Conor J Rogers, Editor-In-Chief
Ideology: Republican | Writing from: Washington, DC
Big government! Too liberal! Too focused on his public image! No experience and not ready to lead!
Team McCain hammered away at Obama with these claims and more with increasing fervor as campaign 2008 closed in on Election Day. Sarah Palin famously sounded the “socialism” alarm after Barack Obama was caught on candid-camera telling “Joe the Plumber” that we needed to “spread the wealth around.” Many in the media dismissed Palin’s claims as far-out campaign smears. Barack Obama’s public relations machine slammed McCain for being afraid of “real change” and insinuated that any buddy of George W. Bush would, of course, find Barack Obama “too radical, too risky.”
As Barack Obama’s inauguration was met with massive celebration and approval ratings in the high 60’s, McCain’s campaign-era charges were written off by most as exactly that: campaign politics. As Obama elevated Democrats and Republicans to his cabinet, met with Congressional Republicans for legislative negotiations and promised a new kind of politics, it looked like McCain’s claims had been all alarm and no substance after all.
But then came cap-and-trade, followed by the public option, and with it, a 9 trillion dollar deficit. Along came a list of “czars” longer than the Russians ever had. His first tours abroad were ripped by some as an apology tour, and he was further criticized for his warmness towards the likes of Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad. North Korea test fired nuclear-capable missiles, but America was silent and “liberty for all” apparently didn’t apply to Iranians. “Yes we can” became “beca
use I won.” The tea parties got louder, the town halls got wilder, and it wasn’t long before the “socialism” alarm was sounded again. But this time, it was with more than just book quotes and video footage; it had legislation to rail against and a government-run healthcare option to fight.
The crucial block of independents that swept Obama into office are departing his flock at an alarming rate for any president, but especially one that is only eight months into his first term. Concerns about big government have shot to the top of the public consciousness, and independents are now declaring the public option and cap-and-trade “too radical” and closing Guantanamo was declared “too risky.” Though his agenda is far from outright socialism, this sort of unabashed liberalism coming from the White House hasn’t been seen in decades. Every day, more Americans are souring on Obama’s ability to lead and are reconsidering everything from his healthcare proposals to something as simple as a favorability rating.
John McCain warned us: Barack Obama is too liberal, too radical, and not ready to lead. As his proposed national healthcare plan falls the way of the left-wing cap-and-trade bill, and a full-scale Blue Dog Democrat revolt calls his ability to lead even his own party into question, this McCain supporter wonders if the Maverick was right all along.
Excellent article, Conor. McCain’s accusations against Obama were eerily prescient. Hopefully in 2010 and 2012 voters will weight solid resumes heavier than oratorical skills.
Very well written, Conor, but I sincerely hope you are not insinuating that a healthcare plan with one “government run” option is enough to qualify Obama as a Socialist. I would expect such ridiculous claims from Glen Beck or Bill O’Rielly, but I assume you’re too intelligent to stoop to that level. The way the Socialist card is being used in this country nowadays seems to hinge on two assumptions- the first being that anyone who seems to know what they’re talking about can just say whatever they want to about Socialism because most Americans don’t actually have a realistic concept of what Socialism is (which, unfortunately, might be true), and the second being that any policy that affects economics is either Capitalist or Socialist, and that there is no gray area in between (an idea that any free market capitalist would advocate gleefully). I don’t understand how providing low cost health care to people who would not be able to afford it otherwise infringes on the free market in any way, and I would like to have enough faith in people in this country to believe that the reason so many folks are up in arms about this is because of some fundamental misunderstanding rather than their own selfish desires to save a few bucks on taxes while others have inadequate medical coverage. I don’t see any government bureaucracies taking over health care companies or forcing people to change their medical insurance plans. Somehow, everyone is suddenly enraged when the government wants to help people with a necessity of life, but no one seems to mind when that same government dedicates billions and billions of dollars for the purpose of “bailing out” corporations who were about to go bankrupt in large part due to internal greed, incompetence, and mismanagement. It seems to me as if Obama’s in the pocket of private corporations every bit as much as McCain would’ve been, and the instant he tries to so much as peek out over the top to see what else is possible the conservatives (induced by many wealthy custodians of these very corporations themselves), raise a fuss and try to label him as a Socialist just because they know about all of the bad associations people in this country have about Socialism. Understand that I do try to respect the opinions and perspectives of people on the right, although I do not usually agree with them, but I think that this tactic of fear-mongering is vile, sleazy, corrupt, and represents everything wrong with the American political system.
