Showing posts with label dr. john drew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dr. john drew. Show all posts

Saturday, June 3, 2017

What Do Conservatives Even Stand for Anymore?

This somewhat snarky question arose to my attention on Quora. The questioner wrote: "There was a time when conservatives stood for traditional values, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and strong national defense. Yet, many conservatives continue to stand by Trump who napalm those values regularly. Is their sole unifying value in 2017 the shared hatred of liberals?"

Frankly, I just don’t buy the premise of the question, specifically the suggestion that Trump has “napalmed” conservative values. Look at the evidence:

  • He picked Mike Pence as his vice-president.
  • He has submitted a budget that cuts back dramatically on domestic spending.
  • He is making efforts to reduce the regulations that have been strangling the economy and reducing income to the federal government.
  • He seems to be pretty aggressive in both funding and respecting the military.

Republicans are at their strongest level of political power since the 1920s and Trump has managed to win over the white working class in a manner that will make it difficult for Democrats to win again at the national level for at least a generation.

I think the unifying factor here is defending the interests of the white working class. As long as Democrats vilify the white working class, I do not think they will have much opportunity to win significant power at either the state or federal level.

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

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Mr Trump - I Can Verify Obama is an Affirmative Action President


I could not help but notice that Donald Trump is offering to donate $5 million to one of Obama’s favorite charities if only Obama releases a range of sensitive documents including his undergraduate transcript from Occidental College. I wish Trump would just give the money to me. After all, I believe I have the personal experience and training needed to verify the gist of Trump’s concerns: I can confirm that Obama is an affirmative action president.


I observed that the young Obama had the IQ of an average white college student when I first met him over Christmas break in 1980. Obama was then a sophomore at Oxy and I was a graduate of Oxy who was paying my dues as a political science graduate student at Cornell. I met young Obama when I was in Portolla Valley, CA, reconnecting with my college-era Marxist sweetheart, Caroline Boss. By then, Boss had shared two classes with young Obama, an international relations course taught by Larry Caldwell and Carlos Egan and a political theory class taught by Roger Boesche. Ironically, I taught alongside both Egan and Boesche while I was an assistant professor in the political science department at Williams College.

Boss knew young Obama well enough to let me know that he was “one of us” meaning that he shared our radical point of view and all the class warfare angst associated with it. For the life of me, however, I do not remember her saying anything to the effect that young Obama was one of the brightest students at Oxy--much less a genius.

The bad news, for Trump and others, is that I do not believe Obama’s transcripts would tell us anything about either his nationality or scholarship status. Mine do not. My nationality is not indicated and I do not see any field on the transcript where it would be noted by school officials. I should add that I got to Oxy on a track scholarship. (I ran a 4:23 mile in high school.) However, I see no mention of my athletic prowess or that scholarship on my undergraduate transcript. Reviewing my own transcript, I can report that I earned straight A’s my freshman year. These transcripts also show my SAT scores. I am sure Obama’s transcripts would show his SAT scores too. This would be useful information, in part, because we can estimate a person’s IQ from their SAT scores.

If Trump is reading this piece, I can report that I have gotten good at guessing someone’s IQ. I suspect that anyone who – like me – has made a living as a college professor, a college admissions counselor, or a management consultant gets good at this task. In my case, I also have the experience of growing up with a younger brother who has a genius level IQ and the rocket science resume to back it up.

I can report to Trump that the young Obama came across as an average white guy. This, of course, is exactly what he was. Obama had a white mother and grew up nurtured by his white grandparents. Based on my exposure to young Obama, I estimate that his grades were in the middle B’s and that his IQ was slightly above average for a college student. Personally, I am not surprised by his recent comments on the Jay Leno show to the effect that he was not particularly good at math--“Malia is now a freshman in high school. I’m pretty lost.” I suspect that Obama has been pretty lost for a long time since he does not report taking any college or graduate school classes that might have demanded skill in math, science or economics.

