Obama the Conservative
Yeah, the title may seem a little off, but let me explain.
Looking at the real meaning of the words, Republicans are traditionally social conservatives and economic liberals, while Democrats are the other way around. Of course, this gets all kind of screwed up looking at details but in general it holds up.
Of course I don't like Obama mostly because of his economic policies, which I think are dangerous. Those policies are generally labeled "liberal" - but they are not. They are actually the opposite of liberal. It is just that over decades of misuse the term "liberal" has become synonymous with "left" in political jargon: which is completely wrong. This is why amusingly when I looked up "liberal" there were many possible definitions:
1. Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
2. progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
3. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
4. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
5. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others
It does not take much brainpower to see that the definitions are inherently contradictory. So much so that the great collecting pool of all knowledge Wikipedia does not attempt to define liberal: instead, it takes you to a "disambiguation" page. Socrates would be in need of a good strong drink at this point. It is why we have ended up with all kinds of idiotic terms like "neoliberalism," "new liberalism," "neoconservative," and even "liberism" - and I did not misspell that last one.
For the rest of this post, "liberal" will mean definition 1: Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
Conservative will take the opposition to that position.
Continuing this discussion to the current administration: Obama's economic policies are "left" - which makes them conservative, or in other words anti-liberal. Nationalizing the economy and raising taxes restrict freedoms, as do trade barriers. Shaking down secured debt holders like a mobster and breaking the law to pay off the constituency of the UAW, who were unsecured debt holders, is certainly a left policy, but it is the opposite of a liberal policy.
However, all that was more or less expected from my point of view and the point of view of a lot of the US both for and against Obama in the election.
The overlooked part is that since taking office Obama has taken a hard swing to the right on social issues. And, if you will let me, I will also include some political issues in this as they have come to mean more and more in our society and be more closely integrated.
When Obama campaingned he pledged he would overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy put in place by Clinton for the US military and instead allow gays to serve openly. Recently, in a move that sparked this post, he reversed course on that decision and agreed with the policy.
This is just the latest in a series of moves in the same direction. Though he made Guantanamo one of the rallying cries of his election he then backtracked and stated he would allow it to stay open. Though I actually agree with this one, because as I stated before I am against extending the American conception of personal rights guaranteed to American citizens to those fighting against the country, it was a big conservative move that really upset a lot of his core followers.
Acually, generally speaking on the issue of national security and defense--which is where many concerns over personal freedom and a "police state" originate--Obama has been quite "right." He has not opposed the national spy agencies, has not tried to deconstruct the mechanisms of the police state created by the Patriot Act and other policies. In fact the only thing that he has focused on--and this is a politically shrewd move as it deals with the visible and popularized tip of the iceberg without dealing with the mass beneath--is waterboarding. We can no longer make enemy combatants think they are downing: what a seminal moment for personal freedom. Overall he has supported the military tribunal system and has backed far far away from his stance in the campaign.
To extend the line of reasoning a little further afield, Obama has done nothing on an international scale to oppose the limitation of freedoms. In fact his approach has been more of "welcome them with open arms." Now, one can argue civil liberties and the US overseas involvement in a number of ways - but at the least you would think Obama would lean on N. Korea to not imprison two US nationals - but not so.
Along with this he made a big deal in his campaign about pressuring China on human rights. Granted, now is not really the time, but he has done essentially none of this.
I could also mention Venezuela or bowing to the Saudi King - but enough on the international stuff.
On the political front too, Obama pledged openness and transparency. We have gotten neither. He pledged to put bills in front of the US public before he signed them. I think he has done this on one or two, but that's it.
Then we can discuss Sotomayor. Not really a good record there - though you can certainly argue she lines up well with most Democrats - she is certainly a social "conservative." Here is a classic quote:
A “court of appeals is where policy is made. .. And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.” Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 2005
Gay marriage is another touchstone of the personal rights issues in the US. A big deal was made of the Miss America contestant who sounded like an idiot coming out against gay marriage. However, Obama too has had his shift to the right on this issue: ‘I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.’
- Obama
Finally there is the issue of free speech. This one has been a lot more subtle, but still very important. If you have been watching the news you would have seen that every time Obama is criticized he is vehemently defended and the critics attacked. Never by him - he is the god head that must remain above such things - but it is always there. Everything from the Republican "Tea Parties" to McCain, to Cheeny to Fox News. Now, some of this is just traditional banter, some heated debate in a time of national upheaval, but I think there is a strong undercurrent of the administration and its supporters seeking to devalue and shunt off to the side any negative commentary. While Bush and his administration generally seemed to remain stoic to the point of alienating the population though a lack of explanation, Obama and his administration has set out to limit negative press as, I think, they believe the following: "As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid." - Adolf Hitler
Which leads me to my final point. When you combine conservative economic policies with conservative social policies you get neither Democrat nor Republican. You get Totalitarian.
Looking at the real meaning of the words, Republicans are traditionally social conservatives and economic liberals, while Democrats are the other way around. Of course, this gets all kind of screwed up looking at details but in general it holds up.
Of course I don't like Obama mostly because of his economic policies, which I think are dangerous. Those policies are generally labeled "liberal" - but they are not. They are actually the opposite of liberal. It is just that over decades of misuse the term "liberal" has become synonymous with "left" in political jargon: which is completely wrong. This is why amusingly when I looked up "liberal" there were many possible definitions:
1. Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
2. progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
3. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
4. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
5. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others
It does not take much brainpower to see that the definitions are inherently contradictory. So much so that the great collecting pool of all knowledge Wikipedia does not attempt to define liberal: instead, it takes you to a "disambiguation" page. Socrates would be in need of a good strong drink at this point. It is why we have ended up with all kinds of idiotic terms like "neoliberalism," "new liberalism," "neoconservative," and even "liberism" - and I did not misspell that last one.
For the rest of this post, "liberal" will mean definition 1: Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
Conservative will take the opposition to that position.
Continuing this discussion to the current administration: Obama's economic policies are "left" - which makes them conservative, or in other words anti-liberal. Nationalizing the economy and raising taxes restrict freedoms, as do trade barriers. Shaking down secured debt holders like a mobster and breaking the law to pay off the constituency of the UAW, who were unsecured debt holders, is certainly a left policy, but it is the opposite of a liberal policy.
However, all that was more or less expected from my point of view and the point of view of a lot of the US both for and against Obama in the election.
The overlooked part is that since taking office Obama has taken a hard swing to the right on social issues. And, if you will let me, I will also include some political issues in this as they have come to mean more and more in our society and be more closely integrated.
When Obama campaingned he pledged he would overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy put in place by Clinton for the US military and instead allow gays to serve openly. Recently, in a move that sparked this post, he reversed course on that decision and agreed with the policy.
This is just the latest in a series of moves in the same direction. Though he made Guantanamo one of the rallying cries of his election he then backtracked and stated he would allow it to stay open. Though I actually agree with this one, because as I stated before I am against extending the American conception of personal rights guaranteed to American citizens to those fighting against the country, it was a big conservative move that really upset a lot of his core followers.
Acually, generally speaking on the issue of national security and defense--which is where many concerns over personal freedom and a "police state" originate--Obama has been quite "right." He has not opposed the national spy agencies, has not tried to deconstruct the mechanisms of the police state created by the Patriot Act and other policies. In fact the only thing that he has focused on--and this is a politically shrewd move as it deals with the visible and popularized tip of the iceberg without dealing with the mass beneath--is waterboarding. We can no longer make enemy combatants think they are downing: what a seminal moment for personal freedom. Overall he has supported the military tribunal system and has backed far far away from his stance in the campaign.
To extend the line of reasoning a little further afield, Obama has done nothing on an international scale to oppose the limitation of freedoms. In fact his approach has been more of "welcome them with open arms." Now, one can argue civil liberties and the US overseas involvement in a number of ways - but at the least you would think Obama would lean on N. Korea to not imprison two US nationals - but not so.
Along with this he made a big deal in his campaign about pressuring China on human rights. Granted, now is not really the time, but he has done essentially none of this.
I could also mention Venezuela or bowing to the Saudi King - but enough on the international stuff.
On the political front too, Obama pledged openness and transparency. We have gotten neither. He pledged to put bills in front of the US public before he signed them. I think he has done this on one or two, but that's it.
Then we can discuss Sotomayor. Not really a good record there - though you can certainly argue she lines up well with most Democrats - she is certainly a social "conservative." Here is a classic quote:
A “court of appeals is where policy is made. .. And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.” Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 2005
Gay marriage is another touchstone of the personal rights issues in the US. A big deal was made of the Miss America contestant who sounded like an idiot coming out against gay marriage. However, Obama too has had his shift to the right on this issue: ‘I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.’
- Obama
Finally there is the issue of free speech. This one has been a lot more subtle, but still very important. If you have been watching the news you would have seen that every time Obama is criticized he is vehemently defended and the critics attacked. Never by him - he is the god head that must remain above such things - but it is always there. Everything from the Republican "Tea Parties" to McCain, to Cheeny to Fox News. Now, some of this is just traditional banter, some heated debate in a time of national upheaval, but I think there is a strong undercurrent of the administration and its supporters seeking to devalue and shunt off to the side any negative commentary. While Bush and his administration generally seemed to remain stoic to the point of alienating the population though a lack of explanation, Obama and his administration has set out to limit negative press as, I think, they believe the following: "As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid." - Adolf Hitler
Which leads me to my final point. When you combine conservative economic policies with conservative social policies you get neither Democrat nor Republican. You get Totalitarian.
Comments
Post a Comment