writer who is willing to go to extreme lengths – short of leaving his home surrounded by leaves - to make sure that his fellow citizens learn the truth about President Obama.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist. He applies his skills as a grant writing consultant in the Southern Calfornia area. His website is at the following link: http://drdrewguaranteedgrants.com/about-us/

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Meeting Young Obama

My first meeting with young Barack Obama raised strong feelings and left me with a positive first impression. At the time, I felt I'd persuaded a young man anticipating a Marxist-Leninist revolution to appreciate the more practical alternative of conventional politics as a channel for his socialist views.


I met Obama in December of 1980, a couple of days after Christmas, in Portola Valley -- a small town near Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA. I was a 23 year old second-year graduate student in Cornell's Government Department, and had flown to California to visit a 22 year old girlfriend, Caroline Boss. Boss was a senior at Occidental College. She had taken a class in the Spring of 1980 with Larry Caldwell and Carlos Egan and met and befriended Obama in that class.

I had been an angry Marxist revolutionary during my undergraduate career at Occidental College. During my hyperactive sophomore year, in the fall of 1976, I founded the Marxist-Socialist group on campus and named it the Political Awareness Fellowship. As I recall, I developed this innocuous sounding name because there were so few students on campus as radical as I, and I was fearful of turning off moderate students who might be willing to learn more about Marxist theory.

On my watch, our group grew to a dozen student activists and managed to attract crowds of 80 or more to our events. The most successful of these was a campaign to raise awareness of the plight of homosexuals who were beaten by Los Angeles City police officers along the Hollywood strip. I promoted this event with a large banner in the Occidental College quad reading: Anita Byrant: Hitler in Drag? During my junior year, I left Occidental College with the mission to study Marxist economics at England's University of Sussex in the fall of 1977.

By the time I returned to Occidental in the fall of 1978 for my senior year, the Political Awareness Fellowship had morphed into something much bigger, an organization with strong leadership, its own office space and a new name. The group's president was Gary Chapman, an older student who had served as a Green Beret in Viet Nam. Chapman was a colorful figure who shared stories from his military career including how he was required to take apart and reassemble his rifle in the dark. Under Chapman's leadership, the group had changed its name to the Democratic Socialist Alliance (DSA). As I recall, he told me "the old name wasn't letting people know what we stood for." I agreed. The DSA met weekly and brought in speakers about once a month. Events were advertised by big signs in the campus quad. During my time at Occidental, the group searched for ways to embarrass the administration, help students to see the evil of the U.S. capitalist system, and mobilize people in preparation for the coming revolution.

In the spring of 1979, Chapman and I joined forces with other students on campus to found an anti-apartheid coalition, called The Student Committee Against Apartheid, which included the leadership of the DSA as well as several other groups. Although the coalition included liberals as well as radicals, I think it is fair to say the most significant intellectual and organizational leadership came from students in the DSA. One of the ironies of our effort is that the white students took the lead in organizing these protests while African-American students seemed strangely passive and uninvolved in fighting the South African regime.

My romance with Boss began in the spring of 1979. Boss had joined the DSA and participated in the anti-apartheid events I helped organize that year. Like me, she was a committed Marxist, preparing for the approaching revolution. That year, I completed my senior honors thesis on Marxist economics. Boss and I danced together after I accepted my Occidental degree in June of 1979 wearing the red armband that signified my solidarity with my Marxist brethren around the world and my commitment to the anti-apartheid movement.

My relationship with Boss continued through the summer of 1979 and the academic year 1979-1980. She spent the summer of 1980 with me at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. When Boss returned to Occidental in the fall of 1980 for her senior year, she enrolled in Professor Roger Boesche's European Political Thought class. It was there that she met Barack Obama who was starting his sophomore year.

When I first saw Obama, I remember I was standing on the porch of Boss's parents' impressive home as a sleek, expensive luxury car pulled up the driveway. Two young men emerged from the vehicle. They were well-dressed and looked like they were born to wealth and privilege. I was a little surprised to learn they were Boss's friends from Occidental College until she articulated the underlying0 political connection. "They're on our side," she said.

