Obama: Moderate?
Andrew Sullivan explains why he leans towards Obama: “My leaning toward Obama has a lot to do with his even temperament, his ability to listen, his powerful persuasive faculties and his judgment. Those are the qualities I look for in a president.”
Ann Althouse comments: “I say things like that about picking a Supreme Court Justice — but only because the President has the appointment power and the President has been elected by the people. That is, ideology matters in a judge, and that’s why the President can, should, and does take it into account when choosing a nominee for the Court, but as long as that nominee has the neutral credentials — judicial temperament, openness to argument, high skill in judgment and written expression — confirmation is appropriate. But how can we say the same about a President?”
I think that both are right, to a degree. Andrew’s right to point out that these are important qualities in a president. But Ann’s also right when she says that they aren’t the only qualities that matter and that ideology matters. If one looks at Obama’s record one quickly sees that he’s quite progressive. I’m not talking so much about his record in the US Senate – we all know that he made a hobby out of getting out of the building at the moment that his colleagues voted on a controversial bill – but about his work in the Illinois Senate and his activities before that.
He’s celebrated, to a degree, by liberal bloggers, who point exactly that record out to prove that he’s more liberal than Clinton.
If Andrew is a Tory conservative, which he has been all his life, I truly can’t see how he could consider endorsing Obama. Obama talks the moderate talk, but it shouldn’t all be about talk, it should also be about policies. Obama appeals to moderates and to independents because of the way he talks, but his record should appeal slightly less to them. Either Obama’s a flip-flopper because he understands that being a very progressive candidate won’t result in him taking the White House or he changed his views over time. But the record still stands.
A Tory Conservative, a British conservative, can’t possibly agree with Obama’s liberal policies. That’s just impossible. So, what do we have here? Style over substance?
O, and as a commenter at Ann’s place points out, the Boston Herald clearly shows that Obama’s platform isn’t as moderate as some seem to think. As the commenter summarizes:
**Opposes school vouchers.
**Wants new school construction.
**Improving teacher pay.
**Pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
**A new international global warming partnership.
**Would require that 25% of electricity come from renewable sources by 2025.
**A new mandatory national health plan.
**Citizenship for illegal immigrants already living in the U.S.
**Supports a plan to immediately begin troop withdrawal from Iraq.
**Opposes privatization of Social Security.
**Supports repeal of tax cuts for upper income earners to pay for health care.
O, and the commenter also illustrates that Obama blames terrorism on “the underlying struggle” between “worlds of plenty and worlds of want.”
Obama isn’t as moderate as some seem to think. He has a progressive record, he talks as a moderate, but he runs on what we could call quite a progressive platform I think.
I agree with all that as well (basically it’s the same old argument: does ‘moderate’ mean tone or policy?)
Also agree that Obama’s policies are pretty liberal- but what I’m having trouble figuring out is why Hillary is seen as so much more centrist than that. On all of the domestic issues mentioned, aren’t Hillary’s almost identical to the liberal ones listed here for Obama? In fact she even outflanks him to the left with some things that aren’t mentioned here, proposals to ’support families’ and such.
As I understand it, she’s more centrist than he is (they’ve got beautiful charts and all that). I remember linking to one of them once. I think you forgot again. Not only that, he was also quite progressive as a Senator IN Illinois.
O, and Hillary – unlike what some think – has worked with Republicans in the Senate and her husband ran a fairly moderate administration. She’ll be likely to rule like he did.
Charts? I guess I have forgotten, because I don’t have a clue what you are referring to (no senility jokes, please!)
I don’t know why it’s a safe assumption to think that she’ll govern just like Bill Clinton, and I don’t really know what you mean by "working with Republicans in the Senate". Examples? And even if so, she’s been part of the minority party for most of her Senate tenure, so she’d have to work with them in order to get anything done.
What I’m specifically asking here is, since you quoted a list of Obama’s proposals which prove the progressive nature of his ideology, how is Clinton’s different than that? In other words, no fair acting as though she doesn’t mean what she says when she lists what she wants to accomplish. What are your thoughts on what she actually says her agenda will be? More centrist than Obama’s stated agenda or not? Because domestically, I just don’t see it.