In conclusion, I should add that I have had the opportunity witness a number of former presidents speaking to live audiences. I feel confident making some comparisons. For example, I do not think Obama is blessed with a higher IQ than Carter or Clinton. Obama is not smarter than either George H.W. Bush or his son George W. Bush. Of all of these former presidents, including Reagan, the only one who startled me with his intelligence was Clinton who I saw during a recent business trip to Little Rock, Arkansas. All in all, I think it is reasonable to assert that the only reason Obama is now president is that so many people mistook him to be a genuine African-American, the sort of person who deserved an affirmative action boost to get ahead.

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

Thursday, October 11, 2012

New Photos From Occidental Years Show Real Obama

The New Yorker blog features new photos that verify my take on what our 44th president acted and looked like as a sophomore at Occidental College. Readers will note the real Obama, the young revolutionary extremist with a soft spot for Islam, that I got to know as a participant in Occidental’s radical student politics.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/barack-obama-at-occidental-college-photographs.html#

Curiously, the photos show Obama wearing a band on his left ring finger that WND alleges to read “there is no God but Allah.” 

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-ring-there-is-no-god-but-allah/

The photo I find to be most historically significant is the one that shows details from of the anti-apartheid rally of February 18, 1981, the rally that debuted Obama’s famous first skit in Obama’s Dreams from My Father. In contrast to Obama’s story, the banner above the event proclaims the somewhat more complex cause of “Affirmative Action & Divestiture NOW.” The photo features many of the real life figures who would become composite characters in Obama’s autobiography. These include my white ex-girlfriend, Caroline Boss, the radical student leader who improbably lent her grandmother’s name - and much of her scintillating personality - to the big-boned, black “Regina” character.

For the record, I view these photos from the perspective of an accident victim looking at a long ago car wreck. Caroline and I had parted ways just weeks before this rally. As I recall, the split was painful enough to cause us to temporarily adopt the roles of imaginary divorce lawyers, lawyers who combed through our conflicting feelings and amicably laid out the details of what became our eventual, imperfect separation.

For many years, young Obama was simply a footnote in my own intellectual autobiography. He was an early witness to the process in which I abandoned my expectation of a Communist revolution, dropped my old Occidental College friends, and eventually became a Republican business owner. In contrast, Obama held tight to his Occidental College friends and their causes.

“Decades later,” Margot Mifflin writes in response to these photos, “Obama would spur a new generation of students into political action, forging a connection between sixties radicals and media-savvy millennials.” Mifflin, of course, is only telling part of the story. She leaves out the part where at least one of Obama’s friends was not so pleased by the impact of affirmative action and never quite forgot what it was like to sacrifice everything he had for scholarly achievement only to learn, at the end of the process: “Sorry, you’re white.”

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

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Rush Limbaugh Reports: John Drew Dated "Regina" One of Obama's Composite Women

I was pleased to run across the bit of tape where Rush Limbaugh called public attention to my story about dating the real Marxist Regina for two years and my additional comments regarding young Obama's ideological extremism.



As far as I can tell, Rush was genuinely pleased by this bit of news even though he was not surprised to learn young Obama held to Marxist socialist beliefs. I was startled at the calls and e-mails I got after Rush mentioned my story on the air. This went out to about 20 million listeners.

Apparently, Rush had read through, or scanned, my recent article in American Thinker on how my white college era girlfriend, Caroline Boss, became the black Regina in Obama's Dreams from My Father. Here's the actual transcript right off of Rush's website.
RUSH: There's also a guy out now, John Drew, I forget where this is. I've got somewhere in the stack. Apparently this guy dated one of the composite women in Obama's book. The woman named Regina, this guy dated her for two years. And according to this guy, Regina was not black. She wasn't from the south side of Chicago. She was white. They were all left-wing radicals. They spent their summers in San Francisco. Obama, at Occidental College, was a Marxist. This is this guy's writing. We finally found a friend of Obama's from back then. Now, this is not gonna get a wide berth, but it's out there. I don't care about the labels, communist this, we don't even need 'em. Obama is now telling us who he is. And I must admit, there's a bit of rejoicing going on with me, El Rushbo.
This, my friends, is something that I've been confident in knowing since Obama was a Senator. It's not hard. Like I said, you don't even need a high school diploma. All you have to do is understand who modern liberals are and what they are, what they want to do. After that it's easy. The hardest part is admitting that there are people like that amongst us in positions of power with so many friends. But it ought not be. The more people that could come to grips with that, the farther along we would be.
Of course, what Rush may not have realized is that I have been trying to get my story to his attention for about four years now - ever since I first realized that I had valuable insight into the real Barack Obama. Ironically, I discovered that my take on young Obama's ideological extremism was also a topic of discussion on the Sean Hannity radio program featuring Paul Kengor and his new book, The Communist - Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor.