The taller of the two was Obama, then only 19, who towered over his five-foot-five companion, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo - a wealthy, 21 year old Pakistani student. Chandoo had a full dark black, neatly trimmed moustache, and was dressed in expensive clothes. Nevertheless, Obama was the more handsome of the two. At six foot one, Obama carried himself with the dignity and poise of a model. The diminutive Chandoo, in contrast, came across as more of a practical, businessman type. Obama displayed a visible deference to Chandoo when they were standing together at the vehicle.

Chandoo was vaguely familiar to me as a participant in the earlier anti-apartheid rallies on the Occidental College campus. In David Remnick's book, The Bridge, Chandoo's bona fides as a committed Marxist were well-known to those close to him. Chandoo's girlfriend at the time, Margot Mifflin, told Remnick that "[I]n college, Hasan was a socialist, a Marxist, which is funny since he is from a wealthy family." (See, Remnick, David, The Bridge, Alfred A, Knopf, 2010, page 104.) Young Obama, on the other hand, was completely new to me.

"This is Barack Obama," Boss said.

Since I was not much taller than Chandoo, I remember I looked up at Obama as we shook hands. I was completely mystified by the pronunciation of his name. He did not put up a fight over it, however.

"You can call me Barry," Obama said.

During the introduction, Boss and Chandoo were eager to let me know that Obama was a graduate of the prestigious Punahou Academy, an elite prep school in Honolulu. I vividly remember that Chandoo was intensely proud of Obama's ties to Punahou. This prestige, however, was wasted on me. I had never heard of the school and did not have a clue about what it meant to be one of its graduates. Obama seemed embarrassed by the fuss. Boss, I remember, wanted to make sure I understood that young Obama was not merely an attractive socialite dabbling in Marxist theory. "You've worked with us," she observed. "You've been at our DSA meetings. You've been active in the anti-apartheid movement."

After a while, all six of us -- the four students and Boss' adoptive parents -- drove in two cars to a local restaurant. The owner knew Boss's father. The food was delicious, the setting spectacularly "California casual," with tall redwood trees all around. At the restaurant, we six continued our talk. Chandoo was quiet, less forceful, and deferential to Obama. Obama was polite to Boss's parents, calm, and distinguished in his manner. Mr. Boss disapproved of his daughter's radical perspective and could barely disguise his contempt for me.

Despite the recent election of Ronald Reagan, the focus of our discussion was on El Salvador and Latin America. I remember I was especially angry about what was happening in El Salvador, particularly the recent rape and murder of four American nuns and a laywoman. We also discussed the recent assassination of John Lennon in New York City. After lunch, the entourage returned to the Boss's home in Portola Valley. Mr. Boss, a gruff Swiss-born businessman, was an aficionado of luxury cars who took pride in his successes in the greeting card and display case businesses.

"That's an impressive car. Which one of you is the owner?" he asked.

It's mine," said Chandoo, graciously adding: "Would you like to see it?"

While Chandoo and Mr. Boss gave Chandoo's luxury car a once over, the rest of us engaged in small talk until Chandoo returned. Chandoo beamed smugly, having impressed Boss's father with his expensive car. Inside the house, Mrs. Boss prepared snacks for everyone. All four of the students lit up after-dinner cigarettes in the dining room of the Boss's home. Caroline Boss sat at the head of the table to my left. Obama sat directly across from me. Chandoo sat on the other side of the table on Obama's left. Naturally, our conversation gravitated towards the coming revolution. I expected that my undergraduate friends would be interested in hearing my latest take on contemporary Marxist thought. I was in for quite a bit of a shock.

My graduate studies that fall had tempered my earlier Marxism with a more realistic perspective. I thought a revolution was not in the cards anymore. There was no inevitability, in my mind, to the old idea that the proletariat would rise up and overthrow the ruling classes. Now, the idea that we could entirely eliminate the profit motive from an advanced industrialized economy seemed like a childhood fantasy. The future, I now thought, would belong to nations with mixed economic systems -- like those in Europe -- where there was government planning of the economy combined with a greater effort to produce a more equitable distribution of wealth. It made more sense to me to focus on elections rather than on preparing for a coming revolution.

Boss and Obama, however, had a starkly different view. They believed that the economic stresses of the Carter years meant revolution was still imminent. The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back in terms of the coming revolution. As I recall, Obama repeatedly used the phrase "When the revolution comes...." In my mind, I remember thinking that Obama was blindly sticking to the simple Marxist theory that had characterized my own views while I was an undergraduate at Occidental College. "There's going to be a revolution," Obama said, "we need to be organized and grow the movement." In Obama's view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution.