Malcolm,
I tried to make myself clear that I don’t think he’s a socialist when I said: “Though his agenda is far from outright socialism, this sort of unabashed liberalism coming from the White House hasn’t been seen in decades.”
I said that to first emphasize that it isn’t socialism, but second that it’s being mistaken for socialism because it is so liberal compared to our past government policies. (America has really been governed by the center-right since Reagan…Clinton was very much a centrist in practice)
I agree with you that labels like ‘socialism’ and death panels are flying too freely in today’s political discourse…but I also said the same about ‘imperialism’ and ‘occupiers’ label being thrown around in 2005/2006 by the anti-war crowd. Myself a bit of a moderate Republican, I’m usually opposed to both fringe concepts and fringe labels.
Fair enough. I wasn’t trying to accuse you necessarily, I just have a bit of a knee jerk reaction whenever I hear socialism mentioned in the same paragraph with any contemporary political issue, and I wasn’t sure what you were personally trying to say about Palin’s “socialist alarm”. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Recently we have been bombarded with the notion that that Government is seeking to control large swaths of the American economy in “socialist” style take over. First off a little context would be nice so please check this link out. http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/07/agenda-setting-and-obamas-socialist-leanings/
The economic recession that hit us last year was unprecedented and though plenty of blame exists and can be spread among the democrats, republicans and private companies that got us into this mess the fact remains that the government’s injection of capital into the system in the form of “bailouts” probably helped us from falling into a crippling depression.
Now we can argue over the merits of the bailouts and the way the money is being handled, but compared to the amount of assets the private sector holds the bailouts are a drop in the bucket. Misrepresenting them as socialism run amok is disingenuous at best. That being said, I certainly don’t support unchecked government intervention into the private market and there is definitely room for debate on how the bailouts have been handled, after all this is tax payer money we are talking about. Government might not always be the answer but to say it is the source of all of our problems is a huge stretch.
On a completely different note you say North Korea test fired nuclear-capable missiles, but America was silent and “liberty for all” apparently didn’t apply to Iranians.
I assume the missile tests that this article is referring to are the ones that failed spectacularly moments after lift off(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/world/asia/06korea.html). Getting a missile to launch successfully and return a payload to earth intact( what is needed to deliver a nuke) is extremely complicated technology that the NK’s obviously don’t possess. Some analysts think the missile NK tested theoretically could put a a couple hundred pounds in orbit…far less then then few tons need to launch a nuclear warhead. So while NK certainly poses a huge threat to the stability of the region, the threat of a nuclear tipped missile being launched at…lets say Hawaii…is probably close to 0.
The problem with NK is getting its ally China on board with any economic sanctions. That being said, Obama did get the UN to pass sanctions on Korea’s ability to import and export illict materials(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/north-korea-sanctions-una_n_214885.html) and the sanctions are stronger then those passed in 2006 while Bush was still president (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/06/116_46669.html) So while there is alot to be done on the issue of nuclear weapons with regards to NK, Obama has certainly not being sitting idly on the sidelines.
On this issue of Iran, it sucks but appearing to interfere in their elections would help no one. There were harsh words for the conduct following the election from Republicans and Democrats including Obama. However, given our history of interfering with governments in the Middle East, and especially with Iran’s(think Shah), being tactful was probably the smartest move Obama made. If we were seen as an interfering power, attempting to insert ourselves into another countries election, it would have only strengthened the power of those Iran that detest us and done little to actually bring about fairer elections.
Clark,
Nowhere did Conor misrepresent anything as socialism. In fact, what he Obama’s policies were “far from outright socialism.”
With regard to North Korea, he was certainly referring to their very successful launch on July 4th (and their threats to wipe us off the planet, which I wrote about (http://thepoliticizer.com/2009/07/10/obama-and-north-korea-silence-again/) on July 10th.