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/

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Dr. Drew on Huckabee GOP Candidate Forum - I Missed the Studio Audience


I spent the evening live blogging the Huckabee FOX News GOP Candidate Forum for Sulia.  My sense is that Gingrich consolidated his front runner status tonight. He was lucky to be the first person. I'll bet that viewership declined over the course of the debate. I think Gingrich enjoys a lot of advantages right now because of his front runner status. It must give him great confidence that even though he has made all these mistakes in the past, many voters are forgiving him and expecting him to be a stonger, better president. It's hard to be intimidated when you are leading in the polls.

I can report that Gingrich is a sincere student of Washington. I was surprised to learn that for over two decades, Gingrich has taught at the United States Air Force's Air University. He is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course. I've met both Obama and Gingrich face-to-face. There is no way that Obama is as bright or as informed as Gingrich.

I was glad that neither Cain or Huntsman were there tonight. I think this format would have gotten even more tedious if they were included in this debate.

All in all, I see Ron Paul as being as much of an ideologue as Barack Obama. This is why he occasionally hits home with a punch. I think ideologies endure because they have some compelling insights than endure.  I think Ron Paul is a living example of how far you can go in life by rigidly sticking to an ideology. Obama’s ideology, in contrast, is Indonesian socialism – socialism with an anti-colonial twist and a good dose of Islamic sensibilities.

What were the best moments? I think Rick Perry did surprisingly well at the very beginning when it looked like he was less distracted the normal. I also like the way that Bachmann discussed how states would find ways to cooperate even in the absence of a strong federal government. I think Romney has got his answer down pat for why Romneycare looks so much like Obamacare, but why that does not really matter.

What surprised me tonight? The format gave me a sharper focus on each candidate as if I was looking at them through a pure microscope lens. What I saw, however, pretty much confirmed the basic conventional wisdom regarding each candidate.

What would I change? Bring back the studio audience. I missed them in this debate. Sometimes I feel like the audience has a better grasp on reality than the candidates. I think we can still learn a lot from the one guy in the audience that suddenly shouts out: You lie!














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

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Dr. Drew's True Confessions: The Conversion Story of a Repentant Ex-Marxist


I grew up poor and I thought it was unfair for me to be held back simply because of the mistakes of my parents. It drove me nuts, for example, to think that kids less intelligent, hard-working, and moral than me enjoyed vacations in Europe while I lived in a home with raw sewage in the backyard. I thought Marxist socialism would give young people in similar situations a more equal opportunity to enjoy the good things in life.

In retrospect, however, I didn't have anyone in my life to explain compound interest, or how to write a business plan, or how to apply computer technology to the most interesting questions. I think if my family had been part of a contemporary Christian church, then I would have had my questions answered and I would have made better decisions.

I got a track scholarship to attend Occidental College in Los Angeles. All the folks around me at Oxy seemed to think the best thing on earth that you could do with your life was to become a college professor. So I went with the program. I got a scholarship to attend graduate school where I got to study with the some of the best professors in the nation in American government and public policy.