I know this may be implausible to some readers, but I distinctly remember Obama surprising me by bringing up Frantz Fanon and colonialism. He impressed me with his knowledge of these two topics, topics which were not among my strong points -- or of overwhelming concern to me. Boss and Obama seemed to think their ideological purity was a persuasive argument in predicting that a coming revolution would end capitalism. While I felt I was doing them a favor by providing them with the latest research, I saw I was in danger of being cast as a reactionary who did not grasp the nuances of international Marxist theory.

Chandoo let Boss and Obama take the crux of the argument to me. Chandoo, in fact, seemed chagrined by the level of disagreement in the group. I cannot remember him making any significant comments during this discussion.

Drawing on the history of Western Europe, I responded it was unrealistic to think the working class would ever overthrow the capitalist system. As I recall, Obama reacted negatively to my critique, saying: "That's crazy!"

Since Boss and Obama had injected theory into our debate, I reacted by going historical. As best I can recreate the argument, I responded by critiquing their perspective with the fresh insight I had gained from my recent reading of Barrington Moore's book, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966). Moore had argued that a Russian or Chinese style revolution -- leading to communism -- was only possible in an agrarian society with a weak or non-existent middle-class or bourgeoisie.

Since I was a Marxist myself at the time, and had studied variations in Marxist theory, I can state that everything I heard Obama argue that evening was consistent with Marxist philosophy, including the ideas that class struggle was leading to an inevitable revolution and that an elite group of revolutionaries was needed to lead the effort. If he had not been a true Marxist-Leninist, I would have noticed and remembered. I can still, with some degree of ideological precision, identify which students at Occidental College were radicals and which ones were not. I can do the same thing for the Occidental College professors at that time.

By the time the debate came to an end, Obama -- although not Boss -- was making peace, agreeing with the facts I had laid out, and demonstrating an apparent agreement with my more realistic perspective. I have a vivid memory of Obama surrendering to my argument including signaling to the somewhat bewildered Chandoo -- through his voice and body language -- that the argument had concluded and had been decided in my favor. Around 9 p.m., Chandoo and Obama left for another appointment, either in Palo Alto or San Francisco. In retrospect, Obama had proved to me that he was indeed, as Boss had promised, "on our side."

Long before I realized Obama had grown into a spectacular political career, I have treasured this particular memory as an early example of my own intellectual growth and an early sign of my modest promise as a teacher. At the time, I had the impression that I might have been one of the first to directly challenge Obama's Marxist-Leninist mind-set and to introduce him to a more practical view that saw politics, rather than revolution, as the preferred route to socialism. Had I really persuaded him, or was he just making nice to smooth things over with a new friend? I'd like to think it was the former.

Whatever progress I made with Obama that evening, the price of our debate was a greater ideological wedge between me and Boss and a further decline in our rocky relationship. Our relationship would officially end in February and then flicker out completely by June 1981 -- much to the satisfaction of Boss's father.

I remember that Obama was friendly to me on at least three other occasions over the next several months. For example, Boss and I visited the apartment he shared with Chandoo. I spoke with him again on campus in the student union. I saw him on campus in The Cooler -- the school's coffee and sandwich shop. I also spoke with him at large party in June 1981. I certainly considered him a friend, a confidant and a political ally in the larger struggle against poverty and oppressive social systems.

Whatever impact our encounter might have had on him, I know something about what Barack Obama believed in 1980. At that time, the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, although perhaps -- for the first time -- considering conventional politics as a more practical road to socialism. Knowing this, I think I have a responsibility to place on the public record my account of this incident from our president's past.
 
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Quick Thoughts on Keith Olbermann and the Ideology of AZ Shooter


I was at a meeting of Republican activists this morning when I saw the news regarding the mass shooting in AZ. It is sad that liberals like Keith Olbermann so quickly sought to use this violent event as a tool to silence independent and conservative voices.

For the record, I just checked out Jared Lee Loughner's YouTube site.

It's a mixed bag of foolishness. He favorited a YouTube video that features a flag burning. One of his videos concludes with the phrase, "I'm able to control every belief and religion by being the mind controller!" He says one of his favorite books is The Communist Manifesto. As far as I can tell, he looks like a pot-smoking atheist addicted to nonsensical syllogisms. Folks should review Keith Olbermann's comments attacking Hillary Clinton in 2008 before they start blaming the innocent for the actions of a "mind controller."

