Obama was surrounded by the lunatic death-to-Americans left, his friends and social circle all come from those crazies, which led to widespread suspicion he was and is one of them – that he is a crazed commie nazi muslim who seeks to destroy America and reduce Americans to poverty and slavery. Birds of a feather flock together. On the other hand, a lot of people believe he is a moderate centrist.
He is now surrounded by the pillars of the Harvard Goldman Wall Street establishment, leavened with a fair few death-to-Americans crazies whom he helicoptered into top positions, but invariably positions where their actual ability to bring death to Americans is rather limited, which positions have been resentfully described by their demented denizens as “policy Siberiaâ€, a disappointed complaint that implies they see Obama as really the moderate centrist, rather than really the crazed commie nazi muslim.
Those who think that Obama is lunatic left think that Bush was a left winger, and those who think that Obama is centrist think that Bush was far right, so there is evidently broad agreement that Obama policies are not all that different from Bush’s policies.
Bush’s big spending becomes much bigger spending, Bush’s heavy handed regulation becomes regulation considerably more heavy handed and much more hostile to business. Bush’s disastrous affirmative action has not much changed, foreign war becomes foreign war with somewhat more cringing before our enemies – the bowing is uniquely Obama, but the Hasan debacle was unchanged Bush policy. Politically correct warfare in Afghanistan has become even more politically correct warfare in Afghanistan.
Politicians always tend towards compromise, and politically correct warfare is a compromise between making war and making peace, but of course, such a compromise is unviable – it was unviable for Bush, and even less viable for Obama. You either have to annihilate the enemy with ruthless disregard for the women and children, or else cut and run. There is no middle road. The Bush disease has infected west point, which now upholds the politically correct position that slaying our enemies is so last century, a transformation that represents a victory for the State Department over the Pentagon.
If one considers these Bush policies to be left wing, as I do, then Obama’s policies are lunatic left, his crazy pals hanging out in “policy Siberia†are looming threat of cataclysm, and the fact that he is surrounded by pillars of the Harvard Goldman Wall Street establishment just shows how corrupt, decadent, incompetent, and out of touch with reality our establishment has become.
To synthesize these conflicting views of Obama, it is necessary to realize he is just not very bright. People overestimate Obama’s intelligence, because he presents as one of the Harvard elite, which he culturally belongs to. Therefore, he sincerely believes progressivism is moderate, humane, centrist, and good for America, and the swift implementation of these policies will make himself and democrats popular, while his brighter fellow believers (seething bitterly in policy Siberia) believe that Americans are evil sinners, and deserve to suffer progressivism every bit.
Obama delusively believes himself fairly moderate, but fears that if he was entirely frank, others would not see him so.
Obama is clearly to the left to Clinton. The people who scoff at Obama as a Man of the Left are also mostly the people who scoffed at Clinton.
Obama is clearly to the left of the post-94 Clinton. I think he’s to the left of the pre-94 Clinton, but that’s not so certain, and if he is, it’s not by much.
Clearly Obama/Bush affirmative action is far to the left, far, far to the left, of Clinton Affirmative action.
Compare Obama’s spending and regulation, with Clinton’s spending and regulation – of course, much of Obama’s spending and regulation was inherited from Bush, so it comes back to the question: Was Bush far to the left of Clinton, or far to the right? On spending and regulation, he was far to the left. What
you guysthe left are calling de-regulation was not de-regulation, but regulatory capture – the regulators pursuing elite interests rather than the public interest, but when have regulators ever done otherwise? There was never any golden age when regulators pursued the public interest. The more regulation you get, the more regulators will pursue the elite interest at the expense of the public interest, which was what happened under Bush, and is happening even more under Obama.Clinton entered office by way of the Democratic Leadership Conference, an organization that supported relaxing the minimum wage, after serving as a governor of a deep red state. Obama entered office by way of ACORN after serving in a dark blue city.
True, one of Clinton’s first acts as Commander-in-Chief was to normalize the status of gays in the military…a policy supported by Goldwater.
Obviously Obama’s background is far to the left of Clinton’s
Who are you arguing against? We both agree that Obama is to the left of Clinton. I’m only saying that Clinton was pretty far left himself before the Congressional blow-out of ’94 (e.g. the health-care “reform” he was pushing then) and he trimmed to being much less left after that election.
(Bush I see as left wing in a Nixonian sort of way – leftists screamed and ranted loudly about how much they hated him, but when you look at his actual policies…)
Quite so. The original Clinton, pretty far left, the post health care Clinton, a genuine centrist, Obama so far out of sight left that he does not know he is to the left of the original Clinton, and that the original Clinton was too far left.
And Bush and Nixon, both of them leftists.