My commitment to Marxist socialist thought, however, gradually came to an end by the summer of 1982 when I began to notice that there was a larger spiritual world which did not fit the materialistic atheist models of modern social science. It was a world of intuition, coincidence, and syncronicity which Marxism saw as only an illusion used to lubricate the workings of capitalist exploitation. I also figured out that my empathy for others was not a weakness...it was an extremely useful tool for generating guesses about how the world really worked.

As I became more spiritual I also started to have an unusual amount of success intellectually and academically. My thinking, writing, and observations knit together and I started to attract positive attention with my research on the causes and timing of welfare programs in the U.S.

In my case, I remember where I was the exact moment I realized I no longer believed in the ideals of Communism: I was walking through the basement of McGraw Hall at Cornell University in September 1983. I had just finished an argument with my radical thesis advisor. As I recall I began to believe that the problems associated with child abuse and neglect might be easily fixed through the use of European-style visiting nurse program. As best I can recall, my thesis advisor saw child abuse as a larger problem caused by the necessity to invest in the reproduction of social capital under conditions in which children were mistakenly seen as elements of private property as part of the larger cultural and legal structures which maintain the reproduction of oppressive class conflict. The solution to child abuse, in his model, would involve paying attention to much greater issues involving the distribution of power and wealth in a modern industrialized society. (Or something like that...) Whatever the details of that argument, I remember the encounter left me thinking he was ideologically blinded and alarmingly out-of-touch with reality.

In my research, I had inadvertantly discovered a bizarre failing in modern political science. I was able to show that much of what we consider our modern America - schools, parks, Boy Scout and Girl Scout programs, and aid for families with dependent children - was largely a consequence of the earlier effort to enforce child labor laws. I know this sounds completely obvious...but the social science development literature of the 1960s and 1970s had been written without any reference to the role of child labor law enforcement as a key step in the modernization process.

Based on my historical research, I disconfirmed the Marxist hypothesis that welfare programs arose out of class struggle. My research showed they arose as an unintended consequence of the completely independent prior decision to stop child labor.

I ended up teaching at Williams College in MA, the nation's top rated liberal arts college. I won an award from the American Political Science Association for my thesis. It is now published in book form.

Today, I'm married. I'm proud that I attend a Baptist Church that overlooks the Pacific Ocean. I have my own management consulting business. Right at this moment, I'm struggling to get up to speed on this new social networking technology...and I'm excited that it provides a way to get around the mainstream media.
 
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Left Wing Blogger Now Asking Who is John Drew? Dr. Drew's Responses

Last year, I was surprised - and somewhat honored - to see that Anna Stoddard the blogger at "Oh, For Goodness Sake" put together a biography on me. The article is here

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=7349

I thought this forum was a good place to republish a public response to the issues raised by the article by Stoddard, an elderly retiree from New York now living in Mexico. For my immediate, same day, reaction to Stoddard's error-filled article see my story at Patriot Action Net.

The first thing to say is that I was Ann Coulter's T.A. which means I was responsible for grading her papers, grading her exams, and leading her small group discussion sections. I was actually working for her American government professor, Theodore J. Lowi. So, I was actually Lowi's teaching assistant and Coulter was one of my very first students. I think she can also communicate how she saw me evolve from being a young radical extremist into a being a moderate, non-Marxist social scientist. Poor Anna Stoddard, writing in Oh, For Goodness Sake, cannot seem to figure this out and never modified the text even as I brought this issue to her attention almost immediately after she first wrote her article.

(Literally, I called this error to her attention on the same day she wrote this awful smear job, but she did not even acknowledge this bizarre error until 9/19/2011.)

Second, I really was never rejected for tenure as Ms. Stoddard indicates in Oh, For Goodness Sake. The situation was worse than that. The folks at Williams took me off the tenure track in 1989 and really did not even let me compete for tenure. Their story is that my research was sub-par. The irony, of course, is that a month or so later I won the William Anderson Award from the American Political Science Association for the best doctoral dissertation in the nation in my field. My story is that they were hostile to me because I was a man, Armenian-American, conservative and quite vocal in my complaints against affirmative action and those who doubted the wisdom of welfare reform.

