You are here:   Anti-colonialism > Barack Obama: the Last Anti-Colonialist

Obama Sr says that since wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of economic elites, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation". He proposes state confiscation of land and high taxation with no upper limit. Just in case the point is unclear, He writes: "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits commensurate with the income which is taxed." 

At first glance, the idea of 100 per cent tax rates seems insane — how could an intelligent man, let alone an economist, propose such a thing? Plug in the anti-colonial assumption, however, and we can see the logic of the proposal. The assumption is that the rich man became rich through exploitation. So if you come to my house and steal my furniture, what's the appropriate tax rate for you? Well, 100 per cent, because it's not your furniture. 

It may seem incredible to suggest that the anti-Western, anti-American ideology of Obama Sr that justifies massive state appropriations of private wealth is the belief system of the American president. But that is what I am saying. For instance, I believe that the premises of Obama Sr's paper can help us understand what President Obama means when he says the rich aren't paying their "fair share". The top 10 per cent of income earners in America pay around 70 per cent of the taxes. By ordinary standards, it would seem that the affluent are more than paying their share. However, if you assume that wealth is not earned through effort or creativity but is rather the product of greed and theft, then there is no limit to what percentage you can legitimately seize. Obama's rhetoric and actions suggest that he feels morally justified in state confiscation of wealth to whatever extent he can get away with it.

The anti-colonial hypothesis is not only psychologically plausible — it is rooted in Obama's own testimony about his father — but it also has tremendous explanatory power. It can account for Obama's domestic policy as well as his foreign policy, and it can also explain little details about Obama that no other theory can account for.

Consider Obama's attitude towards the private sector. He seems to regard the private sector as dominated by greedy, selfish, neocolonial exploiters. He rarely misses a chance to flay Wall Street for its excess, insurance companies for their greed, oil companies for their profiteering and pharmaceutical companies for their exploitative prices. 

View Full Article
August 28th, 2012
6:08 PM
Love this story. I am going to go and see the movie 2016 today. And everyone needs to do the same, it will open your eyes to what Obama has in his plans for our country. I hear it did not go far enough to explain Obama though. He is determined to destroy our country and to bankrupt it too.

May 11th, 2012
2:05 PM
I just found this article, while looking into my presidents history. I have to say this is absolutely true and is the best analogy I have heard yet! Thank you for writing this, it explains a lot about the president. I am ashamed as an American for the return of the bust and our presidents lack of loyalty to our allies. By the time he is done with his term in office you will no longer recognize my country. It is hard to recognize it now. So sad to watch my country crumble under this administration.

February 12th, 2012
3:02 PM
D'Souza's article is a wonderfully useful example of how it is possible to carefully pick one's way through the complexity of a Presdient's actions to sustain a preconception. Thus while much is made of Obama's not having (yet) taken forecful action against Iran, the article manages not to mention Bin Laden or Libya. In both cases Obama's moves do not fit D'Souza's Obama-as-anticolonial theme and so they are conveniently ignored. As for colonialism being dead, go tell that to indigenous people in Canada, Australia, the USA and Brazil.

Not Convinced
December 10th, 2010
8:12 AM
I suspect that Obama did not write either of his two books. To understand him we need to check his early mentors and his father was not one of them. He is certainly very left, very inexperienced and extremely ignorant on religious doctrine and comparative religion. He means well, poor man, but he is so ignorant and immature that he is going to be useful long after he has left the White House, and not before.

November 26th, 2010
1:11 AM
curiously, the last "anti-colonialist" has nothing to say about his feudalist ally Morocco, and West Sahara, or Turkey in Kurdistan and Cyprus et al... he is very selective

November 25th, 2010
11:11 PM
obama is the typical snobish kid from harvard, he has been educated with edward said and noam chomsky books. plus, he got that messianic complex, he thinks he can really bring "peace" all around the world, a second jimmy carter clearly, a dangerous charlatan

November 20th, 2010
6:11 PM
The first paragraph on this page is enough to show that you are not serious. The huge budget deficits, and therefore America's dependence on China, started when George W Bush decided to start two wars while cutting taxes. So maybe Bush was the real socialist...

November 5th, 2010
3:11 AM
This fact that you have even featured this rant, and advertised it on the cover of your magazine is an indication of how culturally, intellectually, and morally bankrupt you have become.

November 4th, 2010
1:11 PM
Fascinating analysis, which helps explain Obama's bizarre acquiescence to the demands of Russia over the missile shield; the demands of the Arabs in the Israeli-Arab conflict; the demands of Argentina in their attempts to legitimise the desire for the Falklands; the Islamofascist Mullahs of Iran and Muslims everywhere in their dislike of the West. My only criticism is that D'Souza seems to imply when saying that Obama's anti-colonialist socialism is antiquated and ossified, that it ever was a rational or sensible political/economic model. Socialism never has been and never will be. For all our sakes, I hope he's defeated in 2012.

Steffan John
November 3rd, 2010
9:11 PM
This is terrible analysis, on numerous points. Obama opposed the Iraq war, but he was always committed to Afghan war because he saw it as fundamentally necessary to American interests, and the necessary response to 9/11. Just listen to his Nobel acceptance speech, and see the distraught faces of the audience who clearly regretted their decision as they realised that he was defending not just the war, but War itself. Yes he reduced US nuclear arms - as did Bush and every other President. 6500 nukes are entirely pointless, and even halving that number will do nothing to 'weaken' the US, as any credible strategist will tell you. Obama's been pretty open about his influence - his main one being the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, the father of anti-communist, Christian Realism. Obama's a '48 Democrat - holding the same realism as Hans Morgenthau and George Kennan. The former essentially founded American International Relations, convinced America to fight communism rather than appease it, and went on to being an early critic of the Vietnam War; the latter founded the aggressive doctine of containment, and at the age of 102, opposed the second Iraq War. He is not a '68 Democrat, nor an anti-colonialist (he's shown little or no interest in Kenya since his election for example - certainly less than Bush did). Niebuhr was quite a radical thinker during the '30s, but ameliorated himself to the establishemnt. Obama - being funded by Wall Street, with a Mitt-Romney-inspired health care system which doesn't challenge corporate power - is actually very mainstream. This article is high on innuendo, but low on any evidence - the only 'evidence' of which is his continuation of Bush's policy on nukes, and implementing Romney's health-care plan. Just because Obama's 'a bit foreign', people seem to accept any story, rather than read his actual intellectual influences, which he's been pretty explicit about.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.