A liberal friend linked to this “American Conservative” article on Facebook, which is provocatively entitled, “Obama is a Republican” by Bruce Bartlett.
I disagreed with him that Obama was anything like a Republican on “social issues”, but I may have been wrong about that (my point now being that there are many unhelpful Republicans). Bartlett continues:
In my opinion, Obama has governed as a moderate conservative—essentially as what used to be called a liberal Republican before all such people disappeared from the GOP. He has been conservative to exactly the same degree that Richard Nixon basically governed as a moderate liberal, something no conservative would deny today. (Ultra-leftist Noam Chomsky recently called Nixon “the last liberal president.”)
Here’s the proof:
And he goes on to list a number of items wherein Obama has either willingly or fecklessly been “helpful”:
Iraq/Afghanistan/ISIS: [Given the circumstances, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that Islamists from around the globe are flocking INTO northern Iraq (thus reducing the possibility of terrorism around the globe), and that Shia militias primarily are the ones fighting them.]
Stimulus/Deficit (see the chart nearby): “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was enacted in February 2009 with a gross cost of $816 billion. Although this legislation was passed without a single Republican vote, it is foolish to assume that the election of McCain would have resulted in savings of $816 billion. There is no doubt that he would have put forward a stimulus plan of roughly the same order of magnitude, but tilted more toward Republican priorities.” [If we have to have a Democrat as President once in a while, I think that having a Republican Congress to work alongside is tremendously helpful in this regard – this same thing happened during the second Clinton term.]
Health Reform: “the reality is that it is virtually textbook Republican health policy, with a pedigree from the Heritage Foundation and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, among others.” [“State policies as laboratories”]
Drugs: “Obama continued the harsh anti-drug policy of previous administrations, and his Department of Justice continues to treat marijuana as a dangerous drug.”
Race: “Obama has seldom touched on the issue of race, and when he has he has emphasized the conservative themes of responsibility and self-help.”
Corporate profits: “Corporate profits and the stock market have risen to record levels during his administration. Even those progressives who defend Obama against critics on the left concede that he has bent over backward to protect corporate profits.”
Certainly there are negatives. But no one yet [from the conservative side] has demonstrated a handle on the “culture wars”. These cultural efforts involve too many working parts, and even if we were to come up with another “President Reagan”, it’s not clear that such a thing would make a dent in the liberal universities, entertainment, and media outlets, “thought-leaders all” in our current culture. With respect to “our current culture”, I think there is no better advice than that given by Rhology here:
Go find some sinners and preach the Gospel to them. If you don't know the Gospel, learn it, then go find some sinners and preach the Gospel to them. If you're not a Christian, repent, become a Christian, learn how to preach the Gospel, then go find some sinners and preach the Gospel to them.
No single president is going to solve all of our problems. But they can either harm, or contribute to, something known as “the common good”.
One number in the article genuinely stands out to me: “Bush inherited [a] projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion over the following decade, which he turned into an actual deficit of $6.1 trillion, according to a CBO study”. Given that Obama started his presidency with “the Great Recession”, and that gasoline prices are down near $3.00 per gallon again, unemployment is down, the U.S. military is not involved in large-scale ground operations, we could have done a lot worse these last six years.
Read the whole article here.
“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was enacted in February 2009 with a gross cost of $816 billion. Although this legislation was passed without a single Republican vote, it is foolish to assume that the election of McCain would have resulted in savings of $816 billion. There is no doubt that he would have put forward a stimulus plan of roughly the same order of magnitude, but tilted more toward Republican priorities.”
ReplyDeleteThat's pure speculation.
“the reality is that it is virtually textbook Republican health policy, with a pedigree from the Heritage Foundation…"
As long as the Heritage Foundation model was purely hypothetical, it could be ignored. When this actually became a live issue, that's when opposition mobilized.
"…and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, among others.”
And many Republicans held that against him.
“Obama continued the harsh anti-drug policy of previous administrations, and his Department of Justice continues to treat marijuana as a dangerous drug.”
I guess Washington and Colorado never got the memo.
“Obama has seldom touched on the issue of race, and when he has he has emphasized the conservative themes of responsibility and self-help.”
That's risibly false:
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/388973/print
Really?
“Corporate profits and the stock market have risen to record levels during his administration. Even those progressives who defend Obama against critics on the left concede that he has bent over backward to protect corporate profits.”
Sure about that?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/10/16/stocks-wipe-out-gains-for-the-year/
"These cultural efforts involve too many working parts…"
ReplyDeleteWhat does that even mean? Doesn't social engineering have as many working parts as social conservative activism?