In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims in AZ tonight.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Cruel Ironies: Muslims in Indonesia Say Build Your Church Somewhere Else



I was on Twitter figuring out how to translate my tweets into Indonesian when I got into a "conversation" with two people who from Indonesia. In their view, I was all wrong about Muslims. They thought I would benefit by visiting Indonesia to see how peaceful the Muslims were toward their Christian neighbors.

In response, I did what I used to do as a conservative American government professor face-to-face with out of touch liberal colleagues: I confronted them with powerful counter evidence. In this little YouTube video the Muslims in Indonesia do not appear to be very friendly to their Christian neighbors. The irony, of course, is that President Obama grew up in Indonesia and he is fond of suggesting that Islamic adherents in that country are not as vicious or as extreme as the people we are fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.

This YouTube video features a Muslim woman from Indonesia saying that she lives in a Muslim dominant neighborhood and that the Christians should just build their church somewhere else.

As an Armenian-American, I know from family experience how dangerous it is to be a Christian in a Muslim dominant country. My grandmother lost her mother and many of her relatives to the Armenian Genocide. As such, I recommend this YouTube video as a chilling and ironic reminder that Muslims - even the ones in Lolo Soetoro's home country - are inspired by a text which facilitates the abuse and mistreatment on non-Muslims. We would be unwise not to pay attention to the mistreatment of Christians at the hands of Muslims all over the world.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Friday, August 20, 2010

No More Keys for You: President Junks Democrats’ Limo for Ground Zero Mosque



I’m been driving around this week with a burning question in my mind: Why would President Obama support a Ground Zero Mosque (GZM) when it is opposed by 2/3rds of the American people? Given the unpopularity of this mosque, it is as if the driver of the Democrat party’s new limo has just steered it into a junk yard crushing machine.

I think the simplest answer is that Obama was being loyal to his Muslim-American base...not to African-Americans...not to his Democrat party...and not to the American people. I have found some supporting evidence for this thesis in an article in Politico on August 15, 2010 in which Carol E. Lee writes that an undisclosed administration official says this was “purely” Obama's decision. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41077.html In Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that he is intent to assure Muslims that he will stand with them during the ultimate crisis. Apparently, Obama’s brain decided that moment has arrived.

What is missing from all the reporting on this issue is what an incredibly stupid thing this was for Obama to do in terms of electoral politics. Obama has ignited a firestorm of controversy that can only do damage to his party’s chances in November 2010 and to his own chances in November 2012. Already, Rasmussen shows Republicans opening up a 12-point lead in the generic polling results. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
Obama’s job approval rating, according to Gallup, is at an all time low of 42%. On a scale of one to ten for political stupidity, Obama’s endorsement of the GZM is a ten. It is the equivalent of running toward a burning car wreck and then squeezing yourself into the trunk.

Since I knew President Obama while he was an extremist, Marxist sophomore at Occidental College, I think I have an unusual insight to share regarding this politically inept decision. Based on my face-to-face talks with the young Obama, I’m among those who do not see Obama as an intellectual genius. I’ve never gone along with those who think they can find evidence of a high IQ in Obama’s election as the editor of the Harvard Law Review, or his role as an adjunct at the University of Chicago Law School, or his success in winning office. Since I never bought into the inflated view of Obama’s intellectual skills, I was not surprised by his dependence on the teleprompter. I do, however, think I know why he has not released his undergraduate transcripts from Occidental College or Columbia University: His charismatic reputation for genius would not survive the harsh reality of his ordinary grades.

Accordingly, I’m not convinced that Obama’s endorsement of the GZM was an example of a political genius playing chess while we are all playing checkers. Instead, I see Obama’s recklessness as more similar to a funny, stupid criminal story where the bank robber submits his demand for cash on the back of his own business card. I think the stress of his job is getting to him. Under stress, Obama’s thinking has become cloudy, impulsive and irrational. Reviewing this last week, even Obama may now understand that he cannot drive and should not have the keys.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

As the Twig is Bent, So Grows the Tree: Why I Think of President Obama as a Muslim


As a political scientist, I’ve always thought of Obama as a Muslim if only because I tend to categorize people by the cultural influences which impact them as children. Early influences, for example, help us predict later political party affiliations.