The larger issue raised by Anna Stoddard in Oh, For Goodness Sake is my relationship with Obama. In truth, I only met Obama a handful of times. What is missing, however, is that Obama and I were part of an intense cultural sub-group due to our connections at Occidental College. My knowledge of him was built, in part, through my prior knowledge of Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, Caroline Boss, and others  - the young people who were active in campus politics driven by the Democrat Socialist Alliance at Occidental College. I took my status as a Marxist revolutionary thinker very seriously...and so did he. It not a small deal to live your life anticipating the Marxist revolution was coming down the road. The intensitiy of Obama's commitment to Marxism is why my girlfriend could refer to him as "one of us."

As she writes in Oh, For Goodness Sake, Stoddard also misses that I knew the Marxist professors Obama talks about in Dreams of My Father and I was dating the various structural feminists too. I knew the same foreign students and anti-apartheid activists.

By all accounts, my wife and I are taking grave risks because of my willingness to discuss Obama's early Marxist socialist ideology. If Anna Stoddard and her "Oh, For Goodness Sake" blog is the best that liberal Democrats can do to discredit my story, then I think I can stand up to anything thrown at me by http://www.attackwatch.com/  Seriously, we are okay. We have seen no threats against us. Why?  I think most Republicans already believed Obama was a Marxist and most Democrats do not think it is a bad thing in the first place.

Nevertheless, I'm still frustrated and puzzled by why I could not get this story into the media sooner. If it were not for Newsmax, Breitbart TV and talk radio, then I'm not sure it ever would have gotten to the general public.  Nevertheless, I learned in politics that it is important to respond immediately when you are under attack by an untruthful, error-prone person like Anna Stoddard writing in Oh, For Goodness Sake.

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

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama's Past

Young Obama in 1981 during
his first year at Columbia University.
What would you do if you knew the top Democrat running for president was lying about his past?

That is the question I was faced with in 2008. I had met the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College, and I knew that his commitment to socialism was deep, genuine and long-standing.

I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself starting in 1976 when I founded the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus. The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer.

The Obama I knew was nothing like the life-long, pragmatic centrist that he was pretending to be in the 2008 presidential campaign. When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S. – completely divorced from the profit motive – which would occur, in his lifetime, through a potentially violent, Communist-style revolution. In this context, I saw my report on young Obama as a key piece of evidence suggesting a profound continuity in his belief system.

Although I was surprised by Barack Obama’s insistence on his mainstream ideological credentials, I was shocked that my attempts to spread the news about young Obama’s Marxism failed to gain any media traction during the 2008 presidential campaign with reporters, activists, or campaign staffs.

Once I saw the significance of my face-to-face observations on the young Obama, I went out of my way to get my story on record with the Orange County Register. I tried to contact, among others, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, the folks behind the Swift Boat ads, and the McCain campaign.

I thought I would get a phone call back from Fox News - someone, somewhere – and I still do not understand why no one seemed to catch on to the urgency of the situation. I understand I did not have audio tape of young Obama. I did not have any photos or home movies. Nevertheless, I was extremely active in the leftist politics and counter cultural milieu of Occidental College in the 1970s.

As a younger man, I had earned a Ph.D. in political science from Cornell which, I would think, gave me some credibility in measuring young Obama’s ideological convictions. I quickly saw other people who had known the young Obama were featured in various news articles. It seemed to me I should have been just another interview for any journalist, producer or campaign consultant interested in checking out my story and testing it against the facts.

In frustration, I was also posting what I knew on The Caucus Blog site at the New York Times. My expectation was someone from the Times would call me and follow-up on the leads I was sending out. Here is a sample of what I was doing in October 2008 to get the word out about Obama’s Marxist ideology.
I even thought of scheduling my own press conference on the campus of Occidental College through their campus Republican club. Internally, I was conflicted by the urgency of what I knew and the sense it was best for the story to break out in a manner supportive of the McCain campaign.