"…and even if we were to come up with another 'President Reagan', it’s not clear that such a thing would make a dent in the liberal universities, entertainment, and media outlets, 'thought-leaders all' in our current culture."
Network news and big city papers are dying. Liberal universities are challenged by online education and the fact that, for many, a college degree is no longer cost-effective. In addition, liberal universities are heavily dependent on gov't subsidies, which makes them very vulnerable to state and federal budget cuts.
Conversely, there's ideological competition from talk radio, cable TV, home schooling, private Christian education, &c.
"I think there is no better advice than that given by Rhology here: 'Go find some sinners and preach the Gospel to them.'"
That's one priority. But we have a representative form of gov't, so Christians would be foolish to abdicate their political leverage. It's important to have Christian lawyers, lawmakers, judges, &c.
"and that gasoline prices are down near $3.00 per gallon again…"
To my knowledge, inflation is up. Way up.
"…unemployment is down."
That's a purely technical and very deceptive figure. What about most new jobs going to immigrants? What about record low participation in the work force? What about the national debt? What about new unfunded mandates?
"I think there is no better advice than that given by Rhology here: 'Go find some sinners and preach the Gospel to them.'"
ReplyDeleteThat presumes Constitutionally protected rights which are currently under attack by liberals.
[On "4816 billion with Republican tilt]: That's pure speculation.
DeleteYes, but it's not wild speculation. Bush's initial bailout package was focused on banks only and was $400+ million. The numbers were up there.
FWIW, just driving around a bit, I think we're still seeing many of those "shovel-ready" road projects still going on six years later.
[Health policy] And many Republicans held that against him.
That's true, too, but it doesn't deny that Romney was a Republican who tried what had apparently been a Heritage Foundation idea in what had been being pushed at the time, "the policies of Republican governors" as laboratories for what might be done on a federal level. Romney's wasn't the best among the policies, but then again, the article is comparing Obama to Nixon, not Reagan.
[on drug policy] I guess Washington and Colorado never got the memo.
What's the overall net, however? I don't know that we can hold Obama guilty for what the states are doing.
[on race relations]: That's risibly false:
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/388973/print
Really?
You're probably right about this. Earlier Bartlett had talked about the appointment of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, as leading to Republican-ish military policies. Holder took on the role of "race-foil" to Obama: Holder could do the dirty work, and Obama could "seldom touch on the issue of race".
[Corporate profits]: Sure about that?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/10/16/stocks-wipe-out-gains-for-the-year/
That doesn't change the fact that the stock market did rise from about 8,000 to about 15,000 in five years. The fact that it has now fallen from 17,000 to 16,000 doesn't negate those earlier gains.
["cultural efforts"]: What does that even mean? Doesn't social engineering have as many working parts as social conservative activism?
Right, our government was set up in such a way that "different governments will control each other (and departments within the various governments would check the ambitions of the others), at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." This was for the purpose of "[guarding] one part of the society against the injustice of the other part".
Unfortunately, the founders didn't foresee a day when good, hard-working people would work harder, leaving room for another faction, the "social engineers", as you say, to spend their time and efforts to figure out how to manipulate the system.
big city papers are dying.
DeleteI'm very glad to see that Bezos has acquired the Washington Post.
Liberal universities are challenged by online education
Right, and (a) this was inevitable, and (b), it doesn't undo the damage that has been done by the liberal universites. Where this is going to head, culturally.
liberal universities are heavily dependent on gov't subsidies, which makes them very vulnerable to state and federal budget cuts.
Yes, and while this part of the strategy of the "social engineers", it is also turning out to have its drawbacks. But this is not something that those "from the conservative side" have made to happen.
Conversely, there's ideological competition from talk radio, cable TV, home schooling, private Christian education, &c.
I think that the influence from "talk radio and cable TV" is limited by the influence that the Network news and big city papers" were lost in the first place. Conservatives are working around the edges of "mainstream culture" -- but they're not influencing it by working outside of it.
So you're right, "It's important to have Christian lawyers, lawmakers, judges, &c." There are some of those. But by and large, what about "Christian university professors, Christian network news anchors, Christian newspaper editors", "Christian public school board members", etc?
I'm guilty of this too. I've got six kids who went throug public schools. I suppose I could have spent some of my time running for school board, for example. But at the end of the day, working, dealing with the kids, you don't want to go out at night and run for office.
