OT: Obama is Conservative

[gandalf]

There’s an interesting article appearing in the current issue of Newsweek that makes some salient observations about Obama and his foreign policy positions:

    Obama Abroad
    He’s been called a naive idealist. But in terms of
    foreign policy, he’s the true realist in the race.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763/page/1

The substance of the article matches my observations. In traditional discussions of foreign policy, Obama’s positions are what we would term ‘conservative’. There is a measure of realism.

This is an interesting point, and worth thinking about for a second. The Democratic candidate for President has taken positions that are more conservative than the Republican.

Any serious comments? One thing that jumps off the page for me is how much of an impact Bush Jr. has had on the direction of the Republican Party, especially foreign policy. I don’t think Eisenhower would approve.

(Partisans, begin ranting here…)

[Casca]

Thank you, Joe Goebbels.

Keep shouting the big lie long enough, and some are sure to think it true.

[Casca]

Thank you, Joe Goebbels.

Keep shouting the big lie long enough, and some are sure to think it true.

[Casca]

Thank you, Joe Goebbels.

Keep shouting the big lie long enough, and some are sure to think it true.

[Casca]

Thank you, Joe Goebbels.

Keep shouting the big lie long enough, and some are sure to think it true.

[Casca]

Thank you, Joe Goebbels.

Keep shouting the big lie long enough, and some are sure to think it true.

[svelte]

The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here.

[svelte]

The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here.

[svelte]

The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here.

[svelte]

The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here.

[svelte]

The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here.

[surveyor]

labels

While labeling Obama policies as conservative or liberal helps simplify certain issues for most people, I usually find it inadequate and actually problematic because it reduces analysis to very simplistic thinking.

You may characterize Obama’s policies as “conservative” or “realistic” but that does not mean that it is correct. He was wrong on the surge. He said it wouldn’t work. He was extremely wrong. He even changed his website to remove his criticism of the surge.

He has also stated that he believes terrorism (and Islamic terrorism specifically) is the result of poverty. Another wrong assumption. There are studies that prove him wrong as well as any reasoned analysis of the islamic threat.

His knowledge and understanding of history is also severely lacking. He recently commented about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. It wasn’t just one bomb, there were several bombs launched by the Japanese against Pearl Harbor. It’s interesting to note that not only does he have a good understanding and knowledge of history of his own country, he also has the same lack of depth when it comes to the state he lived in and spent most of his childhood in.

I also see an appalling pattern within Obama that many times, facts, history, and logic are inconviences to his world views. Unfortunately, this pattern is also common to his rabid supporters.

So everyone can label his views as “conservative” or “liberal” and choose which side is appropriate. However, it doesn’t change the fact that there are serious deficiencies in his qualifications and analytical thinking when it comes to foreign policy.

[surveyor]

labels

While labeling Obama policies as conservative or liberal helps simplify certain issues for most people, I usually find it inadequate and actually problematic because it reduces analysis to very simplistic thinking.

You may characterize Obama’s policies as “conservative” or “realistic” but that does not mean that it is correct. He was wrong on the surge. He said it wouldn’t work. He was extremely wrong. He even changed his website to remove his criticism of the surge.

He has also stated that he believes terrorism (and Islamic terrorism specifically) is the result of poverty. Another wrong assumption. There are studies that prove him wrong as well as any reasoned analysis of the islamic threat.

His knowledge and understanding of history is also severely lacking. He recently commented about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. It wasn’t just one bomb, there were several bombs launched by the Japanese against Pearl Harbor. It’s interesting to note that not only does he have a good understanding and knowledge of history of his own country, he also has the same lack of depth when it comes to the state he lived in and spent most of his childhood in.

I also see an appalling pattern within Obama that many times, facts, history, and logic are inconviences to his world views. Unfortunately, this pattern is also common to his rabid supporters.

So everyone can label his views as “conservative” or “liberal” and choose which side is appropriate. However, it doesn’t change the fact that there are serious deficiencies in his qualifications and analytical thinking when it comes to foreign policy.

[surveyor]

labels

While labeling Obama policies as conservative or liberal helps simplify certain issues for most people, I usually find it inadequate and actually problematic because it reduces analysis to very simplistic thinking.

You may characterize Obama’s policies as “conservative” or “realistic” but that does not mean that it is correct. He was wrong on the surge. He said it wouldn’t work. He was extremely wrong. He even changed his website to remove his criticism of the surge.

He has also stated that he believes terrorism (and Islamic terrorism specifically) is the result of poverty. Another wrong assumption. There are studies that prove him wrong as well as any reasoned analysis of the islamic threat.

His knowledge and understanding of history is also severely lacking. He recently commented about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. It wasn’t just one bomb, there were several bombs launched by the Japanese against Pearl Harbor. It’s interesting to note that not only does he have a good understanding and knowledge of history of his own country, he also has the same lack of depth when it comes to the state he lived in and spent most of his childhood in.

I also see an appalling pattern within Obama that many times, facts, history, and logic are inconviences to his world views. Unfortunately, this pattern is also common to his rabid supporters.

So everyone can label his views as “conservative” or “liberal” and choose which side is appropriate. However, it doesn’t change the fact that there are serious deficiencies in his qualifications and analytical thinking when it comes to foreign policy.

[surveyor]

labels

While labeling Obama policies as conservative or liberal helps simplify certain issues for most people, I usually find it inadequate and actually problematic because it reduces analysis to very simplistic thinking.

You may characterize Obama’s policies as “conservative” or “realistic” but that does not mean that it is correct. He was wrong on the surge. He said it wouldn’t work. He was extremely wrong. He even changed his website to remove his criticism of the surge.

He has also stated that he believes terrorism (and Islamic terrorism specifically) is the result of poverty. Another wrong assumption. There are studies that prove him wrong as well as any reasoned analysis of the islamic threat.

His knowledge and understanding of history is also severely lacking. He recently commented about the “bomb that hit Pearl Harbor”. It wasn’t just one bomb, there were several bombs launched by the Japanese against Pearl Harbor. It’s interesting to note that not only does he have a good understanding and knowledge of history of his own country, he also has the same lack of depth when it comes to the state he lived in and spent most of his childhood in.

I also see an appalling pattern within Obama that many times, facts, history, and logic are inconviences to his world views. Unfortunately, this pattern is also common to his rabid supporters.

So everyone can label his views as “conservative” or “liberal” and choose which side is appropriate. However, it doesn’t change the fact that there are serious deficiencies in his qualifications and analytical thinking when it comes to foreign policy.

[Author]

Posts