There is a lot of anguish on the left that Barack Obama is starting to resemble Jimmy Carter, as if his whining, ineffective style and lack of intestinal fortitude will doom the liberal agenda in the way that Carter once did as well. That analysis is upside down. Obama remains a formidable, albeit teleprompted, speaker, about the best emissary of the leftist worldview imaginable. He is young and vigorous in a way Bill Clinton was and Jimmy Carter was not. The problem is not Barack Obama the person, but Barack Obama’s hard-core leftist agenda. Bill Clinton evolved into a centrist who eventually reflected usually what 51 percent of the electorate wanted. In contrast, Jimmy Carter was, like Obama, an ideologue, but with an ideology that few Americans embrace.
Obama’s lackluster polls do not necessarily reflect any sudden lack of charisma or a distracted president chumming it up on the golf links, but the growing awareness of the American people that they, for a variety of reasons in 2008, elected another Carter-like liberal whose economic policies of higher taxes, bigger government, and larger deficits don’t work, and whose ill effects are enhanced, rather than mitigated, by presidential jawboning aimed at the very productive classes who do most of the hiring. He is proving a sort of national catharsis, presenting statist, centrally planned ideas in their most attractive passage, and in the process, as the economy stalls, souring Americans on the substance rather than the style.
So there is one difference, and a very important one at that, between Carter and Obama. The so-called progressive community for over 30 years could blame the Carter implosion on his own inept delivery, wooden personality, and grating preachy style. But in Obama they had a figure right out of central casting — young, charismatic, non-traditional, ‘post-racial,’ glib, and at times eloquent. So the present mess, unlike that of 1977–80, cannot so easily be attributed to packaging rather than content, a fact which has far more profound consequences to the leftist cause.
As I understand most liberal critiques, it goes something like this: “Carter’s ineptness doomed an otherwise noble cause; Clinton’s political mastery proved a success, but at the expense of compromising the cause; Obama at last has Clinton’s flair but is a committed liberal, and therefore will succeed where the two others failed.” I think we are seeing that such analyses are flawed, and a far better one will prove to be: “Even a Barack Obama cannot advance a fundamentally unsound agenda.”
This is as dumb a Hanson post as I've ever read. Other than his purported commitment to human rights and lip service to environmental concerns (and what would make these things "liberal" anyway?), Carter was no liberal, as shown by his deregulation policy, swollen Defense Department budgets his last year, and giving the okay to covert military operations around the world. He was and remains a self-righteous demagogue whose interest is in Jimmy Carter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebeare08,
It seems to me that the last sentence of your statement (above) lends direct, if unintentional, support to the "as dumb a Hanson post as [you]'ve ever read."
Compare:
"He was and remains a self-righteous demagogue whose interest is in Jimmy Carter."
"He was and remains a self-righteous demagogue whose interest is in Barack Obama."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFormidable speaker? Are you still clinging to that myth? He's boredom incarnate and couldn't sell his ideas to a lap dog. The only people who believe he's a gifted orator are those reading and hearing about it from the propagandist media, AND NOT THOSE WHO HAVE BOTHERED TO LISTEN. The more he talks the worse his numbers. Obamacare was a loser that he desperately tried to sell with his repeated orations. It didn't work. His numbers only improved when the Navy Seals got Bin Laden, but as Obama started to crow, they dwindled again. He's formidable because he's black and a lot of people are subsisting on government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI concur.
I find his oratory on par with an above average high school Model U.N. team member.
Trite, riddled with fallacies and cliches, often self-parodying.
At least he's good for a few unintentional yucks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs much disdain as I have for Carter, I must say that at times, when Obama is compared to Carter, I have a little sympathy for Jimmy in that such a comparison may be just a little bit harsh on the goober farmer! I mean there is Carter who defined incompetent and bad, and then there is Obama who is really, really incompetent, horrible, bad, bad, bad, bad and horrific! So there is a difference in degree.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedefinitely not some of Dr. Hanson's best analysis. obama didnt get in the white house because he convinced anyone of anything. and since being in the white house he has failed to ever sway the electorate on an issue. his popularity is a combination of many thing, the main one being ignorance of who/what he is.
and as for clinton reflecting what 51% of the electorate thinks thats just not true. bubba would have lost in 92 if perot hadnt split off so many republican votes. as for 96, well same old song.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis idea of Obama as a far leftist is pretty delusional. What policies does he support that put him at the far left of the political spectrum? Was it Mitt Romney's healthcare plan? Or the stimulus that was 1/3 tax cuts? Or the continuation of all the bush tax cuts in 2010? Or the escalation in Afghanistan and increased drone strikes?
And by the way, when it comes to raising taxes on the rich, the american public actually does support him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour word choice is interesting.
Does the fact that MA adopted a plan signed into law by Romney in any way alter the bill Obama signed? I didn't think so but perhaps you can share some insight.
If the "stimulus" was 1/3 tax cuts, what was the other 2/3's? Or perhaps you think we shouldn't worry about that?
Does the definition of "escalation" include telling the enemy our exit date?
Finally, the fact that many in America are willing to tax others doesn't make taxing others good policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt doesn't alter the bill, but Romney's support of the bill is evidence of the bill's moderation. Whatever you think of it, its certainly not single payer, which would be the far left option. Isn't the point that Obama is a super liberal?