One more thing (and I don’t mean to be argumentative here, I’m strictly asking because I don’t know)…
You’ve mentioned several times about Obama’s liberal record as state Senator but I really don’t know the details of that. Can you give examples or link to a source that explains his record there?
And truly, all I’m trying to say is that I think both of them are way too liberal on spending for me, and just as you say that it makes no sense for Andrew Sullivan to support him, I feel the same way about Clinton. I’m not trying to say she’s the anti-Christ, just that I disagree with her quite a bit on domestic spending and economic policy. Like Bill, it could turn out that if she becomes president and has a GOP congress, that she’d moderate her progressive policies, but I can’t see counting on that to happen rather than taking her at her word about what policies she’d attempt to follow.
Looking at a primary, the question on endorsements has to be: among the alternatives on offer (and which have a prayer of success), which would be best. At the moment, among the Democrats, the realistic choices come down to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. As Sullivan has noted, when you look at the platforms on their websites, the policy differences between them are pretty minimal.
So then you have to look beyond that, and factor in what you see at the issues facing the nation at the moment. Clinton is likely to be divisive (fairly or not), and one of the current issues is how divisive and partisan the current administration has been. Edwards is pushing populist economics hard, and with the economy shaky the last thing we need is a Federal policy which messes things up worse.
Conclusion: Obama. No matter how far some of his policy proposals are from a conservative ideal.
Ronald Reagan appealed to moderates and Democrats who were once a part of the New Deal coalition. He did this by turning substance into style, and not only marketing conservatism to Americans, but a grander sense of what America "could be."
It’s not just about rhetoric. it’s about where America is at this point in history, and whether or not a red vs. blue Democrat–who would no doubt foster gridlock and constant scandal mongering–is right for the country at this time.
Not to mention that when Clinton also had a Dem led Legislative branch he governed very liberal. It was not until the Republicans took control of the Legislative branch that he was forced to be more Moderate.
And I have not heard anyone claim that she is more moderate than he was.
Which points to – if Dem’s continue control of Legislative, look for a very liberal Clinton.
Interested #7: My thoughts exactly.
Kevin: I agree with that too; style does matter. I think what a lot of people are indicating is that they want leaders who will convince people to follow them rather than bullying to get their policies to the forefront. I think it’s still questionable whether Obama can turn inspirational speeches in to that kind of action, but I do believe that this is his appeal.
wj: That’s fine as it goes, but why should a conservative even bother to make an endorsement on the Dem side?
" **Opposes school vouchers.
**Wants new school construction.
**Improving teacher pay.
**Pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
**A new international global warming partnership.
**Would require that 25% of electricity come from renewable sources by 2025.
**A new mandatory national health plan.
**Citizenship for illegal immigrants already living in the U.S.
**Supports a plan to immediately begin troop withdrawal from Iraq.
**Opposes privatization of Social Security.
**Supports repeal of tax cuts for upper income earners to pay for health care."
If this isn’t moderate then give me a ticket to the "extreme" fringe right now.
Why buy a ticket to where you already are.
For those completely unfamiliar with the US educational system K-12: Federal funding averages only about 5-6% of total school funding, with the vast bulk of all school funding being local/state via property taxes. New school construction and teacher’s pay are LOCAL and STATE issues, not federal ones.
Those two items are a case of the teacher’s unions trying to do an end-run around the people who actually pay for these items via federal regulation. Which fits the far-left playbook just fine–someone else pays, and the ruling class tells them how to spend it from a thousand miles away.
The folks of the Great State of Vermont should be able to confirm that, Highest Tax burden in the Nation (and very direct on the poor) and there are rumblings of yet more tax increases on the way. I guess they have not driven enough business and citizens out of the State yet.
At least to date they are, but it looks like it’s not to be so after 2008 if we elect a Democratic president.
Of course it’s not moderate. As a European you should recognize the platform quite easily: social democratic.
Christine #8: Why make an endorsement on the Democratic side? Because there looks to be a significant chance that the Republicans will nominate someone who is worse than some liberals when it comes to following conservative principles. Of course, how much influence a conservative’s endorsement would have is another question.
