Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Obama: The Policies

butchersapron said:
By making this man the living personifcation (close to apotheosis in the cases of some people) of progressivism he then becomes the boundary which any future presidential politics cannot go past and the fact that he's actually an out and out right winger despite the spin help restrict progressive politics even further.
Click to expand...
I've never heard an out and out right winger call for wealth redistribution or say healthcare was a right. In the world of US presidental elections he is a progressive candidate.
 
sleaterkinney said:
I've never heard an out and out right winger call for wealth redistribution or say healthcare was a right. In the world of US presidental elections he is a progressive candidate.
Click to expand...
Well i suggest that a) you have a closer look at US presidential history. There have been many many times when right-wingers have called for the sort of minimal wealth redistribution and healthcare that it's being argued Obama in favour of (i'm not at all convinced that he is calling for these, so you'd need to actually make an argument if you want me to accept that) b) you may well be right in that he's progressive only in terms of US presidential elections - i.e in a limited enviroment and not in any substantial external sense.

Whilst we're at it, does an agrressive foriegn policy or nay of the other bad things balance up the things you mention? Do we only count the good bits and ignore the bad bits or do we tally them up in some way?
 
I've no idea who will exert the most influence. The cynic in me says big money interests, but this has been a pretty unique campaign that has deliberately tapped in to and targetted a constituency that wouldn't normally vote. As well as knocking on doors and using the internet he also utilised local church links in the community to get people to donate, help out and vote.
 
soulman said:
I've no idea who will exert the most influence. The cynic in me says big money interests, but this has been a pretty unique campaign that has deliberately tapped in to and targetted a constituency that wouldn't normally vote. As well as knocking on doors and using the internet he also utilised local church links in the community to get people to donate, help out and vote.
Click to expand...

Well who did you think gets most say in financial institutions or companies? The large shareholders with common interests or the tiny isolated shareholders?

The church thing is a red herring, there's a conservative streak a mile wide in US churches (black, white or whatever) and they've also got an interest in promoting Obama's suggestion to remove collective social provision from the state and into the hands of often conservative groups like them. Saying churches backed him isn't in itself a postive - there's nothing to say that being beholden to these potentially conservative interests measn he'll be forced to follow a progressive agenda.
 
butchersapron said:
Well i suggest that a) you have a closer look at US presidential history. There have been many many times when right-wingers have called for the sort of minimal wealth redistribution and healthcare that it's being argued Obama in favour of (i'm not at all convinced that he is calling for these, so you'd need to actually make an argument if you want me to accept that) b) you may well be right in that he's progressive only in terms of US presidential elections - i.e in a limited enviroment and not in any substantial external sense.
Click to expand...

a) How about you provide some evidence as to how he is an out and out right-winger?.

b) How is "progressive" not a relative label?

butchersapron said:
Whilst we're at it, does an agrressive foriegn policy or nay of the other bad things balance up the things you mention? Do we only count the good bits and ignore the bad bits or do we tally them up in some way?
Click to expand...
So diplomacy is agrressive foriegn policy now?
 
sleaterkinney said:
a) How about you provide some evidence as to how he is an out and out right-winger?.

b) How is "progressive" not a relative label?


So diplomacy is agrressive foriegn policy now?
Click to expand...

a) You can read my post(s) on this thread where i outlined his right wing policies or on the President Obama thread.

b) i didn't say it wasn't. I said it was.

c) His seems to be, judging by his agressive approach to Iran and Pakistan and the plans to beef up the military in a major way. Your odd formulation means that aggressive foreign policy is impossible by definition as its diplomacy, which can not be an aggressive foreign policy.
 
butchersapron said:
a) You can read my post(s) on this thread where i outlined his right wing policies or on the President Obama thread.

b) i didn't say it wasn't. I said it was.

c) His seems to be, judging by his agressive approach to Iran and Pakistan and the plans to beef up the military in a major way. Your odd formulation means that aggressive foreign policy is impossible by definition as its diplomacy, which can not be an aggressive foreign policy.
Click to expand...

