Opinion of Barack Obama

[Deus Naturae]

@Lief and Oakvale: The two of you must not be very familiar with libertarian socialism as an ideology. Socialism as an ideology is based in economics, at any rate, and statism to me refers to barefaced restrictions placed upon actual individual autonomy and privacy rights, ergo the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA and the recent epidemic of legislation like SOPA.

I'm curious, do you believe that individuals have a right to own private property?

[BradyNH]

Because it's a fictional ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I beg to differ, my friend.

As to the remainder of your points, yes, I'll contend that there's a bit more to socialism than just the economics. It's just my tendency to see them as less an aspect of socialism specifically and more a core piece of left-wing philosophy in general. As to my use of terms, well, statism is easier to constantly type than authoritarianism. I'll be the first to admit to my own laziness.

@Lief and Oakvale: The two of you must not be very familiar with libertarian socialism as an ideology. Socialism as an ideology is based in economics, at any rate, and statism to me refers to barefaced restrictions placed upon actual individual autonomy and privacy rights, ergo the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA and the recent epidemic of legislation like SOPA.

I'm curious, do you believe that individuals have a right to own private property?

As in their own personal affects - house etc. - and ownership of land tracts? If so, of course. I consider them to be personal property and thus exempt from socialist(or at least libertarian socialist) policy.

[Napoleon]

Because it's a fictional ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I beg to differ, my friend.

I know its on Wikipedia but,

Any theory of "non-statist" socialism is basically inherently a naive teenager's excuse for an ideology

Its not in the history books.

[BradyNH]

Because it's a fictional ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I beg to differ, my friend.

I know its on Wikipedia but,

Any theory of "non-statist" socialism is basically inherently a naive teenager's excuse for an ideology

Its not in the history books.

Well, call it what you want. The fact of the matter is, that's about the sum of my ideology and always has been - socialism with respect retained for privacy rights and freedom of speech and religion, as per the First Amendment. I certainly don't think it's an implausible belief, but perhaps that's just me.

[Napoleon]

Because it's a fictional ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I beg to differ, my friend.

I know its on Wikipedia but,

Any theory of "non-statist" socialism is basically inherently a naive teenager's excuse for an ideology

Its not in the history books.

Well, call it what you want. The fact of the matter is, that's about the sum of my ideology and always has been - socialism with respect retained for privacy rights and freedom of speech and religion, as per the First Amendment. I certainly don't think it's an implausible belief, but perhaps that's just me.

I just don't see what's "libertarian" about that, that's normal democratic socialism- much more Bernie Sanders than Joseph Stalin.

[BradyNH]

Because it's a fictional ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I beg to differ, my friend.

I know its on Wikipedia but,

Any theory of "non-statist" socialism is basically inherently a naive teenager's excuse for an ideology

Its not in the history books.

Well, call it what you want. The fact of the matter is, that's about the sum of my ideology and always has been - socialism with respect retained for privacy rights and freedom of speech and religion, as per the First Amendment. I certainly don't think it's an implausible belief, but perhaps that's just me.

I just don't see what's "libertarian" about that, that's normal democratic socialism- much more Bernie Sanders than Joseph Stalin.

Fair point.

[traininthedistance]

The contrarian, pragmatic, pretentious third wayers are far, far more annoying than the True Leftists these days.

Yes, the truth is often an annoying thing.    Well, actually, it's pretty far from the truth to lump most of us pragmatists in with the failed Moderate Heroes of Third Way; it's possible and in fact quite correct to stake a path in between them and naive trueleftism.

Only libertarians use the word "statist"

Truer words never spoken.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Because it's a fictional ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I beg to differ, my friend.

I know its on Wikipedia but,

Any theory of "non-statist" socialism is basically inherently a naive teenager's excuse for an ideology

Its not in the history books.

Attempts at it are.

[TNF]

TNF showing off his True Leftist credentials.

