While Obama has obviously been under attack from the right, he has also been the target of folks on the left. While the folks on the right attack him because they (claim to) see him as a socialist, a progressive, and a liberal the folks on the left have been critical because they (claim to) see him as being a capitalist, not sufficiently progressive, and a moderate. Naturally, it is tempting to think that he must be doing well-after all, he is annoying both extremes and is hence probably hitting things almost just right.
While the attacks from the right are to be expected, the attacks from the left might surprise some folks. After all, Obama was regarded as some sort of liberal messiah, a progressive Moses who would lead the liberal tribes out of the desert of the Bush years. When he turned out, like most presidents, to be a moderate, the left was sadly disappointed. Their liberal messiah has turned out to be a moderate Moses who would seem to be leading them to the land of the middle, rather than the promised land of the left (moonbat heaven).
Some folks in the media have been paying special attention to Obama’s alleged failures when it comes to the two Gs (Gays and Guns). Obama has failed to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and has actually come out against legalizing same-sex marriage. He has also not, contrary to the fears of some folk, done anything against gun rights. While things might change, it seems unlikely that Obama will want to risk losing the support of the moderate mainstream by siding too strongly with the gays or too strongly against guns.
Bush was also subject to a similar sort of criticism from the right. While some folks on the right believed that Bush would outlaw abortion and push through an amendment against same sex-marriage, he did neither. Not surprisingly, some folks felt that Bush had betrayed them. While Bush seemed to have no problem with alienating people, perhaps even he balked at the political cost.
Interestingly enough, the disappoint of some folks on the left towards Obama (and the right towards Bush) can be countered by one of Leibniz’s responses to the classic problem of evil. The problem of evil is, roughly put, the problem of reconciling God’s existence with the evil present in the world.
Leibniz writes: “We find in the universe some things which are not pleasing to us; but let us be aware that it is not made for us alone. It is nevertheless made for us if we are wise: it will serve us if we use it for our service; we shall be happy in it if we wish to be. ” (Theodicy, #193-5)
The same can be said about the president: we find that the president does some things that are not pleasing to us; but let us be aware that he is not our president alone. That is to say, he is not just the president of the left wingers but of all Americans and hence cannot simply please the left.
I fail to see how we could term Obama a moderate, though as I’ve said before, he’s not as radical as some of the people he has appointed to his cabinet. He seems to have appointed some of these people because he feels he owes them something.
Getting legislation passed is not as simple as a president merely desiring it to be so. He has made it clear that he wants to get rid of don’t ask, don’t tell. He stated that he wanted Gitmno closed in a year. With guns, he would face severe opposition and it’s unlikely anything would pass. He’s going to get his healthcare bill, even though the majority of Americans don’t want it.
All of these are and have been for a long time, left wing adgendas. His continuation of the war in Afghanistan is a result of Obama trapping himself in the fight: The largest portion of his success in his campaign was based on an opaque oversimplification: Iraq War: Bad; Afghan War: Good. See how dumb Bush is.
He hasn’t done anything that would be considered “right wing”. You seem to be basing your conclusion that he’s a moderate on the fact that he hasn’t (yet) followed through on all his left wing promises–not that he actually balances his efforts.
In other words, he’s your kind of moderate.
Obama seems to be clearly in the moderate camp in terms of his actions. Naturally, he is left of the far right. But he is also right of the far left. Interestingly the latest issue of Newsweek pegs him as a moderate and an incrementalist rather than a lefty progressive. Of course, I’m sure someone will say that Newsweek is super-left and hence they see Obama as being not as super left as they are.
If he were any more left, Obama would not have been lected. As it was, he ran a campaign against an inept opponent in the shadow of ush Backlash and still only won by 7 points. He’s certainly more left than even Bill Clinton who may have been the only true moderate of our lifetimes. The only president who may have been more left than Obama (and Obama’s still got a ways to go) is FDR. But it took FDR 12 years to do all he did, and I really wonder if Obama would have commenced WW2 with the tenacity that FDR did. Doubtful.
So no–he’s not as left as he could be. Michael Moore would never be elected president, nor Gore Vidal. I don’t think he’s a Moonbat, but maybe more along the lines of the socialist/leftist intellectuals of the past like George Bernard Shaw, Noam Chomsky or on Obama’s best days–Martin Luther King. In other words, he’s infinitely more dangerous than a Moonbat. Of course there are some good things about these people. But they all seem to begin their thinking with the premise that capatalism and America are at their roots, evil constructs, and only but redistributing wealth and power can justice be wrought. I prefer to think that men should be given equal opportunity to succeed, but that the results of labor (or success as it may be) should be left up to the results of that labor: If more people want your work, you’re doing well and get rewarded.