a) Have you got any links to direct quotes from him about this out and out right wing agenda, because I can't find any in your posts, and I can't wade through that website you linked to.

b) "you may well be right in that he's progressive only in terms of US presidential elections - i.e in a limited enviroment and not in any substantial external sense." So you define him as progressive in that limited enviroment?

c) So opening talks with no preconditions is an aggressive approach now?
 
sleaterkinney said:
a) Have you got any links to direct quotes from him about this out and out right wing agenda, because I can't find any in your posts, and I can't wade through that website you linked to.

b) "you may well be right in that he's progressive only in terms of US presidential elections - i.e in a limited enviroment and not in any substantial external sense." So you define him as progressive in that limited enviroment?

c) So opening talks with no preconditions is an aggressive approach now?
Click to expand...

a) Well are you doubting the things that i wrote? That they're inaccurate either in facts or as brief paraphrases of his postions? Which ones? I can't be bothered to look through the site you linked to doesn't really fill me with desire to go hunting down direct quites for you.

b) If you like, but i've made clear my oppostion to the sort of lesser evilism that you're undoubtdly going to suggest in the next reply. And it's quite possible for there to be a relative progressivism in which the progressive boundary remains clearly on the terrain of the traditional pro-freemarket right right. i would suggests this is the case here.

c) Again, does his stated policy towards Chavez means that his sabre rattling posturing towards Iran and Pakistan don't exist and don't consitute an agreessive foreign policy? Which is more central as well, which area is theone that's likley to have more effect on the world, with the most potential to prove horrendously destabilising? Is this another part of his policy that we have to forget? Pretend doesn't exist?
 
butchersapron said:
a) Well are you doubting the things that i wrote? That they're inaccurate either in facts or as brief paraphrases of his postions? Which ones? I can't be bothered to look through the site you linked to doesn't really fill me with desire to go hunting down direct quites for you.

b) If you like, but i've made clear my oppostion to the sort of lesser evilism that you're undoubtdly going to suggest in the next reply. And it's quite possible for there to be a relative progressivism in which the progressive boundary remains clearly on the terrain of the traditional pro-freemarket right right. i would suggests this is the case here.

c) Again, does his stated policy towards Chavez means that his sabre rattling posturing towards Iran and Pakistan don't exist and don't consitute an agreessive foreign policy? Which is more central as well, which area is theone that's likley to have more effect on the world, with the most potential to prove horrendously destabilising? Is this another part of his policy that we have to forget? Pretend doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
a) I did bother to look through that site but found it inpenatrable, in what little I did read of it there were no direct quotes or policy points, just opinion. So yes, I would like some to back up your assertion that he is an out and out right winger.

b) I believe in incremental change.

c) What are you blathering on about?
 
sleaterkinney said:
a) I did bother to look through that site but found it inpenatrable, in what little I did read of it there were no direct quotes or policy points, just opinion. So yes, I would like some to back up your assertion that he is an out and out right winger.

b) I believe in incremental change.

c) What are you blathering on about?
Click to expand...

a) again: Well are you doubting the things that i wrote? That they're inaccurate either in facts or as brief paraphrases of some of his postions? Which ones?

b) And? Good for you. That's nothing to with my argument.

c) Never mind.
 
His attitude towards Chavez is genuinely encouraging. Has he mentioned Cuba, I wonder?

His sabre-rattling towards Iran and Pakistan has been very worrying. But the US and Iran have a long-running antipathy dating back to 1979. It is largely a cold war. Hopefully it will stay that way.
 
There's an article a little way down on the front page of the counterpunch.org website (A New Day In DC? Not So Fast) that paints a pretty gloomy picture of what Obama's likely to do in office. It's certainly worth a read...