Yeah, because we all know it's crazy to call one's self a left-winger and not support a man who wants to turn public education into nothing more than a parasitic "charter school" system, who continues to push austerity in the face of economic reality, and who's healthcare law requires everyone to buy insurance from the parasitic insurance industry.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/memory-loss

Did you forget to post an actual argument, or something? Just because the Bush years were awful doesn't mean that Obama is automatically an improvement. If anything, market logic has been employed far more efficiently under Obama than it ever would have been under Bush, because as you are so eloquently showing here, a good portion of the "left" has been neutered into supporting Obama for fear of another Bush.

The obvious response to this line of argument is that Obama is not really all that different from Bush in terms of substance. Style, sure, and that's a lot of what (really, in America, almost all of what) politics is. Obama has continued the Bush bailout policies for the banks (allowing them to grow even larger), pushed through an "auto rescue" package that gutted hard-won UAW pensions and largely let the companies off the hook for being managed in such a retarded way for such a long time, has pushed through "free trade" agreements, further eroding our industrial base and selling us out to foreign capital, enacted a federal version of Romneycare (which has caused a good number of people to lose their insurance as is and slapped a tax on high end union health insurance plans), and has proven completely inept at enacting anything worthwhile. (Can't even get through a measly $9 an hour minimum wage? Gimme a f**king break)

[All Along The Watchtower]

TNF showing off his True Leftist credentials.

Yeah, because we all know it's crazy to call one's self a left-winger and not support a man who wants to turn public education into nothing more than a parasitic "charter school" system, who continues to push austerity in the face of economic reality, and who's healthcare law requires everyone to buy insurance from the parasitic insurance industry.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/memory-loss

Did you forget to post an actual argument, or something? Just because the Bush years were awful doesn't mean that Obama is automatically an improvement. If anything, market logic has been employed far more efficiently under Obama than it ever would have been under Bush, because as you are so eloquently showing here, a good portion of the "left" has been neutered into supporting Obama for fear of another Bush.

The obvious response to this line of argument is that Obama is not really all that different from Bush in terms of substance. Style, sure, and that's a lot of what (really, in America, almost all of what) politics is. Obama has continued the Bush bailout policies for the banks (allowing them to grow even larger), pushed through an "auto rescue" package that gutted hard-won UAW pensions and largely let the companies off the hook for being managed in such a retarded way for such a long time, has pushed through "free trade" agreements, further eroding our industrial base and selling us out to foreign capital, enacted a federal version of Romneycare (which has caused a good number of people to lose their insurance as is and slapped a tax on high end union health insurance plans), and has proven completely inept at enacting anything worthwhile. (Can't even get through a measly $9 an hour minimum wage? Gimme a f**king break)

And they will respond with "lol what did you expect naive True Leftist idealist"

[All Along The Watchtower]

Anyway: it's a shame that most of the opposition to Obama comes from the Right and is irrational opposition that has really nothing to do with policy.

I'm starting to think that the  vitriolic American Right as expressed by the "Tea Party" is a red herring...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

True Leftist Fallacy

1) An FF is someone who largely or entirely shares my political views
2) I, a socialist teenager, entirely share my own political views, therefore I am an FF
2) To be an FF the President should therefore be as politically close to me as possible
3) The President does not share the political views of a socialist teenager
4) The President is thus not an FF

Or it might be because Obama has had a tendency to bend over backwards to appease the Republicans and implement blindingly statist policy in the meantime.

(Signed: a socialist non-teenager.)

Pretty much. Acting like Obama is great except for 1 or 2 issues is supreme straw manning.

[Fritz]

FP- Freedom President

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Anyway: it's a shame that most of the opposition to Obama comes from the Right and is irrational opposition that has really nothing to do with policy.

I'm starting to think that the  vitriolic American Right as expressed by the "Tea Party" is a red herring...

The two party system mandates that the far-right and center-right parties be treated as the right and left, respectively. There's clearly nothing to the left of Obama as we all know.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyway: it's a shame that most of the opposition to Obama comes from the Right and is irrational opposition that has really nothing to do with policy.