Obama is as left as America and our political system will allow him to be. For now at least. And he doesn’t seem to like America that much, which makes im decidedly leftist in my mind.
Obama still strikes me as a moderate. Part of the problem is that a person will tend to place others on the political spectrum based on where he stands rather than based on some sort of objective political measure. So, folks on the right will place Obama on the left. However, he seems to be closer to the center than most of the left, so I would be inclined to put him in the moderate zone.
I still don’t see the evidence that Obama does not like America much. I suspect that some folks don’t like Obama and thus infer that he must not like America. However, that is hardly evidence of dislike. Some folks might point out that they think Obama’s ideas are mistaken-however, that is hardly evidence that Obama does not like America. I think folks should consider that it is still possible to accept that Obama likes America and yet be critical of some of his ideas. Why the need to throw out the slur that he doesn’t like America?
Are you saying that you are a radical-lefty too? Who is to the left of you? Of course he likes America. He’s President! What is not to like? He does not like many things about America that if changed will make this country a very different landscape.
Name the specific things you’re referring to, and, I’m willing to bet changes would arguably create a better landscape. . .
And how far to the right of right are you?
One termer.
I predict two terms and bet you one beer you are wrong.
Well, I hate to hope he fails to make America better. I can only say that if his re-election is based off making our country stronger, than it appears our success is inevitable, as many liberals seem to think success is. Afterall, if Reagan made us better by doing the things he (and please, oh jaded leftists, please at least give Reagan some credit for doing that)and Obama is doing pretty much the opposite of Reagan, yet we still succeed. I guess success is inevitable.
If the unemployment does not drop below 6% in the next two years, he will be a one termer.
We are far from the country that won WWII. I predict years of slow (but relatively comfortable) decline. Obama wins a second term. The Asian countries that have embraced a meritocratic ethos will emerge ascendant.
N.B. This is what I predict will happen, not what I would like to have happen.
Just curious. What would you have predicted had John McCain/ Sarah Palin won in November? Would China’s and India’s ascendancy have been altered? In the form of a concise essay, consider three scenarios when answering those questions: one where Senate and House are Republican, one where both are Democratic, and one where the Senate is Democratic and the House is Republican.
biomass, my predictions are more or less independent of which party controls the government. I think things may be accelerating under Obama, but there was certainly plenty of progression under Bush.
So, no specifics. So how about specifics on Bush’s progression on the domestic front. Economy? Freedoms? And the foreign front? Our relative strength among nations?
China’s and India’s ascendancy would surely have been slowed but it was already in motion from our body blows we had been taking from housing/bank problems. It could surely have been lessened a large amount. If fact, we seem to be spending like drunken sailors and hurrying the process along the path.
If they did not spend so much future taxpayer money and cut taxes then I am sure it would be better. I had ‘Hope’ When Obama started. he did sound moderate. Then the dizzying spending started(still going on) and I knew this was bad for the economy. He is not alone though. The Democrats in the House and Senate must burden this responsibility too. Oh, and some Republicans too but there just is not enough of them for me to blame at the moment.
Just curious: You had “hope” when Obama came to office. What were your *realistic* expectations for the early months of his presidency when he had the immediate fiscal crisis to contend with? Just what would you have recommended then to deal with the crisis that would have worked better than the steps that were taken and would have cost less?
Other than simply objecting to every decision made by Democrats at the time, what, specifically did Republicans (whose approach to fiscal stability had been on display for 8 years) have to offer?
I don’t remember saying the Rebublicans did any better. Did I say that somewhere?They certainly didn’t do worse fiscally though. My *realistic* expectations would to not go on a crazy spending spree that would end up skyrocketing the deficit up to at least 10 trillion at this point. Let companies fail instead of taking the money. Some banks were forced to take the bailouts when they didn’t need it. They let the devil in the door and now look at what is happening. The government is starting to tell people how much they can make for a living.
“Other than simply objecting to every decision made by Democrats at the time…”
Specifics please.
I believe Limbaugh meant that he hoped Obama would fail to get his legislation passed, because Limbaugh believes that legislation is bad for our country.
I’m guessing it won’t come back to 8% in the next two years if what they want for a single payer option health care plan passes. Taxes will start immediately but the plan will not take effect until 2013(huh, that is right after the next presidential election).
