I get asked periodically what I think of President Barack Obama, and my short answer is "I agree with some of his stated intetions, but I wouldn't approve of his stated methods for achieving them even if he were serious about those intentions, which he isn't." A longer answer is a simple comparison to President Ronald Reagan, who many MISTAKENLY assume I'm a fan of.
Ronald Reagan:
- Slashed taxes without implementing corresponding spending cuts - ushering in massive debt.
- Rather than eliminating the disastrous Welfare State introduced by the Great Society like he PROMISED to do, opted to expand the War on Drugs and other regulatory policies to make it function, which proved both ineffective and expensive.
- Used "free market" rhetoric while handing out corporate welfare like it was candy.
- When his policies consistently fell short of his stated objectives, blamed all his woes on the "barricading" by the other party in Congress; his apologists continue this trend to this day.
Barack Obama:
- Expanded government spending by leaps and bounds without implementing corresponding tax hikes - ushering in massive debt.
- Rather than reigning in the Wall St. and Health Care cartels like he PROMISED to do, opted for legislation that guarantees them unprecedented insulation and subsidies in exchange for some new, toothless bureuacracies that are supposed to regulate them. These policies will fail in ways that make the War on Drugs look successful.
- Uses "equality" rhetoric while handing out corporate welfare like it's candy.
- As his policies consistently fall short of his objectives, he and his supporters blame their woes on the "barricading" by the other party in Congress.
Even the one thing both these guys got right is similar - foreign policy.
- No expensive and fruitless military occupations.
- No laughable attempts to negotiate with unaccountable dictators.
- No selling our sovereignty to corrupt supernational organizations.
- Yes unilaterally beheading insurgents using low-cost/low-impact covert operations; denying
them converts and martyrdom.
- Yes starving out dictators using sanctions and denial of aid; forcing them to starve their people
in order to afford weapons, which gets them lynched.
Reagan's foreign policy finished the last of the Communist insurgencies in South America and bankrupted the USSR. Obama's has taken out Bin Laden and Al-Awlaki, and is likely to force long-overdue famine-driven revolutions in Iran and North Korea.
Despite that one point of credit, the similarity is that each of these Presidents talk(ed) the talk of a popular extreme of their party (libertarianism for Reagan, socialism for Obama), while walking the walk of centrist, corporatist whore. Had they actually been true to their stated proposals, OF COURSE I would prefer Reagan's over Obama's; but that is irrelevant here. The only REAL difference between them is which Federalism-milking special interests they serve(d). The popularity of each with their respective supporters and desposition by respective detractors also boils down to the same thing. Conservatives and liberals share the naive fallacy of judging politicians by what they SAY they INTEND to do, rather than the OUTCOMES of what they ACTUALLY do. Whichever you consider yourself, quoting the stated intentions of one of your patron politicians as a means of defending that politician's policies is the epitome of ignorant. The first step to attaining accountable government is learning how to discern its stated intentions from its actual intentions - even before learning to discern intentions from outcomes.