If I were American I'd have definitely voted Obama (a McCain/Palin presidency being too horrible to contemplate), but would have done so with few illusions. There are bits of his policies I like the sound of (taxing the very rich, putting more money into alternative energy) but the economy is so fucked I really wonder how much he'll actually be able to do even if he wanted to.
 
butchersapron said:
a) again: Well are you doubting the things that i wrote? That they're inaccurate either in facts or as brief paraphrases of some of his postions? Which ones?

b) And? Good for you. That's nothing to with my argument.

c) Never mind.
Click to expand...

a) I would like to see it backed up, that's all
 
sleaterkinney said:
But a bit thin on actual quotes and policy proposals, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Is it? It's only a short article but it seems to have a fair amount of information regarding statements, connections and previous actions to support the thesis. I quite agree with the conclusion:
Obama will undoubtedly be better than Bush was and better than McCain would have been, and the differences matter. But a realistic assessment of the scope of those differences is imperative. Without it, people who really care about changing this country’s direction will end up counting on one man, Obama, instead of on themselves to bring about the change we need. Those people will inevitably be disappointed...

...To have any chance of getting the results we want out of his administration, we cannot just sit back and expect him to work his magic. We must organize, agitate, and pursue independent initiatives (like ballot measures) to get what we want (like single-payer healthcare) at the state level. And we must carefully scrutinize Obama’s every move and harass and harangue him relentlessly just as if he were John McCain or George Bush. From the point of view of every American left of center, the principal advantage of Obama over McCain is that it is at least possible that he will listen to us. We cannot let that advantage go to waste.
Click to expand...

Direct link to the article here by the way - http://counterpunch.org/menetrez11062008.html
 
sleaterkinney said:
But a bit thin on actual quotes and policy proposals, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really no, not for a brief polemical article anyway. It deals with the major areas and supports the positions/paraphrases that i've outlined on them. That should tell you at least that i'm not making them up. And there's rather more content to those brief outlines than your (still empty) suggestions that he's not a right winger at all.
 
turing test said:
He is not even close by American standards. Perhaps by European standards, but not American. Ron Paul is an example of a current right wing politician in the US.
Click to expand...

Who has been touted as left winger on here by certain elements! Look, simply put, he's a right winger in my terms of being an unashamed supporter of free market capitalism.

But the concertineering (yes!) of the concepts of traditional left and right into one disgusting mush based on the same restricted set of policies means that there's more crossover between the parties, but this crossover takes place on what the traditonal rights ground, on what is right wing terrain. Using that approach all presdential battle necessarily take place between right wingers on right wing grounds.

And the fact that there's even more extreme right wingers in the US (in both trad, EU and US usages) doesn't mean that those not as extreme are not on the right wing as well. That's necessary, at present in the US system.
 
On here?

I think the majority on Urban consider him to be as you've described him. The degree to which he is to the right still matters, though.
 
butchersapron said:
Who has been touted as left winger on here by certain elements! Look, simply put, he's a right winger in my terms of being an unashamed supporter of free market capitalism.

But the concertineering (yes!) of the concepts of traditional left and right into one disgusting mush based on the same restricted set of policies means that there's more crossover between the parties, but this crossover takes place on what the traditonal rights ground, on what is right wing terrain. Using that approach all presdential battle necessarily take place between right wingers on right wing grounds.

And the fact that there's even more extreme right wingers in the US (in both trad, EU and US usages) doesn't mean that those not as extreme are not on the right wing as well. That's necessary, at present in the US system.
Click to expand...
I agree with all that, except "concertineering". You should be ashamed. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bcuster
Is Michelle Obama Times' Up?
Replies
4
Views
251
VivaE
VivaE
ska invita
US policy towards 'the middle east' this century
Replies
8
Views
223
Yossarian
Yossarian
weltweit
The Mashco Piro people of the Amazon
2
Replies
52
Views
638
Elpenor
Elpenor
weltweit
Anniversary of the End of WWII in the Pacific ..
2
Replies
34
Views
769
blossie33
blossie33
J
Аmerican Protectionism U.S. Wealth at the Expense of Europe
Replies
8
Views
304
tim
tim
Back
Top Bottom