Brando70 wrote:
Rob has clearly done his homework, but to accept his conclusion that Obama is not just a liberal, but a radical, you have to believe that his entire Senatorial campaign, and even his time in the Illinois Senate, was a big act, a ruse to conceal his radical Manchurian Candidate directive. His "most liberal Senator" tag gets trotted out, without any mention that he was 16th in his first year and 10th in his second. Furthermore, "most liberal" in and of itself is a relative term. It only tells you that, in relation to other Senators (who tend to be more conservative than the more diverse House), Obama was the most liberal last year.
It doesn't require that you believe anything so sinister really. It's not uncommon for a candidate to run a campaign that doesn't accurately reflect their actual politics, although rarely on a scale this large.
As you point out most liberal, and radical, are relative terms that discuss where one falls on the American spectrum of political philosophy. He was, in two of the three years for which there is data, more liberal than Bernie Sanders, an actual socialist. Again, I would think that for liberals this is a feature, not a bug.
I found your last two paragraphs incredibly interesting.
So, I understand if people feel Obama is not ready to be president, or oppose his policies because they feel like they will impede growth, hinder national security, etc. There have been a lot of logical arguments back and forth on these issues within these threads.
The socialism label, on the other hand, is simply an attempt to paint a relatively minor change in tax laws into some giant commie conspiracy to destroy capitalism. Again, I understand people arguing about the issue of handing rebates to non-taxpayers. I just feel the implication that this policy will turn the US into the new Soviet Union is wildly exaggerated.
"On the other hand" is telling. It indicates that in your mind being a socialist stops at tax policy and is somehow distinct from the conclusion that Obama's plans will impdede growth and hinder national security etc.
IMO, Obama shouldn't be President in part because his socialist leanings will impede growth and imperil our ability to recover from the current economic crisis.
He can run out Clinton-era economic advisors from now until Tax Day, but I don't think that a Clintonite, centrist economic plan is anywhere in our future during an Obama administration. You can accuse me of paranoia, but I think it's a conclusion every bit as reasonable as the people swallowing his campaign rhetoric hook, line and sinker despite the fact that much of it is at odds with his prior work, philosophy and associations. Indeeed, my opinion is based on the very things that people are overlooking in favor of his sagacious chin-scratching and moderate talk.
Let me be clear, I don't think that Obama is going to run out and nationalize Wal-Mart. Socialism isn't an absolute condition any more than free market capitalism is, and obviously the two aren't totally mutually exclusive either. But I do believe that there is evidence that Obama will be far more liberal than any President this country as seen in many generations.
I may have said this before, but I'm not sure. The repercussions of electing somebody this far out of the mainstream of political thought in the electorate can be two-fold: Either he succeeds and pulls enough of the electorate with him to sustain his position a la FDR, or the electorate realizes that they have elected someone who is antithetical to most of the fundamental tenets upon which they have voted for the last 30 years and he remains an electoral anomaly.
In either case the first 2 years would be interesting. Obama has created the closest thing to a cult of personality that we've seen in a long time. Many compare him to Reagan, but I see a huge difference. Reagan was a charismatic and inspirational figure to his followers, but he wore his ideology on his chest. He was an anti-communist tax cutter. People didn't always get what they expected, but most of the time they did.
Obama is inspirational and charismatic but not for his ideology, of which many seem ignorant. People are drawn to him because of his temperment, his background or their impression of his intelligence (as well as his clearly not being George W. Bush). I believe this is in part why there is such a backlash whenever questions are raised about his ideology.
It will be interesting to see what happens when a candidate who has created in himself for people's hopes and dreams has to govern as an actual, fallible and ultimately partisan Chief Executive. There will be a flury of "This isn't the Obama I voted for" columns and blog posts and the blind men realize that the elephant they felt is not the elephant they've elected.
If he governs as the pragmatist that he claims to be he will absolutely alienate the left and minorities, who expect him to "fundamentally transform" this country. If he governs as an ideological warrior committed to redistributive change he is going to alienate...well, everyone else.
It would be interesting in either case.
Edit: PS I meant to include this in the original post, but it sort of got away from me
Jared, with respect to Adam Smith and progressive taxes... There is a huge difference between making sure that any tax burden is shared fairly (Adam Smith's point) and instituting a redistribution for the purpose of "fairly" allocating wealth. Indeed, taken together Adam Smith's principles are an effective argument for a flat tax.