Once again, 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts, 2/3 were not. This is evidence of moderation, not far left rigid ideology.
Escalation is escalation. A lot of the GOP don't even support afghanistan anymore. Putting them to the left of Obama.
The majority of americans support higher taxes. Good or bad, its not a "far left" idea.
I'm still waiting for the evidence of his superliberalism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's support of the bill is not a sign of it's moderation, it's a sign that Romney is no conservative.
1/3 tax cuts (a disputed figure) leaves 2/3 government spending. Given the enormous size of the bill, hardly a moderate amount.
And no matter what else you say, telling the enemy what day you will leave is not the work of a moderate.
While you are trying to work out this, perhaps you can help me with something: are there any presidents to the left of Obama? I mean, if he's such a moderate, surely that means that his position in the middle of the road would place a good dozen (minimum; I should ask for a score, but I'm letting you off easy) other presidents on the more liberal side of the ledger. Please name them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo.... Romney's no conservative, which means he's a liberal.
So what you're saying is that if you're not lining up for regressive taxes and the gold standard, you're a left-wing ideologue and possibly a pinko commie sympathizer.
Very nice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNever mistake eisegesis for analysis. You are reading things into my statement that are not there.
Romney is not a full blown liberal, but to make the case that he is conservative is a fools errand, so I will allow others to take it up. Whatever you may consider him to be on balance, his position on healthcare in Massachusetts was liberal. Even if he were conservative in everything else, his support of a liberal project does not make that project any less liberal, no matter how much bobbytwotimes may wish it were so.
I never said he was a communist pinko, and no intelligent person would read that into my argument. It is only with great effort that you can infer such a thing from my comment.
And I notice that you never addressed my question: how many presidents are more liberal than Obama? Is this because it's easier to deliberately misrepresent my post than it is to give a reasonable answer?
Seriously, is that your best shot?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebobbytowtimes states: "This idea of Obama as a far leftist is pretty delusional." Here, on display for all to see, is one who no matter the facts refuses to recognize reality. Sort of like the guy looking at a squirrel in the park asserting "ah-yes; tis a toad!" No hope here--move along--nothing to see!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that VDH is pretty much right on here. The problem is the agenda, which the country cannot afford to pursue any longer. Obamacare likely was the last of its fireworks -- at least for some time.
However, that will not kill the agenda for good. The story will go that W turned over an economy that not even Obama and the rest of the progressives could turn around. Given the Democratic base, which is entirely dependent on government funding, it seems doubtful that the Dems will ever be able to escape the influence of the progressives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVDH is right, as usual. Obama was the dream-come-true candidate of the left--truly the one they were all waiting for. His failure will not be one of style, but an indictment of the left-liberal project he embraces and embodies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The so-called progressive community for over 30 years could blame the Carter implosion on his own inept delivery, wooden personality, and grating preachy style. But in Obama they had a figure right out of central casting — young, charismatic, non-traditional, ‘post-racial,’ glib, and at times eloquent. So the present mess, unlike that of 1977–80, cannot so easily be attributed to packaging rather than content, a fact which has far more profound consequences to the leftist cause."
I think this is far too kind to the progressives. They can and will attribute Obama's failure to racism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are, of course, correct. They are not even waiting until the end of his disastrous presidency. Even before the 2008 election deep blue liberals dismissed every criticism as born of racism, rather than honest disagreement. Most liberals didn't join in at the time, but their refusal to denounce such patent idiocy allows them to take up the chant when Obama is rejected by the electorate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis sudden love of Reagan by liberals, and of Clinton by conservatives is funny to see.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't agree with VDH that Obama is a liberal. (Carter was certainly a liberal, and a perpetual silly goose.)
Liberals are watery nowhere men, who wait to be led with the latest progressive fad toward more ruin. They remain committed to those fads no matter what, until the fads fade with time (if they fade with time).
Obama is a Marxist. He is interested in class struggle and re-engaging the gears of scientific socialism. He is anti-American in a way that liberals, in their perpetual dimness, can only perceive as a shadow. They embrace it without understanding its implications.
Obama's anti-Americanism perceives America as the Main Enemy, as befits an orthodox Marxist tuned to the trouble that this great society has caused the revolution. Nothing transformative will do for America. If there is to be real socialism here, through the massive bureaucratization of virtually every aspect of American life and endeavor, it will be grim third-world socialism, a grand redistribution of poverty, a massive self-consuming plantation where nothing is grown.
That would be the transformation, but it's not Obama's bottom line. America is the cruel captor and oppressor of the entire world, you see, and there is nothing else really to be done with her.
So, the real Obama transformation is "America delenda est."
And he wins every single time he is described in the normative terms of American politics, because he stands far outside the grasp of those normative terms. He should never have gotten his second foot on the national stage. He should not be president. But calling him a liberal is the very next mistake.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But in Obama they had a figure right out of central casting — young, charismatic, non-traditional, ‘post-racial,’ glib, and at times eloquent."
But they were WRONG. Obama is every bit as incompetent as Carter.
Of course, as it turns out, every single human in history has been incompetent at producing the socialist utopia. If it weren't for that pesky human imperfection, we could have a gov't that provides everything with no downside. Which proves conclusively that socialism is the best form of government possible, except for humans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse