No. 1, because it would mean really the end -- and the complete victory of the battle begun in the '60s. No. 2, because it will mean the end of a new American evil, which is the dividing, the Balkanization of American society. This is another counter-effect of a great idea, which was tolerance. You so much tolerate that you tolerate the American society to be in separate bubbles having their own peculiarities, and so on. Obama as president will mean all these bubbles submitted to a real ideal of citizenship. This is his message. McCain will not be able to do this. If McCain is elected, I can tell you the Iranians will close themselves in the Iranian identity. The Arabs will coldly, freezingly imprison themselves in the Muslim identity. The African-Americans will believe that the American society is more and more built against them. You will have an increase of the Balkanization.Huh? This guy would make a great McCain surrogate. Here's why:
And No. 3, you have another ideal in the America of today, which I call the competition of victims. Competition of memories. If you are in favor of the Jews, you cannot be in favor of the blacks. If you remember the suffering of slavery, you cannot remember too much the suffering of the Holocaust, and so on and so on. The human heart has not space enough for all the sufferings. This is what some people say. Obama says the contrary. It will mean the end of this stupid topic, which is competition of victimhood.
Lévy defines the goal of his first notion as:
[T]o have freedom and equality, the two dreams of freedom and equality walking at the same pace. To refuse to choose between the two. This is written in the motto of the French Republic, as you know, "Liberté, égalité, fraternité." And it is also written in the DNA of the best of America. The real dream of equality, which fed the battle, for example, for the civil rights, Martin Luther King and so on, and the battle for individual freedom. Those who ask to choose between the two -- if you have freedom you do not have equality, if you have equality, you do not have freedom -- for me, they are not leftist. This is a good definition of the left.But enforced equality of outcomes obviously comes at the expense of freedom, so that:
Trading liberty for equality turns nations into nursery schools--and citizens into children. It's insulting and unworkable.Thus, as Ed Whelan argues, Lévy's number one is a reason to oppose Obama.
I don't see any difference between Lévy's second and third rationales--but community organizer, race-obsessed Obama is literally the politician least likely to quell proliferating special interests. As an illustration, does anyone think Obama would disagree with Sony's decision?
Applying the principles to foreign policy, as Lévy does, is illogical: at best, it's erroneous "mirror-imaging," which led America astray during the Cold War's middle phase (1960-1980). More likely, it's naive "huggy-bear" internationalism, which trades the Sudetenland for conditional draft picks every time. Failures of defense readiness and military will produce surrender, not strength.
Conclusion: Lévy's a public provocateur, sometimes careless with truth, often wrong, yet admirable in certain respects. Never more so as he assembles the case for McCain--unintentionally.