But I think that's a factor that's at the root of the problem. People from the conservative side who care, also have jobs and kids, and that is a hindrance on doing the "culture war" stuff, outside of maybe listening to talk radio or watching Cable TV. Those are "feel-good" activities, but how much "political activism" do those things actively accomplish? Meanwhile, the liberal university professors and their students have the ability to make "social projects" a part of their school work.
To my knowledge, inflation is up. Way up.
Yes, over the last six years. But the drift back down (gas prices from near $4.00 to near $3.00) has the effect of rippling all the way through the economy.
"…unemployment is down."
That's a purely technical and very deceptive figure.
To some degree, yes, but in the sense that 200,000 new jobs per month for the last year or so have been created, that too is rippling through the economy. And yes, you can say that it was generated as a ripple effect by more plentiful energy production in the US, lower federal spending from a Republican congress, etc., but with energy prices down, and employment up, I'd have to say that in the last couple of years, economically, we've seen a lot of improvement.
[preach the Gospel]: That presumes Constitutionally protected rights which are currently under attack by liberals.
While we're lamenting the liberal mainstream culture, it's much simpler to work for the conversion of judges, network news people, university professors -- and create conservative opportunities within those liberal bastions -- rather than see a Christian kid try to work his or her way up through the home school system into those positions. And we do have a promise: the Gospel does not return void. We don't know the extent of what that promise will do in our culture. We can't measure the effect that it's already having (we don't know how much worse things could be).
TARP was not a "stimulus" package. TARP was more like a loan. And it's almost paid for itself:
Deletehttp://247wallst.com/banking-finance/2013/05/10/tarp-payback-scorecard/
Keep in mind, too, that TARP was still very controversial in conservative circles.
"That's true, too, but it doesn't deny that Romney was a Republican who tried what had apparently been a Heritage Foundation idea in what had been being pushed at the time."
i) Romneycare came under severe criticism during his first presidential bid. That's probably a major reason he didn't get the nomination the first time around.
ii) The Heritage Foundation is one of several conservative think tanks. It churns out lots of position papers which few people read or pay attention to. It's only when an idea becomes a likely policy that it attracts serious scrutiny.
"I don't know that we can hold Obama guilty for what the states are doing."
Of course we can. He could direct DOJ to prosecute states that violate Federal drug laws. So he's not continuing the "harsh anti-drug policy of previous administrations."
"But the drift back down (gas prices from near $4.00 to near $3.00) has the effect of rippling all the way through the economy."
Gas prices routinely fluctuate. What makes you think that's even a Democrat/Republican issue? Other than eliminating corporate taxes and the Federal tax on gas, it's not as if the GOP has direct control over gas prices, even if the GOP were in power.
One thing which might lower gas prices is more domestic oil production, which is anathema to Democrats.
"To some degree, yes, but in the sense that 200,000 new jobs per month for the last year or so have been created, that too is rippling through the economy."
What makes you think Obama's domestic policies are responsible for that?
Steve -- I noted at the beginning that the Bartlett article was "provocatively titled" -- an I don't think Bartlett was saying (nor am I saying) "Obama is good", only that "he has not been a total force for evil".
DeleteGas prices routinely fluctuate. What makes you think that's even a Democrat/Republican issue? Other than eliminating corporate taxes and the Federal tax on gas, it's not as if the GOP has direct control over gas prices, even if the GOP were in power....what makes you think Obama's domestic policies are responsible for that?
I realize that, but administrations routinely can and do become associated with the economic conditions of the era. And I clearly attributed things not to Obama alone, but to a Democrat president with a Republican congress.
That's more of a commentary on the thinking behind the U.S. Constitution (and the form of government that is still in place, with its separation of powers), than on Obama as a man.
I dislike Obama, but my intention with this article was "things are not so bad". I allow that Obama is not only "willingly" but "fecklessly" helpful.
And things are made even less "so bad" insofar as the liberals (like my friend in paragraph 1) are profoundly disappointed with him.
"Health Reform: 'the reality is that it is virtually textbook Republican health policy, with a pedigree from the Heritage Foundation and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, among others.'"
ReplyDeleteHm, I think it's got to be either ignorant or disingenuous to use Romney and his health policies as a measure for what's "Republican."
Also, I would think it's less important to know whether or not Obama is a Republican than whether or not Obama is good for the nation. Like say Obama could indeed be categorized as a "moderate Republican." Okay, so then maybe he's more like a RINO.
Anyway, this rhetoric about Obama being Republican sounds more like a liberal tactic to blur the lines (maybe largely due to the upcoming midterms?). To make important political and social issues seem more insignificant than they truly are. Almost like doublespeak or something.
