Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Obama: The Policies

butchersapron said:
Sorry, i meant Ron Paul was touted as left winger by some libertarians on here. Unclear of me.
Click to expand...
Ah, Ok. I was just reading up on him. He is a strong adherent to the Austrian School of laissez faire economics. An old-fashioned isolationist capitalist. So yes, in no way left-wing.

He's opposed to the drug laws and the Iraq War - that's probably what's confusing some people.

I agree that a little more clarity about what we're talking about would avoid such confusion.
 
butchersapron said:
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.
Click to expand...
No there isn't, it's a lot of supposition and opinion, not direct quotes or policy positions. That's all.
 
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 am not sure I completely understand you. It must be the accent. :D I think what you mean is that certain precepts (such as suport of capatalism) which define left wing or right wing that are independent of the country in considerations politics.

I don’t believe this to be the case. For example, I think in the US it would be impossible for a politician to succeed right now that didn’t at least claim to support free market capitalism. Sad but true. So how can you really claim that Obama is a right winger-no other US politician would be any different. Maybe to put it more succinctly, what is the use of calling all successful US politicians right wingers based on this criteria? It kind of robs right wing of any meaning.
 
sleaterkinney said:
No there isn't, it's a lot of supposition and opinion, not direct quotes or policy positions. That's all.
Click to expand...
Well, here's one direct quote:

“What I’ve said is that we need a residual force to start with. So, without putting a precise number or a precise time frame, I’ve set a series of missions that we’re going to have to continue to perform for a decent stretch of time. We’re going to have to continue to provide logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi military. We’re going to have to continue to provide training to the Iraqi military. We are going to have to continue to protect our diplomatic forces, our civilians on the ground in Iraq. Our embassy, we’ve got to protect. And, I believe we’re going to have to continue to have a counter-terrorism strike force, if not directly inside of Iraq then certainly in the region, that can provide insurance against any resurgence of either Al Qaida activity inside of Iraq or serious, destabilizing violence inside of Iraq. Those are all tasks that we’re still going to have to perform, and that means a certain number of troops. What those troops would be to accomplish those missions, I would leave up to the commanders, or I would at least consult closely with commanders in order to achieve the goals.”
 
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...
If that's the case then all of the mainstream parties and politicians are right wing in your view. It's not a view I'd share.
 
danny la rouge said:
Well, here's one direct quote:

“What I’ve said is that we need a residual force to start with. So, without putting a precise number or a precise time frame, I’ve set a series of missions that we’re going to have to continue to perform for a decent stretch of time. We’re going to have to continue to provide logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi military. We’re going to have to continue to provide training to the Iraqi military. We are going to have to continue to protect our diplomatic forces, our civilians on the ground in Iraq. Our embassy, we’ve got to protect. And, I believe we’re going to have to continue to have a counter-terrorism strike force, if not directly inside of Iraq then certainly in the region, that can provide insurance against any resurgence of either Al Qaida activity inside of Iraq or serious, destabilizing violence inside of Iraq. Those are all tasks that we’re still going to have to perform, and that means a certain number of troops. What those troops would be to accomplish those missions, I would leave up to the commanders, or I would at least consult closely with commanders in order to achieve the goals.”
Click to expand...
How is that right-wing? :confused:
 
Isn't it more about not allowing the right to dictate terms. Thatcher did this, claiming that she was the new centre ground. When the Labour party followed her to the right, she succeeded in getting real discussion of socialism off the mainstream political agenda in the UK. It remains so today.
 
sleaterkinney said:
How is that right-wing? :confused:
Click to expand...
Two things. First, it isn't necessarily (other than in the simplistic sense that more militarist is seen as more right and less militarist is seen as more less), but it's a position on Iraq at odds with how he's been sold in some quarters.

Second, you said there were no direct quotes; that's one.
 
A question for anyone, but Turing Test mostly:

How come no US president has introduced universal health care? It would be very popular, wouldn't it? You'd be hard pushed to find anyone in the UK who doesn't believe that it is a good thing. Every other rich country in the world has some version of it. Why not the US?
 
danny la rouge said:
Two things. First, it isn't necessarily (other than in the simplistic sense that more militarist is seen as more right and less militarist is seen as more less), but it's a position on Iraq at odds with how he's been sold in some quarters.

Second, you said there were no direct quotes; that's one.
Click to expand...
I meant no direct quotes that supported butcher's assertion that he is an out and out right-winger.
 
Well listening to Obama's speech again the main theme is 'service', 'sacrifice' and 'hard work'.

Fuck that.
 
MC5 said:
Well listening to Obama's speech again the main theme is 'service', 'sacrifice' and 'hard work'.

Fuck that.
Click to expand...

Well thats a sign of the times, its not really optional. It might take a few years for the new realities to sink in though.
 
I'm not saying you're all wrong but he does have to pander to the Israel lobby, etc, to get elected. Also don't forget that "left wing" in America means something appraching the Conservative Party in Britain. Some people in America think Margaret Thatcher was a socialist ffs. If he does have those kind of views he will have to pander to the right (what's percieved as "normal" in America) to get elected.

The things he has been saying MIGHT be things to reassure/attract people in his own party - the party of the "dixiecrats" ffs - and various powerful people that he is still on their side.

when he might not really be.

There ARE new realities in America and policies bereft of any social content whatever are going to get very short shrift very shortly ...

I really hope I'm right btw ...
 
If he has to say he support various lobbies to get elected, and then he has to support them in power to stay in power... what's the difference?
 
FridgeMagnet said:
If he has to say he support various lobbies to get elected, and then he has to support them in power to stay in power... what's the difference?
Click to expand...