What shocked me about my experience in the summer of 2008 is that I thought my background as a Williams College political science professor, as a small business owner, and as a visible presence in the Orange County community would allow my message to immediately go to the very top of the McCain campaign. I thought my story would be welcomed by Fox News.

Since then, things have slowly gotten better. My story on the young Marxist Obama has appeared in Michael Savage’s Trickle-Up Poverty, Paul Kengor’s Dupes, Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-In-Chief and Jack Cashill’s Deconstructing Obama.

Nevertheless, I think there is something broken in our media and campaign system. I do not think most independents or conservatives understand, or fully appreciate, the tremendous advantages the left derives from having the mainstream media serve as the fully paid, completely sympathetic, Dan Rather-level opposition research team of the Democrat party. It is a system that methodically ignores damaging information about flawed candidates like Sen. John Edwards and Rep. Anthony Weiner while routinely elevating minor errors among Republicans to the status of Watergate investigations.

If Republicans are going to win in 2012, I think they need to make some changes so that they are friendlier to the whistle-blowers bringing them bad news about the Obama administration. Personally, I would like to see Republicans create new ways to collect negative news stories on liberals by 1) including web pages requesting opposition research from leakers, 2) establishing guidelines for leakers that help them give campaign decision makers the confidence to pursue appropriate leads, and 3) instituting feedback mechanisms so leakers have some minimal assurance that they have been heard by top campaign managers and that their information has been discarded for technical or strategic reasons and not simply because it was overlooked by a careless staff member.

I think recognition of this problem should be the first step in taking systematic action to prevent flawed Democrat candidates from winning office. In the meantime, I predict we will see more examples of media failure as the left dominates the muckraking journalism profession while the right seems too dependent on a small handful of seemingly obscure, over-worked journalists and – as my case illustrates – unconnected and often baffled citizen activists.

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

Monday, July 18, 2011

Fear No Default: Dr. Drew Comments on John Lott, Jr.'s Seven Myths About the Debt Ceiling

I used to teach political economy at Williams College and it sort of annoys me when we allow Democrats to say silly, obviously false things about the workings of the U.S. economy and the state of knowledge we have about politics and economics.  Nevertheless, I ran across a great article by John Lott, Jr. who is an economist and author of the revised edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

I thought it might be fun to repeat his take on these seven myths that he asserts the Obama administration is pushing on the American people and add my own comments:

1) Not increasing the debt ceiling means the U.S. government will default on its debt. This is probably the biggest lie that almost all other claims arise from. Default occurs if the government stops paying interest on the money that it owes. Not increasing the debt ceiling only means that the government can't borrow more money and that spending is limited to the revenue the government brings in. And, with interest payments on the debt making up less than a ninth of revenue, there is no reason for any risk of insolvency. Time after time, congress and the president have failed to agree on a debt ceiling increase and still there has been no default. Examples include: December 1973, March 1979, November 1983, December 1985, August 1987, November 1995, December 1995 to January 1996, and September 2007. Indeed, this really shouldn't even be a point of debate. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that the debt payments come first before any other spending.

Dr. Drew adds: Obama is trained as a Constitutional scholar.  We can be sure that he is aware of this portion of the 14th Amendment and that he can rightfully be expected to abide by it.

2) Until the debt ceiling is raised, uncertainty over the payment of U.S. debts will create chaos in financial markets. Given that the Constitution mandates U.S. debts be paid before any other spending and that sufficient money will be available to cover our interest payments, the only uncertainty arises from Obama's actions. Will he try not to pay the interest? Even a delay of a day in paying this interest will create a default. Court action could eventually force Obama to follow the Constitution but a default would have already occurred. But there is a simple way to end this uncertainty: have the president declare now that he will indeed follow the Constitution and make those payments. Failure to increase the debt ceiling clearly doesn't mean default. During one three week period at the end of 1996 and the beginning of 1996, some of the government shutdown when a similar battle over the debt ceiling occurred, but there was no default. President Clinton used the revenues that were coming in to pay the interest on the debt.

