The speech was full of Newspeak — to an exponentially better-informed population — but cleverly crafted to adapt to this population. Unless I misunderstand Mr. Knapp, this article assumes that the speech didn’t meet it’s primary objective. That assumption is a large leap. With tonuge-in-cheek, co-founder of “The Electronic Intifada” Ali Abunimah responded that: “[Obama's Cairo Speech] will please American liberals much more than it will convince intended audience (unless that is the audience).” The American so-called “liberals” were the intended audience for this script and they’re convinced. See the NYT, HuffPo, DKos, MSNBC, etc. Yes, the internet has a large role, but the gatekeepers were convinced.

Strategically speaking, the libertarian is best doing what libertarians do best — dissecting others to display their hypocrisy, in order to discover and display the hypocrites true objective: the hypocrite’s exploitation of those whose consent is required for the hypocrite’s position of authority (for that hypocrite to be relevant, in any way.)

Hubris, indeed. To use a Spoonerian line of argument:

(1) The president is incapable of speaking for all Americans because not all Americans are allowed to vote. Anyone under eighteen is barred from the voting.

(2) The president is incapable of speaking for all Americans who are legally able to vote because not all Americans do.

(3) The president is incapable of speaking for all Americans who voted because not all of them voted for him.

And, most importantly, (4) the president is incapable of even speaking for all Americans who voted for him because (A) they do so secretly, by secret ballot; because (B) their purpose for voting for him is completely unknown to him, and he may have received those votes not out of support but as a result of the voters wishing to defend themselves from his opponent; because (C) it’s not necessarily true that they supported all of his objectives at the time of the election; and because (D) even if they did support all of his objectives at the time of the election, there is no reason to believe they continued to do so the day after.

To believe that the president can speak for the people of her or his country is quite collectivist. It’s unfortunate that both the U.S. President and Osama bin Laden share this collectivist outlook. If one reads bin Laden’s speeches, one sees clearly that he believes the U.S. government does represent the U.S. people, and he uses this as his justification for murdering innocent U.S. citizens. What bin Laden and the U.S. politicians must learn is that the U.S. government does not and cannot represent the U.S. people.

Regards,
Alex Peak