Dinesh D'Souza, is a conservative scholar, President of King's College, New York, originally from post British Raj India. The movie starts with how much Dinesh and Barack Obama share in observing America from a world view influenced by the experience of post-colonial countries. This background tends to humanize both President Obama and D'Souza and the post colonial experiences of their families.
I'm sure that each was influenced by their history and personal experiences. Dinesh's circle of friends was distinctly American conservative. Barack's circle, by his own admission, radical and foreign. But Dinesh is in the position to recognize anti-colonialism because he's seen it in India and academia.
2016 feels serious and well-researched. But the conclusion is still controversial because it suggests that the President does not share the same view of America's benevolence and inherent goodness as much of even his own electorate.
2016 presents anti-colonialism as a hypothesis to explain Obama's actions and words. The test of a hypothesis is how well it fits the observed facts. Here it is really up to the observer to test the hypothesis. Dinesh suggests a few Obama facts that to his eyes fit the anti-colonial world view, but it is hardly an exhaustive list. The real test is for voters to ask if the long list of facts now known about President Obama fit the anti-colonialist hypothesis.
There are competing hypothesis. Some suggest he's just an extension of traditional 1960s big government American liberalism; others that he's a communist/socialist; others that he's just looking for payback for African-Americans (reparations in other forms); he's a puppet of George Soros; he's owned by Wall Street's Goldman Sachs just like every other President; and more. The fact that people are still searching for an explanatory framework highlights the lack of vetting by the media before 2008. It's an admission we don't quite understand his actions as President based upon our expectations in 2008.
In fitting the puzzle of Obama together we're hindered by not having all the pieces. Obama's history is remarkably opaque compared to other Presidents. In fact for much of Obama's personal history, all we have are the President's own version of the story, contained in autobiographies that by self-admission includes constructs and fabrications, not just "facts". The lack of examination in advance invites explanatory theories like Dinesh's in retrospect.
As someone well versed in history, economics, political science and law (my various degrees), Dinesh fairly presents the anti-colonial world view and the results produced by its advocates in the third-world. Incorporated in the anti-colonial view is anti-capitalism, a desire to punish the oppressors (balance the scale), and pro-collectivist economics (e.g., Marxism).
When I first heard about the return of the Churchill bust, I thought no surprise given Obama's background. I never thought to extend that into a larger hypothesis to explain other policy positions and actions. Dinesh had the insight, fueled partly by his own experience, to recognize the possibility of anti-colonialism as a defining philosophy and the focus to explore the facts for further confirmation.
Anti-colonialism may not fit perfectly with the observed facts (no model ever does), but it seems to fit well with a lot of the observed differences where Obama departs from long-standing, bipartisan positions by predecessors.
2016 is a valuable movie and idea even if you conclude there are other models that better explain President Obama's world view.
Regardless, 2016 highlights we still don't know the mind of our President, leaving room for speculations like the anti-colonialism hypothesis. I found Dinesh pretty convincing. I suspect that the real Obama is more complex than a single source of inspiration, but I'd be surprised if anti-colonial theory isn't part of the President's world view given his personal history and associations.
I'm sure that each was influenced by their history and personal experiences. Dinesh's circle of friends was distinctly American conservative. Barack's circle, by his own admission, radical and foreign. But Dinesh is in the position to recognize anti-colonialism because he's seen it in India and academia.
2016 feels serious and well-researched. But the conclusion is still controversial because it suggests that the President does not share the same view of America's benevolence and inherent goodness as much of even his own electorate.
2016 presents anti-colonialism as a hypothesis to explain Obama's actions and words. The test of a hypothesis is how well it fits the observed facts. Here it is really up to the observer to test the hypothesis. Dinesh suggests a few Obama facts that to his eyes fit the anti-colonial world view, but it is hardly an exhaustive list. The real test is for voters to ask if the long list of facts now known about President Obama fit the anti-colonialist hypothesis.
There are competing hypothesis. Some suggest he's just an extension of traditional 1960s big government American liberalism; others that he's a communist/socialist; others that he's just looking for payback for African-Americans (reparations in other forms); he's a puppet of George Soros; he's owned by Wall Street's Goldman Sachs just like every other President; and more. The fact that people are still searching for an explanatory framework highlights the lack of vetting by the media before 2008. It's an admission we don't quite understand his actions as President based upon our expectations in 2008.
In fitting the puzzle of Obama together we're hindered by not having all the pieces. Obama's history is remarkably opaque compared to other Presidents. In fact for much of Obama's personal history, all we have are the President's own version of the story, contained in autobiographies that by self-admission includes constructs and fabrications, not just "facts". The lack of examination in advance invites explanatory theories like Dinesh's in retrospect.
As someone well versed in history, economics, political science and law (my various degrees), Dinesh fairly presents the anti-colonial world view and the results produced by its advocates in the third-world. Incorporated in the anti-colonial view is anti-capitalism, a desire to punish the oppressors (balance the scale), and pro-collectivist economics (e.g., Marxism).
When I first heard about the return of the Churchill bust, I thought no surprise given Obama's background. I never thought to extend that into a larger hypothesis to explain other policy positions and actions. Dinesh had the insight, fueled partly by his own experience, to recognize the possibility of anti-colonialism as a defining philosophy and the focus to explore the facts for further confirmation.
Anti-colonialism may not fit perfectly with the observed facts (no model ever does), but it seems to fit well with a lot of the observed differences where Obama departs from long-standing, bipartisan positions by predecessors.
2016 is a valuable movie and idea even if you conclude there are other models that better explain President Obama's world view.
Regardless, 2016 highlights we still don't know the mind of our President, leaving room for speculations like the anti-colonialism hypothesis. I found Dinesh pretty convincing. I suspect that the real Obama is more complex than a single source of inspiration, but I'd be surprised if anti-colonial theory isn't part of the President's world view given his personal history and associations.