Surprisingly, Pew reports that the number of Americans who believe Barack Obama is a Muslim has jumped from 12% in early 2009 to 18% in 2010. Similarly, Pew reports a decline in the number of respondents who identify Obama as a Christian – 34% today compared to 48% in March 2009 and 51% during the Presidential campaign in October 2008. As usual, there is a less decisive group floating out there – adding up to a plurality of 43% - who respond that they do not know what is Obama’s religion. These undecided respondents are up from 34% in 2009.

I’m certain that if Pew telephoned me, I would have been one of the folks who said Obama was a Muslim and who would not have been given the time to fully explain what I mean.

First, I know that Obama’s step-father, Lolo Soetoro, was a practicing Muslim. According to freely available press accounts, Soetoro took little Obama with him to the mosque to pray and enrolled little Obama in school as a Muslim. Second, I know that Obama grew up in a predominantly Muslim country, Indonesia. Third, when I met the young Obama - while he was a sophomore at Occidental College - I can report that his closest friends were the Muslim students on campus, in particular, an older Pakistani student named Mohammed Hasan Chandoo. Hasan visited Obama while he was a student at Columbia and attended Obama’s wedding to Michelle in 1992, unlike the African-Americans at Occidental who now claim they were close friends with the young Obama.

As for Obama’s more contemporary connections to Islam, I pay the most attention to his words in his book, Audacity of Hope, where Obama calls into question the divinity of Christ. This is, in my view, a bright dividing line between being a Christian believer and being a Muslim adherent. I also know that Rev. Wright is a former Muslim and maintains close ties to the Muslim community. All of this information gives me confidence that Obama’s world view, his basic mental architecture, has more links to Islam than Christianity.

Nevertheless, I’m sure the media will spin the results of Pew’s poll as evidence of racism or religious intolerance or an effort to portray Obama as the “other.” My perspective, however, gives me an advantage over mainstream journalists who are puzzled about how Obama could be so completely foolish as to endorse the Ground Zero Mosque. In my view, he is simply defending his base, a base of Muslim adherents to whom Obama has shown considerable loyalty ever since he was a little child.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Lonely Days and Lonely Knights: OC Resident Dr. Drew Was Once a MA Republican Political Science Professor

Republican Scott Brown's victory in MA is especially gratifying to me because I was once a resident of Massachusetts and active in Republican party politics.

As you may know, I was a young assistant professor at Williams College in MA between 1986 and 1989. While I was there, Williams College had the reputation of being the number one liberal arts college in the nation according to U.S. News & World Report.


As  an assistant professor, I was only one of three registered Republicans on the faculty. While I was there, I was friendly with two of the socialist professors who shaped the early intellectual life of Barack Obama while he was at Occidental College in Los Angeles - Professors Roger Boesche and Carlos Egan. I had known both Boesche and Egan when they were political science professors at Occidental College, my undergraduate institution.

Personally, I witnessed the damage caused by affirmative action face-to-face as objectively more qualified white faculty candidates were discriminated against in favor of African-Americans without comparable publication or research records. I complained about this injustice at the time...stressing the idea that affirmative action took away the honor of being a Williams College professor.



My own credentials were somewhat spectacular since I was the winner of the William Anderson Award from the American Political Science Association in 1989. My doctoral dissertation chair, Ronald King, still lists my award on his webpage in the teaching and advising section. My dissertation was later published, almost exactly as I wrote it, as part of an edited volume by Howard Gensler, The American Welfare System: Origins, Structure and Effects. If you follow this link above you can actually read excerpts of my work for free.

All in all, I'm so pleased to see Scott Brown elected as MA's next U.S. Senator. If the Democrat party liberals who ran Williams College had been more kind to me, then they might have had someone on the faculty who could have predicted the forces which lead to Brown's upset victory over Martha Coakley. Instead, it looks like liberal Democrats in Massachusetts (and elsewhere) were shocked and surprised by this result. It's sad that being the right sex, color and political ideology is now so much more important to college administrators and faculty than being able to explain and predict the political future.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

No Time for Gandhi: Five Tips for a Successful "Green" Revolution in Iran

Watching the events in Iran this week, I cannot help but think that a quick course in successful revolutions would benefit the freedom-seeking people of Iran.