Dr. Drew adds: Even if Obama chooses to default, it will be easy for Republicans to blame his excessive spending and poor priorities as the cause of the default.  I knew the young Obama and I've studied the contemporary Obama.  I suggest he holds tightly to John Rawl's A Theory of Justice and that the reason we are in this crisis is that Obama does not want to give up his long-standing hatred of the rich or his desire to redistribute income.  He has never explained how, if at all, he dropped the commitment to Marxist thought I observed in him when he was a sophomore at Occidental College.  See, my article, Meeting Young Obama in American Thinker, February 24, 2011. 


3) Obama doesn't know if there is money to send off Social Security checks on August 3. The president knows very well how much revenue will be available to send out checks on August 3. Indeed, enough money will be available to not only pay the interest, but to also cover all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and children's health insurance, defense, federal law enforcement and immigration, all veterans benefits, Response to natural disasters. Terrifying elderly people who are dependent on their Social Security checks may make good politics, but it is unconscionable. Yet, these scare tactics aren't really very surprising. The Democrats behaved no differently when they ran television ads bizarrely depicting Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as pushing an old lady in a wheel chair off a cliff.

Dr. Drew adds: If my take on Obama is correct, then he will - reflexively - seek to defend those aspects of redistribution which he thinks are most widely supported by the American people, whether or not these aspects of redistribution are really in play for not.

4) Mortgage interest rates will rise dramatically if the debt ceiling isn't increased. Not true. Indeed, the opposite is more likely, for not raising the debt ceiling stops the government borrowing more money. Less borrowing by the government could lower mortgage rates as there would be more lending available for potential homeowners. The interest rate paid by the government might go down for a second reason. Just as banks charge individuals a lower interest rate for those who have less debt compared to their incomes, the same is true for governments.

Dr. Drew adds: One of the main reasons the stimulus package failed us is that it sucked up resources that would be better spent and more efficiently spent by by private sector.  Freeing up that capital and keeping it in the private sector would help turn around the economy. 

5) Time is Running Out on Debt Deal, and it must be done immediately. Despite Obama’s insistence that a deal be completed by July 15 and Geithner’s claim that a deal had to be reached by July 22, as already noted, there have been many times over the last few decades where negotiations have extended past when the debt limit has been reached. The longest delay lasted three weeks. Besides claiming that there will be a default, no explanation has been offered for why the debate is any different this time.

Possibly all these claims of urgency are part of some grand strategy to scare people, but that strategy depends on voters not knowing what is necessary for a default to occur.

Dr. Drew adds: I don't feel any sense of urgency about this myself.  My sense of urgency is based on the idea that big government is dangerous and that Obama is using his executive power to grow it.  If Obama were more honest about his past and more honest about his future intentions for us, then I'd feel safer with him as president.  For now, however, I'm deeply afraid he is taking us in the wrong direction.  Now is the time to use all the tools in our power to fight big government.  The last time the government got shut down, we enjoyed substantial economic prosperity later on.

6) If government spending is cut, there will be a depression. Obama promised that a "temporary" increase in government spending would "stimulate" the economy, but he is now telling us that we can't cut that "temporary" increase -- that we are stuck with it.

If Obama's program -- including a 28 percent spending hike since 2008 and more than $4 trillion in deficits -- worked so well, why has our unemployment rate risen more than elsewhere? The European Union, Canada, South America, Japan, and Australia have all had smaller increases in unemployment compared to the U.S. after Obama's "stimulus." We have also had these shutdowns before and the numbers don’t show any negative impact on unemployment or GDP. Figures for the longest shutdowns during the fourth quarter of 1995 and the first quarter of 1996 are available here.

Dr. Drew adds: This one is just plain silly. Based on what we know about monetary policy it is physically impossible to ever have another Great Depression. Moreover, Burton Folsom's book, Raw Deal, teaches us how FDR made the Great Depression worse through frightening off business owners and investors.

7) The value of the dollar will plummet. Again, the supposed collapse occurs when we default. But there won't be any default. In addition, less government borrowing means lower future taxes, thus making the U.S. a more attractive place to invest. More foreign investment will actually cause the dollar to rise.