I'm starting to think that the  vitriolic American Right as expressed by the "Tea Party" is a red herring...

The two party system mandates that the far-right and center-right parties be treated as the right and left, respectively. There's clearly nothing to the left of Obama as we all know.

Dude, left and right are inherently relative concepts.

[Marnetmar]

Awesome guy, not-so-awesome leader.

[The Dowager Mod]

A good man but a mediocre president kinda like Carter.

[YL]

Broadly FF.  I don't think he's perfect, but a lot of the disappointments seem to be connected to the unfortunate fact that a lot of Americans (especially those who vote in mid-term elections) still seem to think that it's a good idea to let Republicans anywhere near power.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

TNF showing off his True Leftist credentials.

Yeah, because we all know it's crazy to call one's self a left-winger and not support a man who wants to turn public education into nothing more than a parasitic "charter school" system, who continues to push austerity in the face of economic reality, and who's healthcare law requires everyone to buy insurance from the parasitic insurance industry.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/memory-loss

Did you forget to post an actual argument, or something? Just because the Bush years were awful doesn't mean that Obama is automatically an improvement. If anything, market logic has been employed far more efficiently under Obama than it ever would have been under Bush, because as you are so eloquently showing here, a good portion of the "left" has been neutered into supporting Obama for fear of another Bush.

The obvious response to this line of argument is that Obama is not really all that different from Bush in terms of substance. Style, sure, and that's a lot of what (really, in America, almost all of what) politics is. Obama has continued the Bush bailout policies for the banks (allowing them to grow even larger), pushed through an "auto rescue" package that gutted hard-won UAW pensions and largely let the companies off the hook for being managed in such a retarded way for such a long time, has pushed through "free trade" agreements, further eroding our industrial base and selling us out to foreign capital, enacted a federal version of Romneycare (which has caused a good number of people to lose their insurance as is and slapped a tax on high end union health insurance plans), and has proven completely inept at enacting anything worthwhile. (Can't even get through a measly $9 an hour minimum wage? Gimme a f**king break)

I post a link to the memory loss page because two of your qualms about Obama have nothing to do with the President's ideological disposition or what his ideal policy prescriptions would be but rather plans that he pushed due to present political constraints.

It's baffling that one of your chief complains is Obama's recent acceptance of "austerity" in the form of the sequester and recent federal cutbacks that have occurred since 2011. The President fought tooth and nail against the Republican Party's desire to destroy the economy through austerity measures but had little option in the face of continued obstruction/gridlock. This should be apparent to anyone who has been paying attention: Obama has repeatedly argued in favor of the prescriptions of Keynesian economics in the face of idiocy emanating from the Beltway class. His concessions have been minor. Ultimately, I think that economists and public policy experts will point to the Obama administration's fiscal policy as one of the few macroeconomic triumphs of the post-2008 crash: while Europe destroyed itself, America decided to pursue an initially aggressive response and reaped the rewards. We're in relatively good shape, the supposed bond market shocks predicted by neo-liberal hacks never happened and the President is still committed to economic vitality that engenders a prosperous society instead of having an accountant's fetish. Unfortunately, the 2010 midterm election happened.

While the Affordable Care Act is certainly a right-wing approach to establishing a healthcare system that achieves universal coverage, it is still an unprecedented legislative triumph on the order of the LBJ administration that will improve the lives of millions. Its form may be deplorable but the army of pharmaceutical, insurance and medical associations lobbied against an alternative renders the fight for a public approach futile. We learned this the hard way during the Clinton administration: no bill is popular when it is faced with a barrage of negative advertising and libel. If the effing ACA was able to elicit terror in the average American, imagine what a bill establishing a single payer system would do?

I don't disagree with your ideals, values and find you to be an ideological companion but I get the sense that you didn't witness these battles when they took place or at least weren't attentive.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Just terrible. I think the last five years have shown pretty clearly that this guy was not prepared to be president. Ideologically he's not the worst, but God, would it ever have been nice to have a president who knew what he was doing. He should've gone for governor of Illinois and then ran for president later.