The most important thing I would stress is that the popular Marxist socialist ideas of the past really aren't relevant to a real revolution. Marx completely underestimated the importance of the power of the state. Successful revolutions occur, in real life, when the existing regime is unable to repress its people because it runs out of ammunition, money, and willing soldiers.

Moreover, what usually tips the balance is outside foreign influence. Without the support of extra-national resources, the existing regime generally manages to temporarily concede enough, temporarily repress enough, and temporarily bluff enough to pull through the crisis. I recommend Theda Skocpol's book, States and Social Revolutions http://www.amazon.com/States-Social-Revolutions-Comparative-Analysis/dp/0521294991/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245217542&sr=8-1 which is a comparative analysis of political revolutions in Russia, France, and China. This book provides readers with insight on the reality, and not the emotional fantasy, of revolution.



The main point I'm trying to make is that Chairman Mao's ideas are probably more valuable than ideas like wearing green or having everyone show up at the same time, some place on a map. As Mao wrote: "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous." Right now, I think most U.S. official observers are betting on the success of Ahmadinejad because they don't think the people in Iran have the willingness to take their revolution up to the level it would need to be to truly succeed. This cold realism, in part, is responsible for Obama's lackluster support of freedom fighters in Iran. For more details on the militaristic reality of modern day Iran, please see an excellent little article by Danielle Pletka and Ali Alfoneh at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17pletka.html?ref=opinion.

Nevertheless, based on Skocpol's theories, what would need to happen to make the "Green" revolution in Iran successful?

1. Focus efforts on undermining the financial stability of Ahmadinejad's police and military powers. In a crisis, there is no better friend than ready cash. Thus, one of the secrets for success in overthrowing a corrupt regime is to drain it of the cash it needs to survive. Financial isolation of Ahmadinejad and his allies is extremely important. This means that anything which disrupts his ability to pay the police or the military is a great idea right now. Freezing bank accounts, slowing down financial services, cutting off foreign investment...all of this will have more impact than anything designed to emotionally "rally" the people.

2. Accept that outside assistance should be welcomed, not shunned, and open the gateways to international assistance. Under the old Marxist model, outside intervention was unnecessary...even counter-productive. The reality of revolution, however, is that it is extremely difficult to overthrow a corrupt regime without outside support. The Shah of Iran's family would probably still be in power if it had not been for the influence of U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Outside intervention is essential because a revolution is not usually winnable if it is a "fair" fight that only involves domestic vs. domestic forces. Even the U.S. was dependent on France during our revolutionary war. This means that the opposition to Ahmadinejad and his allies should look for outside cash and other resources to assist them at this crucial moment.

3. Disrupt communications for police and military forces. A mob enjoys a temporary advantage if the police and military forces are unable to communicate with each other. Organization and communication is a force multiplier for the state, and thus it becomes important to do whatever can be done to cut lines of communication, disrupt messages, and inject confusion into the ranks of the police and military. In particular, the mob has an advantage everytime it succeeds in isolating Ahmadinejad and the ruling elites. Tactically, a coup d’état involves seizing physical control of the country’s key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure.

4. Beware of new faces. In moments of crisis, your best friends are your oldest and dearest friends. You know their strengths and weaknesses and you know the extent of their loyalty. The greatest danger for those seeking to overthrow a corrupt regime comes from their "new" friends. Although many of these new friends are decent and honest people, they are also more likely to be spies sent in to undermine your small and developing organization.

5. Trust your own perception and understanding. One of the great advantages of revolutionaries is that they see things fresh and trust their own judgment. This is actually a force multiplier for the freedom fighters because "trusting yourself" speeds up the decision-making process and activates the full use of your mind to take advantage of small moments, brief opportunities, and scarce resources that can make all the difference.

There are more and more ideas and insights I could offer, but sometimes - in emergency situations - it's best to keep things simple. Nevertheless, I'll close by saying that with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan all weakened by their own internal problems...this is an ideal time for a revolt in Iran along the lines articulated by anti-Ahmadinejad forces. My comments above are meant to represent the best distillation of my understanding of politics and social science. Personally, I'm convinced that the long-term prosperity of the whole region will be dependent on the full compulsory education of both men and women, the end of child labor, and the intelligent efforts of all of us - inside and outside of Iran - to adjust to a modern world were religions are judged by their unintended consequences....not their carefully planned promises.

Most Popular Posts