Personally, there are some potential Republican candidates that I could easily support. There are others where I would find myself voting for Obama (or Clinton – but not Edwards) in November. Which gives me a stake in how the Democratic nomination plays out.
Who was the big champion of No-Child Left Behind?
Andrew Sullivan’s argument is that it’s necessary to vote for a liberal to help teach the Republican party a lesson to return to its Conservative principles. And there are important things like torture and our unchecked executive that need to be strongly repudiated, which isn’t going to happen with many of the Republican candidates.
Oh, really? Name one GOP candidate who is more liberal than Obama, Clinton, or Edwards on domestic spending issues like education, healthcare, social security.
I think what you are trying to say is that he’s angry that the conservatives aren’t conservative enough- but that still doesn’t mean it makes sense to endorse someone from the party which is more liberal.
ChrisWWW- That’s probably a more accurate statement about Sullivan’s views, or at least it makes more sense than to say that the Dems are more conservative this time around than the GOP. I think the ’spending time out in the wilderness’ idea is overrated though and during times of economic downturn AND global security threats, I’m not willing to say that we should give the Democrats a turn.
C Stanley,
Luckily most people disagree with you on which party is better on the economy and national defense. I guess the public isn’t impressed with 8 years of what the Republican party has actually done on these issues.
Unfortunately a lot of people are deceived that way, true enough, Chris. But fortunately the Democratic party has a history of losing elections which should have been cakewalks for them- never underestimate the ability of your team to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
They aren’t my team. They are just the least detestable of two choices.
Um, ChrisWWW, you don’t know much about the nuts and bolts of No Child Left Behind, do you? The legislation required certain standards be met to keep existing federal funding, not to get more. A wee bit different than “Give us piles of federal money for union jobs, no strings attached.”
Tully,
I do know that one of the biggest problems with the NCLB was that it lacks funding. Thereby making it an "unfunded mandate." So there you have Washington, D.C., in effect, telling states how to to spend their own money. Even if that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
And you somehow feel this originated totally by Republicans and there are no past history of Dem’s mudding these State Rights waters beyond belief in the past?
Interested,
I’m just noting that ordering around the states isn’t solely the standard operating procedure of the so called "Left." Perhaps you should scroll up a bit
By selective process as usual, so no - no need.
It doesn’t lack funding, it simply doesn’t provide all the extra gimme gimme gimme funding that the Ted Kennedys want. It’s not even a mandate. What part of “Show results or get off the teat” did you miss? NCLB says that if you take federal funding you have to show results if you want to get more money, instead of just demanding endless handouts.
No state is required to take federal school funding. They take it because they want the money.
Is less money being spent on it than was promised in 2001? Also, the states are already strapped for cash. Of course they are going to jump for more money, and when the rewards don’t match up to what’s needed and they have to go further into the red, then it becomes underfunded and more a less a mandate.
But take anyways, take a look at two laws signed into law by Republican Presidents at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfunded_mandate
Or gee, just for grins, they could consider spending the money more efficiently. That’s the whole problem with federalizing everything, Chris. The states will ALWAYS be underfunded if the incentives are upside down. Instead of having an incentive to spend wisely (as they do when they’re accountable to their own state’s taxpayers), they’re instead encouraged to keep going back for more money even if they’ve wasted what they already had.
I’m all for government efficiency…
And I want to hear you say that next time an Iraq war appropriations bill comes up
Not to mention that when Clinton also had a Dem led Legislative branch he governed very liberal. It was not until the Republicans took control of the Legislative branch that he was forced to be more Moderate.
this is exactly what was such a good thing about Clinton. He was not an idealogue to the point that he could not stomach working with his opponents. I see that in Hillary. Voting for the war. Voting for the Iran resolution. She is not afraid to work for her ideological opponents while rejecting the pressure from her own idealogical equals.
Obama shows none of this. At all. Period. He is almost 100 percent lockstep with the dems on every vote. He will not be the uniter or the candidate of change that he continually proposes. His brief history shows that conclusively