Lou Dobbs was invited to the Daily Show, where he was interviewed by Jon Stewart. Jon tried to find out the answer to this question. Why does Lou Dobbs and the rest of the right wing think that Obama is a tyrant? Finally Lou settled on "Because Obama has made a hard left with this country".
Jon was wondering what makes that tyranny, if most people voted for Obama?
Here is my analysis. Politicians' campaign promises rarely match their performance. It's easier to make a promise than to carry it out. A second reason is that there is a lot of pressure from lobbyists.
If a politician promises to do a certain thing, gets elected, and does what was promised, we can call that a perfect democracy. But more often a politician promises something rosy, gets into office, and can't (or won't) deliver. Sometimes it is blamed on the preceding government that passed on some hidden problems. Sometimes it is because conditions changed since the campaign, and now the government has to improvise.
The only socialist turn Obama took that was not promised and voted for, was the stimulus package. He was elected based on some other promises he made, such as closing Guantanamo, and ending the Iraq war. He also promised health care reform, but he did not promise to wildly increase government spending. However, just before the election date, the entire world's free market economy essentially collapsed. This took place during the waning hours of the Bush presidency.
So Obama had an unusual situation to cope with. Almost at election day, a major crisis arose. And it seems that this crisis gave the election to Obama, as the Democrats were favoured as the best party to deal with economic downturns. I don't really know if the Democrats are better with the downturns, but historically, Roosevelt was a Democrat and he was credited with handling the 30's depression. And everyone observed that as soon as the economy started to go under, the polls showed an insurmountable lead building for Obama. It could all be coincidence, I suppose.
You could make a case that people voted for Obama on the assumption that he would spend more than the conservatives to bolster the economy. It was quite in character for Democrats to spend more than Republicans. And even the Republicans had decided that a lot of spending was needed, and got started with big bailouts even before Obama took over.
Now about making that "hard left turn". Obama has not really made a hard left turn. Sure, he is steering more to the left than Bush. Did anyone ever doubt that? But he did a lot of things that we could call conservative or even Republican. He has not really stopped the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, for example. He appointed many conservatives to high positions, angering a lot of lefties and liberal who voted for him, and his promise of "change".
Obama actually promised during the campaign a lot harder "turn to the left" than he delivered as President.
Just compare Obama to what happened with President Bush, when he was elected. Although the majority of the country had voted Democrat, Bush became president anyway, and immediately started doing things differently to what was promised. For example, he campaigned as an environmental candidate, but immediately rescinded the Kyoto agreement, almost as soon as he took office. I would consider that to be a hard right turn, considering the vote showed the country wanted either centre or even a little to the left. It was certainly a harder turn to the right than what he promised in the campaign.
Most of the actions of the Bush administration were to the right of the campaign promises. Similarly most of Obama's decisions, either match his promises, or fall to the right of what was promised. The only exception being the spending stimulus, which was not actually promised due to the last minute nature of the crisis. But on the other hand, Democrats would be expected spend more than the Republicans.
Although Americans keep on voting for leftish promises, the politicians keep erring to the right. This includes both Bush and Obama. Once in office, the lobby groups, the military industrial complex, all conspire to push things further to the right than the election promises called for. This pushes the country further right than the majority of voters wanted.
So why then is all the furore over Obama's "hard turn to the left"? I would guess that it is a hysteria fuelled partly by suffering in the ongoing economic crisis. People are still losing jobs and their houses, and they still don't have the health care they need. Plus there is a heavy propaganda effort by the Republicans to blame the Democrats for the economic hardships. After all, the best political strategy to regain control of the government is to blame the Democrats for the sick economy, whether it makes sense or not.
In my opinion, Lou Dobbs is wrong, there was no "hard left turn". The people spoke, and decided to go left, but the administration has not yet delivered and is now veering slightly to the right of what was promised. This rightward skew seems to be the typical result of elections whether won by Democrats or Republicans.
'Obama is a socialist!' screams the American right wing.
ReplyDeleteWrong, just plain wrong. Socialism may come in many flavours, but Obama's politics are not 'socialist' by any stretch of the term.
All socialists agree that there should be a more equitable distribution of wealth in society, that the major assets of a society should be collectively owned and that workers should have reasonable control over the nature and the conditions of their work.
'A more equitable distribution of wealth' ... I've seen no intent to move to a more progressive system of taxation, or any of the other customary means for wealth redistribution. In fact, quite the opposite: Obama appoints Geithner to Treasury - indicating 'business as usual.'
'Collective ownership of major assets' ... well, I suppose one could stretch a point and consider the current government shares in AIG and GM (he says, laughing out loud) but what about all the public utilities, &c. that were privatized in the Reagan regime? Where's the program for nationalizing the banks? Where's the national health care system?
'Workers' control over their working conditions?' ... hmmm ... we better ask the wage slaves at Wal-Mart how they feel about that. I'm not sure that the thirteen and a half million Americans currently out of work see it that way. I hear nothing about reforms to labour laws - what I see is 'more of the same': pour even more taxpayer money into propping up the old capitalist mess.
Most socialists are anti-war ... because it is the workers, not the elite, that have to die or be crippled for the ideologies of the powerful. I see no socialist tendency in perpetuating the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan - the killing of innocents, the waste of monies that could be used for constructive, rather than destructive, purposes.
But the conservatives are bound to moan on and on about Obama's socialism, the dreaded 'hard turn to the left.' And that propaganda campaign is essential to keep the masses in line so the established elites can continue to enjoy their privileges while the masses of workers continue to get short shrift.
Obama a socialist? ... Hey - I'm not even sure he's a liberal.
I decided to write the next blog to follow up on the word Socialist and it's meaning in the USA.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteGood one on Are We Really Going Hard Left?.If you are into home business and searching for ways to build your business on a budget the this free video at http://debtfreeliving.buildingonabudget.com can help you.
Thanks,
John.