“Well, I hate to hope he fails to make America better.” Are you making a break with Limbaugh here, or are you simply applying Limbaugh’s limited definition of what would make “America better” (i.e.agreeing without deviation from how Limbaugh sees the world)?
Oh, c’mon, give him some time to undo the last four months of Bush’s tenure (from July it rose from 5.8% to 7.@% in December). And no, I’m not whining here–just giving the facts ma’am, just the facts.
Should we go over the reasons why again? Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Hosing Crisis come to mind.
I think Obama is definitely, using Howard Dean’s terminology, from the “democratic wing of the democratic party.”
What I find most troubling about Obama is his lack of commitment to the principle of free speech.
Only in his speach Mike. Are you that gullible? You need to expand your news sources or open your eyes. I watch more than Fox News and listen to Rush. Maybe you should cross the line too. Take a good look at what is going on and take off the fricken’ Liberal glasses.
Fear not Magus. All you need to do is look as far as the District 23 election in New York and see that there is hope. We shall be avenged. Woot!
Give him time. The left wants us to give Obama’s policies, such as the bailout, time to get the economy going again. I say give him time to show he’s the most-left president maybe ever.
Newsweek? You mean the magazine whose primary contributer is Fareed Zacaria?
Of course he describes himself as a moderate, too.
Riiiight.
kernunos: New York 23 goes Democrat! As Mike Murphy said on Meet the Press, “these guys [referring to Beck, Limbaugh etc.] can’t deliver a pizza let alone an election.”
Yes, district 23 did go Democrat but the unknown Conservative shifted the polls by 30 points in 2 weeks. Hell, he wasn’t even supported by the Republican party. They supported a Replublican that would have been more Left than Snowe. She dropped out but probably would have ended up flipping parties like Spectre eventually. There is hope. 🙂
There’s always an excuse.
Take it for what you will but it is still easy to see that he was not even close to a charismatic politician and I am guessing the Republican dropped out so the Democrat would definitely win. All I can say is Michael Steele and the Rebublican party severely messed up and dropped the ball in District 23.
I think he is radical. I surmise he keeps a moderate visage while using his appointees as the ‘bag men’ so to speak. They do the incriminating work and he stays squeaky clean. He is from Chicago after all.
Well, as a good son of Chicago he should be corrupt, not liberal.
Google “list of people from Chicago”. The wiki article there is quite extensive. Dirty, stinking radicals to a man (woman). 🙂
The politics in Chicago have been notoriously corrupt for many years. I need no lists.
Eat your peas, kernunos. Look at the list anyway. It’ll do you good.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/pub-obama-campaign-promises/
I didn’t have to look far for this. The following compares the “rhetoric with [the] reality” of George W. Bush. The first item on the list is particularly telling.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2004/broken_promise.html
My point is,every candidate makes campaign promises like “compassionate conservatism”,for example. Every State of the Union address is jam-packed with promises. All of those promises, eventually, come up against the realities of politics, real public reactions, and real world events.
If Ron Paul had become president, his desires would have confronted so may real life obstacles he may have become the first presidential suicide in history.:(
There was not even an attempt at the easy promises. Transparency, lobbyists and no pork in bills never even made a plate appearance.
I don’t understand how a president that supports the most sweeping changes ever that will cost us over a trillion dollars, pushes a bailout that costs almost a much and that did the opposite of what the free maret is supposed to do, stacked his cabinet with known leftists and radicals, built the most liberal voting record in the senate during his time there and makes sureto include derogatory remarks about his country in every speech he gives in other countries, can be termed moderate.
By what measure? Compared to whom? Was Carter a moderate? He’s more left than Clinton ever was. Clinton started out very left, and found those policies don’t work. So he switched sides without the media blinking an eye.
It’s all semantics anyway. If he can give me results like Reagan I don’t care what we call him. Don’t think it’ll happen.
An what would make him not a moderate in your eyes?
Not that it matters; I don’t want anyone running this country who is still blming things on the previous president after almost a year in office. I can’t remember any president continually blaming the previous guy for stuff. Juvenile.
What specific “results like Reagan”? Tax cuts? Bush tried that, but couldn’t get the needed spending cuts, even with a Republican congress.
The *last two paragraphs* of this paper from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) are interesting.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/BG1414.cfm
For liberal balance I provide the following (esp. paragraphs 6-7 and paragraphs 13-14):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1
Reagan got his tax cuts. And the Heritage Society had great hopes for Bush. The success for the tax policies of either president are agruable.
