OT: Obama is Conservative

[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.

[jficquette]

[quote=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. [/quote]

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

[jficquette]

[quote=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. [/quote]

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

[jficquette]

[quote=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. [/quote]

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

[jficquette]

[quote=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. [/quote]

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

[jficquette]

[quote=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. [/quote]

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.

Picking up on surveyor’s mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a “pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian”. Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France’s handling of Germany following WWI. I’m not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to “turn” certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama’s worldview with those people and periods where “American Realism” (whatever the hell that is) worked.

Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama’s “vision” as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn’t and isn’t.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.

Picking up on surveyor’s mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a “pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian”. Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France’s handling of Germany following WWI. I’m not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to “turn” certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama’s worldview with those people and periods where “American Realism” (whatever the hell that is) worked.

Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama’s “vision” as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn’t and isn’t.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.

Picking up on surveyor’s mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a “pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian”. Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France’s handling of Germany following WWI. I’m not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to “turn” certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama’s worldview with those people and periods where “American Realism” (whatever the hell that is) worked.

Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama’s “vision” as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn’t and isn’t.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.

Picking up on surveyor’s mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a “pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian”. Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France’s handling of Germany following WWI. I’m not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to “turn” certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama’s worldview with those people and periods where “American Realism” (whatever the hell that is) worked.

Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama’s “vision” as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn’t and isn’t.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.

Picking up on surveyor’s mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a “pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian”. Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France’s handling of Germany following WWI. I’m not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to “turn” certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama’s worldview with those people and periods where “American Realism” (whatever the hell that is) worked.

Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama’s “vision” as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.

Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.

Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn’t and isn’t.

[bsrsharma]

I don’t think either candidate is really conservative or liberal under any definition. They are tweaking their positions to win. Look at McCain’s position on immigration (for amnesty, before against amnesty, before for amnesty), economy (against taxcuts, before for taxcuts, before against taxcuts) etc., Both would do Kerry “I voted for it, before I voted against it” proud.

[bsrsharma]

I don’t think either candidate is really conservative or liberal under any definition. They are tweaking their positions to win. Look at McCain’s position on immigration (for amnesty, before against amnesty, before for amnesty), economy (against taxcuts, before for taxcuts, before against taxcuts) etc., Both would do Kerry “I voted for it, before I voted against it” proud.

[bsrsharma]

I don’t think either candidate is really conservative or liberal under any definition. They are tweaking their positions to win. Look at McCain’s position on immigration (for amnesty, before against amnesty, before for amnesty), economy (against taxcuts, before for taxcuts, before against taxcuts) etc., Both would do Kerry “I voted for it, before I voted against it” proud.

[bsrsharma]

I don’t think either candidate is really conservative or liberal under any definition. They are tweaking their positions to win. Look at McCain’s position on immigration (for amnesty, before against amnesty, before for amnesty), economy (against taxcuts, before for taxcuts, before against taxcuts) etc., Both would do Kerry “I voted for it, before I voted against it” proud.

[Author]

Posts