"and even if we were to come up with another 'President Reagan', it’s not clear that such a thing would make a dent in the liberal universities, entertainment, and media outlets, 'thought-leaders all' in our current culture."
But hasn't Obama's administration "ma[d]e a dent" in many of these areas? If so, then I don't see why an influential Republican POTUS couldn't do the same?
"Liberal universities are challenged by online education and the fact that, for many, a college degree is no longer cost-effective."
BTW, it's funny, on the one hand, liberal universities' increases in tuition and other student fees help to fund their respective universities. Maybe tuition hikes are more necessary for them too as the gov't and gov't institutions begin to cut back on funding. But on the other hand, the more liberal universities increase their tuition, the more it's a disincentive for students to attend these universities.
"I think there is no better advice than that given by Rhology here: 'Go find some sinners and preach the Gospel to them.'"
As we know, it's not mutually exclusive for Christians to preach the gospel and be politically and socially active. Not sure why we need to exclude the one for the other.
it's got to be either ignorant or disingenuous to use Romney and his health policies as a measure for what's "Republican."
DeleteThere's another option. Romney (R) actually did prevent someone with "(D)" by their name from being governor of Massachusetts. Whether or not there are clear bright lines between (R) and (D) is the very topic of this original post.
The point of that was that the liberal (D)'s that I know are sorely disappointed that Obama did not implement a socialist ("single-payer") policy. And one might further say, that GWB (R), with a Republican congress, used their influence to push through a $400 million expansion of the ("single-payer") Medicare system.
There are ironies all over the place.
Also, I would think it's less important to know whether or not Obama is a Republican than whether or not Obama is good for the nation. Like say Obama could indeed be categorized as a "moderate Republican." Okay, so then maybe he's more like a RINO.
I have never liked the term "RINO" (nor "CINO", etc.) "The policy" is "the policy" -- and those policies start with ideas. That, I think, is where the discussions need to go. What does it mean to be either "conservative" or "liberal" these days? The sets of policies that underpin those labels ought to be subjected to some discussion -- and not just put out by a think-tank, adopted by a politician, and then rammed through as a "law" because one has the votes for it.
The discussion needs to take place higher up the food chain. And it needs to be based on sounder thinking than we've been treated to.
That's one of the reasons, BTW, why I'm working to publish more of Muller's work -- because understanding the struggles that were faced when Christianity was arguably in a better place to actually do something to improve "culture" for the better -- and the lessons learned -- can help us immeasurably in our day of instant communication.
a liberal tactic to blur the lines
I don't think so -- I'd rather see it as an opportunity to shed light on "all the moving parts" (as I described it above).
But hasn't Obama's administration "ma[d]e a dent" in many of these areas? If so, then I don't see why an influential Republican POTUS couldn't do the same?
Yes, that's one area where "having the bully pulpit" can make a great deal of difference.
When Reagan had it, he managed to implement effective policy while maintaining the same message that he had created in the 60's and 70's.
But I think that George W. Bush was easily manipulated by individuals around him who had different policy ideas than he initially had, and he lost his ability to effectively maintain the "bully pulpit".
It's not quite the same for a Democrat -- Obama had no message, because he had no soul (other than, it seems, "I'm for Obama"). He had the opportunity to have the echo chamber amplify any message that he put out -- and the echo chamber wanted a particular message, that Obama frequently did not deliver.
[Liberal universities' increases in tuition]
I think that's one of the self-healing mechanisms that inadvertently were in place and were overlooked by those "social engineers" who sought to take over in those areas.
As we know, it's not mutually exclusive for Christians to preach the gospel and be politically and socially active. Not sure why we need to exclude the one for the other.
I didn't intend for that to come off as "excluding" one another -- we should "[practice] the latter, without neglecting the former". But the "former" should be the primary focus of our intentions.
Thanks for the reply, John. Sorry I've been busy, and haven't had a chance to reply until now. Anyway, here's my response:
Delete"There's another option. Romney (R) actually did prevent someone with '(D)' by their name from being governor of Massachusetts.
I think this is going off on a tangent. In context, we weren't talking about the politics in the Mass gubernatorial race that led to Romney's election as Mass state governor.
Rather, the original article to which you linked tries to argue Obama is a Republican. As I see it, one of the arguments the article uses is ObamaCare's similarity with RomneyCare in Mass. It may be true the two are very similar in significant aspects. But even so this assumes RomneyCare would have been sanctioned by Republicans, which it's not. At the very least, there's considerable debate among Republicans over RomneyCare. Hence my comment above.