I'm saying he might not support them once in power though.

as for aipac, for example, there is now a more "moderate" and more pro-peace jewish lobbying organisation which has just been launched, as well as there now being more muslims in the US than jews (not that most jews even support aipac anyway) and many of those people are palestinians who have launched their own lobbying organisation. ok, so that's not that great, abandoning the support of aipac for another lobby which may be jsut as bad, but the political climate in the US *is* changing

the hostility to "socialism" in the US is such that he will find it difficult to gain support for such policies unless they're couched in a *very* right wing way. the way things are going in the US people are going to have to ACCEPT that the american style of pure free market capitalism is dead and needs to be changed. he has his voters and his core supporters to think of.

his core supporters are largely working and middle class people that will be the most affected by the economic crisis.

i might be wrong. i probably am. but i REALLY don't want to be.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
A question for anyone, but Turing Test mostly:

How come no US president has introduced universal health care? It would be very popular, wouldn't it? You'd be hard pushed to find anyone in the UK who doesn't believe that it is a good thing. Every other rich country in the world has some version of it. Why not the US?
Click to expand...

someone I know runs a clinic in the US. There is a lot of money to be made, by "democratic liberals", soaking insurance companies whilst "doing good". As long as it's possible to launder the guilt through the insurance companies, no-one at the profitable end will see they are doing anything less-than-hippocratic.
 
rich! said:
someone I know runs a clinic in the US. There is a lot of money to be made, by "democratic liberals", soaking insurance companies whilst "doing good". As long as it's possible to launder the guilt through the insurance companies, no-one at the profitable end will see they are doing anything less-than-hippocratic.
Click to expand...
That's at the supply end. There was a huge amount of resistance to the NHS from doctors initially too.

But what about at the demand end – a politician seeing that they could be popular by advocating it.
 
ymu said:
More policies here. Wow.

*does a little dance
*realises lifetime of hopeless optimism may have been justified after all
*fist pumps
Click to expand...

Hmm.

When Blair got elected, friends who remembered JFK's election said "it's like Camelot again!". Some of them were Greenham women. I try not to shame them by reminding them of it.

Anyway, still a positive move - it's made Kenya the coolest country on the planet :D
 
littlebabyjesus said:
That's at the supply end. There was a huge amount of resistance to the NHS from doctors initially too.

But what about at the demand end – a politician seeing that they could be popular by advocating it.
Click to expand...

NHS in the UK was a response to collective healthcare organised by the Cooperative Movement - it was the best way to bring it under centralised control.

Plus, co-op healthcare was about stopping people getting ill. Much less fun for doctors. NHS is a "wait till it's bad, then intervene" - more fun all round...
 
rich! said:
NHS in the UK was a response to collective healthcare organised by the Cooperative Movement - it was the best way to bring it under centralised control.

Plus, co-op healthcare was about stopping people getting ill. Much less fun for doctors. NHS is a "wait till it's bad, then intervene" - more fun all round...
Click to expand...
True. And as I understand it, the US system is very much of the 'wait till it's bad' model.

But I still wonder why it hasn't been tried by a candidate. An unashamed appeal for a universal system. Surely it could be sold.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
A question for anyone, but Turing Test mostly:

How come no US president has introduced universal health care? It would be very popular, wouldn't it? You'd be hard pushed to find anyone in the UK who doesn't believe that it is a good thing. Every other rich country in the world has some version of it. Why not the US?
Click to expand...

I know it's more complex than this, but insurance is big business, and big business influences US politics to an offensive degree. Additionally there is a very common idea in politics here that government is incompetent, while business is not. Reagan famously said “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.” If he really felt that way then God knows why we elected that senile old fool to head the government.

Actually on the way home I considered the irony that the Republicans have been accusing Obama of being a Socialist for the last 3 weeks, and now that he has won many people on this board are accusing him of essentially the opposite. I say give the brother a break, at least until he’s had some time to govern.
 
There's a very real problem with Obama being relatively inexperienced, give it a couple of years and he could be embroiled in a couple of dodgy wars and maybe even a big financial crisis... oh hang on...
 
On healthcare, there was an excellent comprehensive article by Nancy Welch in an edition of International Socialist Review this time last year coveringt th current situation, the battles going on right now, the historical development of demands for universal healthcare as part of the social wage in the US and so on, i really strongly recommend reading it National Health Care: A dream deferred

It also mentions that Obama has rejected the single-payer system that advoates of socialised health-care have been fighting for for decades, building up some serious campigning capabilities and influence in the processs (apparently polls show 2/3 of the population consistently support the introduction of the plan), in favour of a 'market 'solution'.

A quote from that first link that shows the democrat perspective on a National Health care system - i don't know how people have manged to spin this into Obama supporting the establishment of an NHS, i really don't:

I say that not only on speculation, but based on meeting with Hillary Rodham Clinton. When I presented the case for national health insurance to her, she said to me, "Can you name any force capable of taking on the $300 billion dollar-a-year HMO and insurance industry? You make a convincing case, but where's the power to do that?" When I said, "How about the president of the United States leading a crusade of the American people?" she asked me for something real.

So I think it was clear that Clinton made a political calculation in not championing national health insurance and in trying to strike a deal with the private insurance industry. And the end result of the deal was two things. One is that the Democrats abandoned their four-decades-long commitment to national health insurance, so that by the time Al Gore ran for president, national health insurance was struck from the Democratic Party platform for the first time since the 1940s.

The second is that the Democrats endorsed managed care as a strategy for health care, which said to investors that investment in managed care was safe, stimulating an enormous growth of the power of the HMOs and a reconfiguring of the health care system to one dominated by corporate giants.
Click to expand...
 
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