Obama is a neo-neocon
Not really, or course. But more than his followers expected.
His antiwar supporters don’t understand it, nor do they like it. But they can’t say he didn’t warn them:
I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.
Let the disappointment begin!
No, no… in the Spirit of Sendak, “Let the wild rumpus begin!”
a neo-neocon? Well, in a way, since I have for many years thought of neoneocon herself as “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
Sorry, Vanderleun, but must disagree (altho’ your wording is always clever) Neo well articulates her own views, and most of us, in response, REFLECT our respective points of view.
John at Powerline made an interesting argument which I would love to see validated:
For Barack, “change” amounts to having darker pigment in the Oval Office.
Barack will protect the precious image of the pigment change at all costs. It is his legacy. It is his place in history. Moderation is the best way to protect it. Surrounding himself with old and steady hands is the best way to protect it.
If policy direction was most precious to Barack, he would not be so moderate and he would not surround himself with so many old and steady hands. By his actions, we see policy direction is not change which is most precious to him.
here’s the link. John Hinderocker makes his argument better than I make his argument.
For Barack, “change” amounts to having darker pigment in the Oval Office.
That won’t be the only thing to go darker, if he gets his way and causes electric rates to skyrocket…
gcotharn Says:
“For Barack, “change” amounts to having darker pigment in the Oval Office.”
I’m afraid not. He’s defined change over the years. Its lefty stuff like income redistribution.
Then again, if thats ALL it means (re: he won’t do a loony left foreign policy), whew… could have been worse.
yay!!!!!!
Disappointment you can live with. 🙂
–
He is a sociopathic puppet.
There is no way for him to make the left happy other than with false hope for a temporary purpose.
why?
the left is not homogeneous enough to be satisfied with anything. nor are they reality based enough to understand things to A) be able to avoid being used that way B) be able to climb out of the hole that is around them due to compartmentalized education with overconfidence C) lack morals to be able to figure out who is using them and who is not
I beat the dead horse of feminism because its the one everyone sees around them the most… (even if they dont know the source).
Liberal feminism, Radical feminism, Black feminism, Postcolonial feminism and third-world feminism,Multiracial feminism aka “women of color” feminism, Socialist and Marxist feminisms, Libertarian feminism, Post-structural and postmodern feminism, Ecofeminism, Anti pornography Feminists, Sex-positive feminism, and would you believe that this list goes on?
now, other than the spam/special ingredient/adobo political label of feminism… what do all of them really have in common other than targeting women with slightly different brands to insure that ALL use the main product feminism…
the left aggregates disparate groups under an adobo label to be able to wield the aggregate of fringes power for their own ends.
its really quite ingenious. the right (so to speak) are more cohesive, and so they are going to vote in and out with a cohesive set of values for the most part… more homogeneous.
but the left.. once in office, its pretty impervious to individuals effecting the masses of the different isolated groups. a single group, leftists against the war, might not like it, but what can they do? the adobo label votes their position, not the minority label it gathers.
its what creates the revolutionary violence or rather priming that can then be manipulated into something where coupes occur. after all, we keep forgetting to remember that they like revolution, not evolution. we keep forgetting that they are following revolutionary tactics to seize ligitimate power. and that ligitimate power is in a rock and a hard place in that it seeks to remain ligitimate. so it cant do what it needs to do to illigitimate practitioners.
look… the old state is a meritocracy in which eveyrone can be heard… and are free to act as they wish… right?
therefore the more moral regime that is in power (democratic republi) has values that are weaknesses that can be exploited.
that they are damned if they do damned if they dont when we the public lets this happen.
if they prevent the political terrorism and manipulation, they are violating the free part… after all, people are free to protest… (and we have no way to describe valid vs invalid any more than we can write what is or isnt porn)
people are also free to talk and to in groups assemble to shout others down… and so on.
so what happens is that these positive values once embodied in a free man and country, become the weak spot that then allows such abuse.
political terrorism is now normalized as a behavior for the left so much that we tolerate it.
the people who spit on the woman with the cross and attacked here were not arrested.. nor were others… watch indoctrinate U and hear a college professor tell that he teaches that oppression and whiteness cant be separated.. that only when all whites are gone, will opression be gone.. and so forth… same principal as above… if the whites defend themselves, they then become that which they are being accused… if they dont defend themselves, they then are treated like that which they are accused…
what we are not realizing is that this is how you divide and conquer what once was a solid state. its now a house broken asunder in groups that ALL think that they deserve what they are fighting for because they are responsible for putting the person in office.