*what he said was that…
@ alec
NK test fired 6 missiles on July 4. 5 short range SCUD types that were a success but have been in NK’s arsenal for a while(basically not a surprise to anyone that they worked). The missile I’m referring to is the one that the fear mongers on the right keep referencing as “being able to hit the US”. It failed spectacularly after about 40 seconds of flight time (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/korea.missile/) Known as the Taepodong-2, NK has tested this missile on several occasions and each time it has failed within the first minute of launch. Now while I find NK’s pursuit of long range ballistic missiles troubling, misrepresenting the threat of a US strike as imminent does nothing except feed unnecessary fear. North Korea can barely get this missile off the ground without it blowing up…much less put a sophisticated multi-ton nuclear warhead on it.
Meanwhile, they have shown that they have the capability to fire a missile with stunning accuracy. That is a major threat, and nobody on the Left seems to care. It’s hardly fear-mongering by conservatives to bring this up.
But Conor didn’t use it this way anyway, so there’s no need to debate it. He only mentioned that Obama did nothing. Regardless of the level of the threat (which we disagree on anyway), Obama could have and should have done SOMETHING.
Clark,
Did you fail to see that my article was explaining how what Obama did was * perceived* rather than what has actually been done?
The entire premise (and ending) of the article is about if the American people have come to believe what campaign McCain had warned them: risky foreign policy, irresponsible government and an extreme agenda – aka “he’s too radical for America”
Whether or not you think North Korea can actually hit us with a missile is completely irrelevant.
@alec Obama DID do something he got sanctions passed that were even tougher then sanctions passed under the Bush administration so it is relevant to debate the validity of the right’s claims that Obama has done nothing. Our foreign image has improved drastically since Obama took office and its starting to have an effect. For example we are going to start talks with Iran instead pretending ignoring the problem will make it go away. The problem with economic sanctions is you have to have everyone on board for them to work(aka Russia and China). They are only going to come on board if they see a real and concerted attempt at actual diplomatic efforts.
@Conor To me it is relevant. If North Korea could hit us with a nuclear tipped missile id be right up there with all the other hawks in Washington calling for possible military intervention. However, as of right now, NK is a regional problem which is why we need the 6 party talks so they can all work it out. He hasn’t failed on NK, hes being pragmatic.
Secondly, the man has been in office 8 months. 8 years ago the tragedy of september 11th was less then a week old and that would define the Bush administration for the next 7 1/2 years. Assuming Obama is only in office for 3 1/2 more that’s still plenty of time to get stuff done. It’s like calling a close football game before the first quarter is even over. And as for concerns about “unprecedented government takeover” once again http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/07/agenda-setting-and-obamas-socialist-leanings/.
Clark,
Again, you miss the point. This is not about if these people are going to vote for Obama in 2012 -in fact I don’t even mention the next 3 1/2 years on purpose. It is about the communication problem Obama is having here and now.
Next, arguing that events in the eight months of Bush’s term defined his Presidency for eight years, and then saying that eight months into Obama’s term isn’t enough to judge him doesn’t make logical sense.
I didn’t “call” anything except the current state of public opinion.
“I didn’t “call” anything except the current state of public opinion”. – which you did very well by the way. but we all know that public opinion is a very very fickle thing. WHEN healthcare passes and people realize its not the second coming of Christ then there will be a shift in public opinion again. Btw its nice to have a president who at least tackles issues that matter such as healthcare, climate change, and the problems on wall street.
Clark,
Just address the points made in the article. Stop trying to turn the discussion into a debate about Bush, North Korea, health care, etc., etc.
Alec I am addressing the points. you say hes perceived as weak and inexperienced on foreign policy I disagree and point to the progress hes made with sanctions against NK. you say people perceive him as a liberal socialist, i point out the the government barely controls .21% of US corporate assets. now is he having troubling getting his message across? hell yeah and thats something his staff needs to work on but his approval ratings are no where near bushs, he still has 3+ years and healthcare hasn’t even come to a vote yet.
He has made progress with sanctions against North Korea? Those have done absolutely nothing. But Conor did NOT say Obama was “weak” on foreign policy, just that he had disagreements with Obama.
Conor said he IS NOT a socialist, just very liberal. There’s no denying that he’s one of the more liberal presidents in recent memory.
And his approval ratings are the same, if not lower, as Bush’s at this point in Bush’s presidency.