So was it Reagan’s “prematurely red” hair? His ‘catsup is a vegetable’ school lunch policy? His disbanding of the US Metric Board that had been operating for 7 or so years and was on the way to successfully converting the US to the metric system? (It’s nice to know our exceptionalism concerning making the metric system our official measurement system is shared with only Burma and Liberia.) His “Aw shucks, ma’am” winning smile? His acting creds?
And not that it matters: I’d prefer that no future presidents should have to enter office after a president like George Bush. If you leave behind a huge, steaming brown mess to clean up, you should expect to hear your name associated with that noisome pile for quite some time.
Who gives a crap about the Metric system? You can still use it as I am sure you know. Just look at the small numbers on your speedometer. I’ll know you buy the guy going 2/3rds speed on the interstate.
“Who gives a crap about the Metric system?”
As always, you get right to the heart of the matter. Answer: Everyone other country in the world except the US, Burma, and Liberia. . .
I still run in miles. 🙂
But you’d accomplish more in the same time (numerically speaking at least) in kilometers. 🙂
I predict the decline and fall of America due to our animosity to the metric system.
“And not that it matters: I’d prefer that no future presidents should have to enter office after a president like George Bush. If you leave behind a huge, steaming brown mess to clean up, you should expect to hear your name associated with that noisome pile for quite some time.”
He knew of the mess before he decided to run for the Presidency. Any adult that whines about what they were given instead of actually solving the problem probably should find a new profession. Excuses just mean this type of person realizes they are failing. The reason he keeps whining is because what he is doing isn’t working for the economy. All his administration can do is make up mythical jobs created/saved numbers. Whenever I have worked with men like the current president I tell them to stop their childish whining, take their skirt off and do their job. We all knew the problems from the former presidency. the problem is it is being made 10 times worse. Deca-worse that is.
Some may call it whining. Others may call it valid criticism of a President and the party he represented. . .
biomass, I am not a Republican, although I confess that right now the Democrats are irritating me more. I would be perfectly happy to have Bill Clinton back.
It really bothers me to see the government sticking its nose into every aspect of our lives. I really don’t think that when people voted for Obama they wanted a massive increase in the size and scope of government.
True-people mainly just want the government to 1) stop people from doing what they don’t want others to do and 2) continue to provide the goods and services they want. People don’t want government to 1) stop then from doing what they want to do and 2) provide others with good and services they do not themselves want.
Whichever party’s in power, they need to stop growing government.
Agree, agree, agree, agree. Although I would note that it is possible to be a socially responsible nation without “over-growing” government. But, I’ll ask the question I’ve asked before. Where oh where have all of these complaints been over the last 9 years?
The public should have been storming the temples during the Bush administration, instead of worshiping at his born again and likely thrice-washed feet and (justly) worrying that whatever they said would be caught on an unwarranted wiretap.
The Democrats and now the Republicans are the party of dependancy. They try to make their base full of people that need their handouts. Minorities for affirmative action(etc.}, unions for special funding because they cannot compete in the global market, the elderly for programs and handouts, the young for educational grants, deadbeats for handouts, etc. They need this crowd to grow to hold on to power. They do not care about aborted babies though because they cannot vote.
But is more government inherently bad? Does it not depend on what is being done, rather than how much is being done and how?
You’re doing your best to justify what Obama’s doing.
The central government should not be made the “power generator” for jobs and the economy.
It’s so damn obvious to me. The Soviet Union collapsed, not because socialism is glowing with evilness, but because a command economy simply cannot effectively distribute services and goods when the receiver gets too big. The fluid nature of the market is much better.
Try being in charge of a branch of government that is responsible for getting food to everyone. You would find it nearly impossible.
Obama is just ignoring the lessons of history. I’ll never understand the deep love affair libs have with socialism. The most powerful and well to do countries–and free countries–steer away from large central governments. Liberals insist on pulling us back under its yoke.
It is very obvious. Reagan set the formula. Lower taxes on businesses and investing. Cut government spending.
40% of the United States does not pay Federal income taxes. This isn’t looking good as you can only gouge the rich so much before you run out of money.
The government doesn’t produce wealth, it only consumes it.
Out of the 3.5 million jobs that have been lost since the new president took office how many have been government jobs. I’m sure it takes more than 10 private sector jobs to pay for one governemnt job. Do the math people because all I see is failure.
10.2 % unemployment rate everyone. It isn’t stopping here either. Can I up my predistion now?