so the feminists believe that more male negative laws and oppressive stuff will be on tap
the equality people will believe that unequal treatment to be equal (affirmative action, etc), is going to be more (rather than people actually being considered equal).
the reparations people are going to want reparations…
the anti war people are going to want the war to stop…
the gays are going to want marraige..
the spanish are going to want citizenship..
the point is that each of these small groups are going to want their silver. and the ones that committed crimes are going to want their gold.
but that was NEVER on the table… because it was never poassible at all… without the moderation of self control and reasonableness, the ONLY thing you can do is lie and cheat them. if a politician told the truth, who would win?
there is a lot more to all this, as there always is with me… but if you read a lot of the stuff that their leaders read vs their followers.. and know history and so on… you start to see these complex dynamics that are in play… after all, thats what they are playing with.
lies can always exceed truth limited by whats possible… if the masses are too stupid to even realize that and have enough self control, this is what we are going to get.
a state that favors sociopaths as leaders as the moral ones are more conflicted in lying than the guiltless.
and they no longer need to worry about merit, reform, or any of that… reform is not possible, so political terrorism insures that there can be no position of merit, only positions of radical will.
If Mr. Obama disappoints his cultish followers and governs as a pragmatic centrist, he will have my genuine support. He could do a lot of good that way.
Of course, he’s going to have to earn that support by actually BEING a centrist, rather than just saying he wants to be one. Deeds will tell (or in this case absence of deeds).
If gcotharn is right, we’ll be fine. But if Mr. O. lets the adulation and messiah talk go to his head, bad things may happen.
We’ll see.
Trimegistus Says:
“If Mr. Obama disappoints his cultish followers and governs as a pragmatic centrist”
Its important to remember Bill Clinton wanted to do more left wing stuff but after the beating he took over national healthcare, he settled into moderate dem. If Obama is not set on a fixed path then he really needs to get shut down big time on his first couple really out there programs…
Don’t get too excited. Check out this WSJ editorial by Seib.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122721278056345271.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Therein lies the opportunity for President-elect Barack Obama. His plans for an activist government agenda are in many ways being given a boost by this crisis atmosphere and the nearly universal call for the government to do something fast to stimulate the economy.
This opportunity isn’t lost on the new president and his team. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week.
He elaborated: “Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.” [Like institute full-on socialism, and that Civilian National Security Force you’ve been dreaming of!]
“Things that you COULD NOT do before.” Remember BO’s lifelong tactic of lulling the opposition by appearing pleasant, “non-threatening,” “not angry,” even mirroring back to your opposition their POV– then going and doing exactly what he planned to do all along.
He ticked off some areas where he thought new doors were opening: energy, health, education, tax policy, regulatory reforms.
The hidden story here is the ever creeping definition of what the center is. I mean “The planet has a fever” is now centrist?
I’m in the unhappy position of hoping that Obama is just a rank opportunist, and was not at all sincere in his campaign. If he moves to the center to make sure the first black President isn’t a disaster, that’s a big plus, and the next four years won’t be so bad.
For Americans, that is. For liberals, they’ll be frustrating as hell.
David Brooks on Obama’s picks so far:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=1&em
Just as I predicted, Obama will govern from the center, true to his post-partisan rhetoric, and that makes this liberal happy as hell. Not just from the center: but from the highly competent, flexible, pragmatic, dare I say *radical* center.
(I should also note that I’ve stated both here and on more liberal sites that I think keeping Gates as SecDef is a good move, even if it is only temporary… A Republican, yes, but clearly highly competent, and at this stage in the game, a good time to maintain some continuity at Defense. It wouldn’t be a disaster if he replaced Gates with another pragmatist, but I think it makes very good sense to keep him in there for at least a short while.)
I’m happy to allow his supporters to flail in disappointment. While they’re at it, they can mourn, and writhe, too.
Herein lies the distinct problem of using one vague word to describe one’s campaign, without ever defining it:
Change.
The American public thought it was change from Rovian politics.
Obama supporters thought it was change from a Clinton-dominated party.
Michelle Obama might have thought, momentarily, it would mean a change in press coverage of first ladies, from the mundane discussions of fashion to more substantive discussions of career. Boy, was she in for disappointment.
In fact, I’m encouraged by Hillary as Secretary of State: I trust her commitment to national security more than I do Barack Obama’s. The liberal illuminati may disdain Obama for his realization of the power of the established party, but what reasonable person could think for a minute that a rookie like him could make it without the party parents’ approval?
Concern trolling from the right doesn’t particularly distress this liberal. Obama is appointing competent and experienced people to important posts. That way, when he decides he wants to aim for a particular goal, he will be able to accomplish what he wants.