I have an article at Quadrant Online which looks at the third debate in which the core of the argument is how Obama has structured his claim to foreign policy expertise around continuing the policies of his predecessor. The central point:
But to the extent we have not been driven farther back than we have, to the extent that there has actually been some advance made on four years ago, it is only because of the continuation of policies introduced by President Bush following 9/11. Guantanamo remains open, attacks on al Qaeda have continued, Osama bin Laden has been killed, Iraq has been stabilised and Afghanistan is on its way to being able to maintain an army in the field to defend itself against further attacks by jihadists. All of the policies to achieve these ends were in place on the day of Obama’s inauguration. The only step he needed to take was to do nothing at all but allow the past to roll into the future.
So when I see the usual crowd on the left say that Obama won the debate, you have to wonder what they mean, since everything Obama said represented exactly the kinds of things that would have been said by George Bush eight years before and by John McCain in 2008. Obama, who became president on the back of his promise to unwind all of the war efforts commenced by President Bush, now argues for re-election because he has been able to complete each of his predecessor’s initiatives. Had Obama run on promising to continue the war in Iraq, extend the war in Afghanistan and prosecute a war in Libya, those who support Obama now as they did then cannot explain their support other than because Obama is a man of the left. It’s certainly not because he did what he promised to do.
Does the left like liars and being lied to? It’s a mystery.
It appears that the right also likes liars that promise to reduce the size of the state while passing unfunded expansions of the welfare state (Medicare Part D), starting pre-emptive wars, and promoting home ownership as something bordering on a right (the “ownership society”). Both sides still see “their guy” as preferable, simply based on the fantasy that his rhetoric means something.
They prefer not being told the truth over being lied to but that’s too as long as leftists are left in positions of power to advance leftism.
Leftism is the most successful religion of the last 120 years and it comprises devotee zealots and the deluded and the sub-human lapdog fools.
d’Hamster is an example of the latter
that’s okay too
As a general policy position, the left works on the basis that government involvement in the affairs of society is, of itself, a ‘good thing’ and that pretty much everything can be managed for the better by the State. At election time they necessarily suffer from policy detail deficit disorder and from the fact that a large proportion of the voting punters do not want government in their lives any more than absolutely necessary.
The end result is a choice between being openly statist, or talking big picture visionary, with only the pretty bits coloured in – and hoping like hell the reality will oblige if they get into office. (Or, as the idiot Garrett quipped, and Gillard did, planning on changing everything once they get in.)
All wannabe governments suffer from this to some extent; it’s just if you come with an agenda filled with expensive, unpredictable and impractical social change you’re far more likely to be recognised as the dissembler you are.
And hopefully far less likely to be elected…
A pre emptive war isn’t bad. Imperialism under the guise of pre emption is.
I see the Sun King meme is starting to get traction for this statist president that even Bolta has picked up on the “L’etat c’est moi” attitude of Obama.
I must admit I picked this up from Tim Stanley at The Telegraph
Funny that–I distinctly recall the Obummer promising to CLOSE Gitmo when he was full of the “hope and change” catch cry!