"Whether or not there are clear bright lines between (R) and (D) is the very topic of this original post."
It seems to me you're using the "Obama is a Republican" article to support your case for the same.
"The point of that was that the liberal (D)'s that I know are sorely disappointed that Obama did not implement a socialist ('single-payer') policy. And one might further say, that GWB (R), with a Republican congress, used their influence to push through a $400 million expansion of the ('single-payer') Medicare system. There are ironies all over the place."
Let's say this is true. If so, then Medicare already existed as a single payer system prior to Bush entering the picture.
Plus, I presume the Bush "expansion" you're alluding to is Bush's campaign to widen the coverage for certain necessary prescription drugs for the elderly. If so, how is an "expansion" to cover more drugs for the elderly equivalent to uprooting the entire nation's healthcare system and turning it into a single payer system?
For instance, it could be (I don't know this) Bush is opposed to a single payer system, but he wanted the elderly to have access to certain prescription drugs, and so he expanded drug coverage for them given the system. If so, then it'd be more like the difference between actively advocating slavery in the antebellum South vs. working within the pre-existing slave system in the antebellum South to better people within the system.
(By the way, it's arguable it would be better for the nation to do away with Medicare as a national social insurance program. But that's an argument for another time.)
"I have never liked the term 'RINO' (nor 'CINO', etc.)"
Well, if the name fits...
Hi Rocking -- Regarding (R) and (D) being a case of "going on a tangent", I don't think that's the case at all. For as long as I can remember, "being a Northeast Republican" has been different from being, say, a Southern Republican (a term that was nonexistent for a long time).
DeleteNow, the "Southern Democrats" and "Northeast Republicans" have taken on somewhat different trajectories, but the fact is, there are regional differences, still, in the US, and those political differences still manifest themselves (in different and unpredictable ways, sometimes).
original article to which you linked tries to argue Obama is a Republican.
No, it says "Obama is a Republican", in quotes. There are similarities, and analogies. Clearly he's not actually a Republican. But some of the effects of his presidency have come out "as if a Republican were governing".
For example, George W. Bush campaigned (as a true conservative Republican) on "a humble foreign policy". His foreign policy turned out quite differently.
Similarly, Obama's "foriegn policy" (as undirected and as "feckless" as it may have seemed to be at times), has the net effect that "the U.S. is less involved in its global military commitments". That does strike me as "humble" in its effect -- and the decision to be less involved is an executive one.
The comparison was made to Richard Nixon, who, while he was known as a fierce conservative as a congressman and as a vice president, adopted some very liberal policies as president (I remember the "wage/price freeze" that he tried to implement).
Medicare already existed as a single payer system prior to Bush entering the picture.
That's true.
how is an "expansion" to cover more drugs for the elderly equivalent to uprooting the entire nation's healthcare system and turning it into a single payer system?
If we continue expanding Medicare coverage, soon it will become a nationwide single-payer system, with a "free market" medical system functioning as a kind of legal "black market" for medical services.
(By the way, it's arguable it would be better for the nation to do away with Medicare as a national social insurance program. But that's an argument for another time.)
I don't disagree with you -- the system has been around since the 1960's, and it has been expanded a number of times, far beyond its original intentions.
"I have never liked the term 'RINO' (nor 'CINO', etc.)"
Well, if the name fits...
Based on my discussion in the first paragraph of this comment, I don't think it fits. It doesn't take into account the regional differences and trajectories.
Thanks again for your response, John.
DeleteI don't think we'll make progress on "Obama is a Republican" bit. And I doubt what I've said is helpful to many lurkers. So I'd like to close my part of the discussion on this point. From my perspective, it looks like you're essentially attempting to redraw or blur the lines between Republicans and Democrats, or at least between Obama and other Republicans. But I don't think the points at which you see similarities are in fact so similar. I'll leave it there.
"If we continue expanding Medicare coverage, soon it will become a nationwide single-payer system, with a 'free market' medical system functioning as a kind of legal 'black market' for medical services."
Hm, I don't think this addresses what I said above.
More to the point, I'm afraid it runs headlong into the slippery slope fallacy.
____
ReplyDeleteRace: “Obama has seldom touched on the issue of race, and when he has he has emphasized the conservative themes of responsibility and self-help.”
____
This conveniently ignores Obama's injectng himself into the Micael Brown and Trayvon Martin cases, which were typical local criminal investigations. Obama has accepted the anti-White, left wing narratives without any evidence.
He didn't have Holder send dozens of people to Detroit when a Black mob set upon a white driver who accidentally injured a child who ran in front of his car.
-SJ