Dr. Drew adds: The value of the dollar is based on our political culture, economic power and military strength.  Clipping Obama's spending wings will provide great benefits to us and to all the people that want to invest in the safety and security we provide to them and ourselves.

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.

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.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Glorious Leader Gap: Barack Obama Considered "Gayness"




I am kind of proud to report that I got a call from Dinesh D'Souza inquiring about this photograph the young Obama. I explained that I found it while I was skimming the Occidental College alumni magazine (Summer 2010). At the same time, I also went through the class notes and found that Hasan Chandoo has been in touch with my old girlfriend Caroline Grauman-Boss and her friend Susan (Keselenko) Coll over the years.

I expect that all additional information regarding the lasting social ties between young Obama and his Occidental College friends will give additional credibility to my statements that I knew the young Obama and can affirm that he was a Marxist socialist in 1980-1981. As I have reported elsewhere, Obama and I used to be part of a strong, committed group of revolutionaries. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that I aged out of that obnoxious ideology in my mid-20s.

Also, this photo illustrates other themes I've communicated regarding the young Obama including the fact that I never saw him with a girl and that he was strikingly effeminate at the time. The larger point, of course, is that the picture of himself that he created in Dreams from My Father is very different from the real Obama that I knew during the 1980-1981 school year.




UPDATE #1: Jerome Corsi has published a new article featuring my first impression of the young Obama. People ask me about my first impression and I tell them the truth.


UPDATE #2: Ironically, Michelle Robinson - the future first lady - apparently had her own doubts about the young Obama. She asked her brother Craig Robinson to check out Barack. Here is a great passage from Christopher Andersen's book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage:


Right after the game, Craig called Michelle with his verdict. "Your boy is straight," he told her, "and he can ball." (p. 126.)

Obviously, I was not the only person in young Obama's life who had questions about his sexual identity.

UPDATE #3: Jerome Corsi has another new article regarding Obama's time in Chicago which suggests that Obama hid his gay life to become president.

UPDATE #4: Rachel Maddow at MSNBC has launched an attack seeking to ridicule my first impression of young Obama.




I imagine Maddow does not have the nerve or the guts to air my complete and unedited first impression of the young Obama. Nevertheless, I am hoping this little bit of national television exposure will cause more people to look up my take on young Obama and judge its accuracy for themselves.

UPDATE #5: I met Barack Obama while he was a student at Occidental College. I have shared elsewhere that my first impression of him is that he was gay. (I was also one of the people that David Garrow interviewed for his new presidential biography, Rising Star.)

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

Consequently, I’m not surprised to learn that President Obama wrote that he “considered gayness” when he was younger. I think the meaning of the phrase is quite clear. Obama found men attractive enough that he seriously considered spending his entire life in a relationship with another man.

To heterosexuals, I think it sounds odd that President Obama writes that he prefers women simply because those relationships are more of a challenge. Objectively, I think it is much easier to get along with women than men. Men have a lot more testosterone which makes them quite ornery. I think, for most heterosexuals, the idea of having sex with either men or women is not decided on the basis of the comparative workload.

That being said, twin studies reveal that about half the folks who identify as gay as teenagers end up being straight when they grow up. For example, one study followed approximately 10,800 adolescents 16-22 years old. Among the 16 year-old males who had exclusively SSA, 61% had opposite-sex attraction at age 17. For same-sex attracted females, 81% changed to opposite attraction in just one year. The same study compared sexual attraction at ages 17-22 and found that 75% of adolescent males with SSA at age 17 had opposite-sex attraction at age 22.

Prevalence and stability of sexual orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood.

It looks to me like President Obama may well fall into that category of young men who have SSA but then end up with opposite-sex attraction as adults.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist. He applies his skills as a grant writing consultant in the Southern California area.


His website is at the following link: http://drdrewguaranteedgrants.com/about-us/

Most Popular Posts