Let’s Get Real
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
The impact of the financial crisis on the American presidential election has somewhat obscured the most important reason why the prospect of an Obama presidency is giving so many people nightmares. This is the fear that, if he wins, US defences will be emasculated at a time of unprecedented international peril and the enemies of America and the free world will seize their opportunity to destroy the west. ~Melanie Phillips
Translation: there are people who are baselessly afraid about caricatures of an Obama administration that they have invented, and their dangerous fearmongering about the present international scene has made them lose all sense of perspective such that they think their world is about to be destroyed.
Let’s take this step by step. Obama does not propose to weaken American defenses or reduce expenditures on defense, but rather proposes to increase them. He does propose some gradual reduction in troop levels in Iraq with the aim of ending a war that has done more to emasculate American defenses and undermine American security than any other policy of at least the last decade. International peril is not at unprecedented levels. There have been any number of times before, during and after WWII when international peril has been much, much greater, so claims of unprecedented peril are just simply false. Short of a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Russians, which is not at all likely, the West is not going to be destroyed by anyone, unless we do it to ourselves through more senseless conflicts, mismanagement and excess. There are serious threats and some real enemies, but none of our real enemies possesses the ability to destroy us. Get a grip.
The danger of an Obama Presidency is almost exactly the opposite of what Phillips fears, and this is that he proves to be far too conventional and willing to go along with misguided establishment views on Iran, Russia and any number of other parts of the world, and that he is far too willing to use force when it is not needed in pursuit of objectives that have nothing do with the American interest. One of the problems with the increasingly outlandish warnings about Obama the super-dove is that, in addition to being laughably false, it makes it even harder to organize resistance to the Obama administration when it finally does try to embark on some foolish foreign adventure. In the post-Cold War era in which every administration has ordered at least one new major military intervention and usually more than one, this seems to be not a question of if but of when and where. The people worried about the second coming of Carter ought instead of be more concerned about an administration more like LBJ’s, in which we would all probably agree that an excess of hawkishness rather than the lack of it was the central flaw.
P.S. I would add that Jim Lobe’s report on Obama adviors’ views on Iran, taken in conjunction with Biden’s warnings to that Seattle progressive fundraiser about a coming international crisis, points toward the kind of scenario that I proposed earlier in the week.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
One of the many problems with the above is that, should he win, the U.S. is going to be run by a combination of BHO, the Dem Congress, his far-left buddies, and the MSM. That means that wacky things like this wacky Kucinich idea with several dozen co-sponsors – something that would be laughed away under McCain – will be taken seriously.
If it serves BHO’s backers interest (perhaps because of all the new sinecures available), he’ll push it through. And, those who oppose it will be marginalized by the MSM, and BHO’s thuggish surrogates will try to silence them as they’ve done with others.
I think someone needs to make an anti-BHO campaign featuring refugees from authoritarian regimes to wake some people up.
Yeah, Kucinich’s Department of Peace is going to be made a reality. That’s a good one. You really don’t get it, do you? Kucinich’s kind of liberalism is regarded as a joke by the leaders of the Democratic Party today. He opposes getting into foreign wars; on the whole, they don’t. There is no chance that Kucinich’s bill passes in the unlikely event that it passes. The Blue Dogs in Congress aren’t voting for something that woolly-minded, and there are plenty of Democratic hawks who will laugh it out of the room.
I can think of all kinds of reasons why Obama will be a bad President, but creating the Department of Peace is not one of them.
You wasting space on Ms. Phillips and Mr. 24. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your comments, but these folks live in an alternate reality. I guess that’s the point of your post. . .
I am not so sure it won’t get passed and signed. HR 808 may well become an Orwellian reality.
There are those of us who believe that Obama’s past activities and associations are a better predictor of his future behavior than is his current campaign rhetoric.
And there are those of us who believe that his views on domestic policy (which you rarely discuss) are far more interesting and important than his somewhat under-developed & opportunistic views on foreign policy (which you constantly discuss).
But maybe we’re crazy.
So you expect him to bomb the Pentagon and take the side of the Palestinians? If not, I’m not sure what his past activities and associations tell you about what he’s going to do.
I rarely discuss his domestic policies because I think he won’t have much opportunity or many resources to implement them, but I tend to focus on foreign policy more than domestic policy as a general rule. If he tries to push through his wacky national service scheme, I will be at the forefront denouncing it; same goes for his health care plan. But that doesn’t seem to be the main focus of domestic policy criticism of Obama.
His “underdeveloped” foreign policy views are every bit as developed as any other nominee’s views for the last twenty years, which may not mean anything, but I’m betting that it does mean something. It may be that some people think his foreign policy views are “underdeveloped and opportunistic” because they haven’t studied them very carefully. There also seems to be an assumption here that his domestic policy is less opportunistic than his foreign policy, when I am willing to bet that it is even more subject to change depending on political circumstances.
HR808 has 70 co-sponsors, which is a pretty large number AFAIK. Perhaps other bills have an even greater number, but I don’t think I’ve seen any.
But, the link above also mentions the GPA, something sponsored by BHO himself. Unless his goal was just to down some trees, one can assume that he’ll push that if he can get away with it. And, given that the MSM has already lied about the GPA, one can assume that they’ll continue to lie about it for him, such as attempts to work in the other MDGs.