[Yogi]

Not a fan, to say least. Though, not as bad as he could have been.

[Mordecai]

FF but too much of a Moderate Hero.

Well, call it what you want. The fact of the matter is, that's about the sum of my ideology and always has been - socialism with respect retained for privacy rights and freedom of speech and religion, as per the First Amendment. I certainly don't think it's an implausible belief, but perhaps that's just me.

I think Noam Chomsky also identifies as a socialist libertarian.

I'm starting to think that the  vitriolic American Right as expressed by the "Tea Party" is a red herring...

A lot of it is AstroTurf funded by conservative special interests.

Just terrible. I think the last five years have shown pretty clearly that this guy was not prepared to be president. Ideologically he's not the worst, but God, would it ever have been nice to have a president who knew what he was doing. He should've gone for governor of Illinois and then ran for president later.

I'm not sure if this is true but I remember reading that Hillary had offered for him to be her VP. How do you feel about that?

[bedstuy]

He's a good President being impeded by the economy and Republicans.  He can't just snap his fingers and get 4% unemployment and a rational Republican Party.  In the context of our current politics, we couldn't have done much better than Obama.

That said, I have three complaints.

He should have passed a bigger stimulus in 2009, with no tax cuts.

He should have gotten Harry Reid to axe the filibuster in 2009, asked the Congress to work overtime and slammed through legislation like crazy when Democrats controlled both Houses.  

He should have had more chutzpah and used the bully pulpit and the media to advance his agenda.  

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

He's a good President being impeded by the economy and Republicans.  He can't just snap his fingers and get 4% unemployment and a rational Republican Party.  In the context of our current politics, we couldn't have done much better than Obama.

That said, I have three complaints.

He should have passed a bigger stimulus in 2009, with no tax cuts.

He should have gotten Harry Reid to axe the filibuster in 2009, asked the Congress to work overtime and slammed through legislation like crazy when Democrats controlled both Houses.  

He should have had more chutzpah and used the bully pulpit and the media to advance his agenda.  

I obviously agree with these criticisms but hindsight is 20/20: the extent of the economic crisis in early 2009 was not fully understood and the stimulus he signed was the biggest one possible. It was also incredibly impactful: our unemployment rate would have been at 14-15% without it and our "green energy" sector would have collapsed.

I viewed the President similarly until I read this book, which was really illuminating about the extent of Republican intransigence:

[bedstuy]

He's a good President being impeded by the economy and Republicans.  He can't just snap his fingers and get 4% unemployment and a rational Republican Party.  In the context of our current politics, we couldn't have done much better than Obama.

That said, I have three complaints.

He should have passed a bigger stimulus in 2009, with no tax cuts.

He should have gotten Harry Reid to axe the filibuster in 2009, asked the Congress to work overtime and slammed through legislation like crazy when Democrats controlled both Houses.  

He should have had more chutzpah and used the bully pulpit and the media to advance his agenda.  

I obviously agree with these criticisms but hindsight is 20/20: the extent of the economic crisis in early 2009 was not fully understood and the stimulus he signed was the biggest one possible. It was also incredibly impactful: our unemployment rate would have been at 14-15% without it and our "green energy" sector would have collapsed.

I viewed the President similarly until I read this book, which was really illuminating about the extent of Republican intransigence:

I think that's a totally fair point and I agree.  Political reality constrains the theoretically good policy ideas we would like to see implemented.  And, on balance, Obama's legislative record is the best since LBJ, while politics is more dysfunctional than it has been in recent history. 

However, next chance we get to pass some good legislation, Democrats need to be completely ruthless.  If Democrats control Congress again, Day One they should amend the rules of both Houses to speed things up and pass their agenda.  The lesson to me from Obama's tenure is that we need to be more brutal, manipulative and bold.