Kucinich’s brightest dreams might not all pass, but BHO is going to have to give some things out to his friends on the far-left, and about the only opposition will come from a few House members.
On a slightly related note, if BHO is elected, there’s an excellent chance he’s going to stock the permanent government with loyalists. Look into who he pushed to become IL’s treasurer – and that person’s background – for a preview of the dangers in that.
Bravo – the real problem is not that Obama is some unconventional stealth pacifist (as if) but actually that he is very much a conventional, big government, interventionist left of center version of what we have been experiencing over the past 8 years. Rather than a break with an imperial past, it would be a continuity of it, albeit with different rhetoric and justification.
I agree totally with Larison’s take on the likelihood that we’ll have a Department of Peace anytime soon. What’s even more absurd is to actually worry about such a thing happening.
As for the Global Poverty Act, it reads like some vague, feel-good, “yes, we really do care”-type bill, rather than the foundation upon which our future U.N. overlords will build their oppressive rule. It commits us to nothing, except killing some trees to make reports. Read it yourself and see if you can find a single thing that isn’t qualified with an “as appropriate” or “where possible” or other such wiggle-room phrasing. But, maybe, that’s just what they want you to think.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433
But, I think you’re right that Obama may stock the “permanent government” with “loyalists”. One hopes that they will be a more competent bunch than the folks that our current President has stocked the government with.
I think Mr.Obama will be a little too concerned with job stimulation and energy first, and health care next to worry about creating a Department of Peace.
The sad part of all this? The alternate reality is readily believed by a large amount of people. That echo chamber that National Review lives in is HUGE. These are the people crying that he is a crypto-Marxist, etc. They believe that he is the caricature neo-communist pinko of the 50s and 60s. That’s why we’re even having this discussion. They don’t believe Mr. Obama to be a pragmatist, and they breathlessly scream “Ayers! Ayers!!” as if Mr. Ayers is more influential than, say, Paul Volcker.
Idiots.
On domestic policy, Daniel, are you not in the least concerned about Obama’s enthusiasm for all forms of abortion, including infanticide?
Maybe its because Palin has said things like (and I’m paraphrasing) ‘we might have to declare war on Russia’ that we sort of lose sight when Obama talks about upping the ante in Afghanistan, for example. Or maybe he just says these things with more tact so it sounds less severe. But you are right, in the parts of the foreign policy debate I watched I got the feeling that this “softer Obama” everyone was talking about was being a bit tougher; maybe because his campaign advisors told him to since he didn’t wanted to get Kerry’ed out on a rail like the last guy? Or maybe because (far stretch?) he actually does want to keep the military strong and won’t be afraid to march into other countries (good or bad…but probably bad).
BTW, the irony of Obama’s running mate being named Biden. I’m sure Gayle Quinnell will show you the quickest word scramble way to turn Obama Biden into Osama Bin Laden.
There also seems to be an assumption here that his domestic policy is less opportunistic than his foreign policy, when I am willing to bet that it is even more subject to change depending on political circumstances.
This is to say nothing more than that he is a politician. But, to the extent that he has principles, they really are on the left-most fringe of the conventional American political spectrum, and he and his retinue of true believer appointees in the Administration will have wide latitude to implement those wherever they aren’t too expensive. This probably means we won’t get universal health care in the next two years, but on the social issues where, admittedly, Republican ascendance has at best slowed down “progress”, the metaphorical ball will be moved farther, faster to the left than it would under McCain. Whether I can bring myself to vote for McCain for that reason is something I haven’t yet decided, but the idea that, on domestic policy, there is no difference worth mentioning is difficult to credit.
Did I say there’s no difference worth mentioning? I was talking about Obama’s horrendous views on abortion, which are pretty much every bit as bad as his critics say they are, before most people were paying attention to the campaign. I was saying Obama would be the most left-leaning Democratic nominee since McGovern when most of the people currently freaking out about the power of ACORN and Bill Ayers were still buying into his empty “unity” rhetoric. No one could confuse me with someone who thinks there are no differences between the candidates. I have maintained all along, though, that what differences there are on domestic policy are not enough to justify a McCain vote, and I stand by that.
Obviously he’s a left-liberal with all the baggage that entails, but he has also shown a marked tendency to accommodate himself to prevailing views, which makes him cautious and reluctant to sign off on the most progressive positions when everyone is watching. He is oriented towards consensus-building, which means he is more likely to forge compromises than approach legislative fights with a take-no-prisoners attitude. As a practical matter, he will have difficulty forcing an enlarged Blue Dog caucus, including more than a few House members who campaigned as pro-life Democrats, to adopt radical legislation. Certainly there are some things he can do through the executive branch where there are fewer checks, but an enlarged Democratic majority is going to bring with it a lot of members from marginal and conservative districts that will make the House Democrats much harder to keep united and in line.
[...] criticisms leveled at Obama, in which he makes the case that Obama’s chief flaw is that he is too establishment and mainstream (Bacevich fans will note the agreement between Bacevich and Larison regarding Obama and the [...]