Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Glad you posted this at Daily Kos. It's a site totally unwilling to hear any criticism of Obama, especially that which compares Obama to Bush in a way that suggests they may not be so different, and that's why it's valuable that you made the effort to have a real conversation. I tipped and rec'd your diary, and am unsurprised at the unwelcome reaction.

My take is that Obama is failing as badly as Bush did, but for very different reasons. Bush really believed in unilateralism, in American imperialism. He used America's position in the world to try and impose the neocons' will on the rest of the globe, regardless of the conditions or consequences. And so he failed.

Obama's approach is different. It's not at all a rejection of Bushism - after all, Obama has doubled down in Afghanistan and refuses to close Guantanamo Bay or Bagram. Instead Obama tends to shy away from confrontation. Not out of any ideological choice, but out of an odd personal unwillingness to challenge or confront anyone. With Honduras, Israel, and the stolen Iranian election, we saw a common thread of Obama being totally unwilling to stand up for democracy and fair treatment.

Unfortunately we see exactly the same thing in his domestic policy. For example, Obama would not fight for the repeal of the military's ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. When it became clear Congress had the votes to fully repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Obama hesitated and showed himself reluctant to anger some in the military by supporting repeal. So he demanded and won a watering down of the repeal, all so he could avoid having a public confrontation with the military. Of course, it was perfectly OK for him to confront the progressive activists demanding repeal.

The consistent thread appears to be that Obama, like many Americans of his generation, has internalized the notion that conservatives and corporations are extremely powerful, that it is wrong and foolish to try and oppose them, so all you can realistically and sensibly do is just accommodate them. He holds that belief whether it's in domestic or in foreign policy.

The overall thread is that Obama is simply unwilling to lead - on almost anything. He is a very reactive president, and that does not serve US interests even when you define them in a non-imperial, progressive fashion.

And the world will live as one

by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Tue Jun 1st, 2010 at 11:42:01 AM EST
It's a site totally unwilling to hear any criticism of Obama, especially that which compares Obama to Bush in a way that suggests they may not be so different, and that's why it's valuable that you made the effort to have a real conversation.

He's wasting his time over there. I'll note for the umpteenth time on this site that dkos is not a forum for free flow discussion of liberal ideas - it is a forum to get Democrats elected to office in the US and keep them there. The site was cultivated with this in mind from the beginning, and the user base behaves accordingly. Given the kill or be killed environment of electoral politics in the US, there is no room for introspection of any sort. Stop trying to make that site into something it isn't.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jun 1st, 2010 at 01:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Long ago, as time is measured in politics today, I did a diary called "The Quiet Coup", which looked back to the Ford administration and traced the emergence of parallel power structures that, taken together, helped illustrate the capture of government by a power structure largely external to the traditional narrative of administration as actor, political field as the space of play. The Dick and Don show was a big part of it.
I was right.
Obama is not even a major player. He discovered this, I think, shortly after he took office, probably the first time he tried to walk over the line of permissible behavior and got slapped down by the real players. Who are the "real players"? My God, everyone from Glenn Greenwald to Naomi Kline has published everything but their DNA profiles.
Frank has detailed a fair selection of the areas in which his stated beliefs and objectives, pre-election, and the policies (or lack thereof) that emerged from his administration clash horribly.  
However,I disagree with the entire premise that it is useful to ask what Obama would wish to do, or what his administration could do, had he "taken charge". He's just not in charge, and never has been.
I believe him. I believe that his campaign rhetoric represented his point of view fairly if somewhat vaguely, and described  a position of general principle.
The problem is the size of the space in which Obama is allowed to play. It's pretty small.

Think back to the days of Ronald Reagan for a minute.
We talk today about the disaster wreaked upon the competence of government by the Reagan administration when they discovered they could not just discard social security and the rest of the commie entitlements so hated by the elite since the new deal. When they were unable to survive contact with the "third rail", they just staffed the agencies they wished to destroy with moles, embedded nitwits or saboteurs, and rendered them so incompetent that it was easy to make a case for the thesis that whatever the government touched turned to shit. Deja vue.
Yet it was a standing joke that the big Ron couldn't stay awake through a national security briefing.
So did this highly sucessful plan to sabotage government actually emerge from his alzeheimers' addled wit? Bah.
In fairness, I think old Ron actually snuck a couple through, but he was as much of a corporate shill as Obama has, of needs, become.

In the main, Ron agreed with his handlers.
Obama does not.
 Sadly, he searches for issues and policy areas that he will be allowed to move--and fails to shoot low enough.
Just tick off in your mind the number of times he has been ignored, countermanded, evaded, bypassed. Now, with DADT, after actually publicly announcing a policy change supported by a strong majority of the military officer corps, Admiral McMullen followed by a host of lesser chicken-salad-toting military asskissers just told the pres to buzz off.
A while ago, I also said it was time for Obama to take a gamble- to stake out some turf that he could and would defend, to draw some fire on a battlefield of his own choosing. He did not. He squandered the biggest pile of political capital ever amassed by any president in my lifetime. That is at least partly a result of his inability to confront, as has been pointed out, but-- his leash is too short, even if he would do so. And it's too late, anyway.

 

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Tue Jun 1st, 2010 at 03:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I find so amazing about wingnut US political discourse is that they equate less Government with more freedom when it actually means the opposite: less democracy and more corporate rule.  Wingnuts seem to be "corporate blind" - they don't see any power centres other than the Government and fondly imagine "the market" will make them free is only the Government would get out of the way.  The reality is that what's left of the Government is the only thing still keeping them in the game.  Without Government they are just worker consumers with just about no rights or freedoms at all.

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jun 1st, 2010 at 04:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wingnuts like corporate rule because they own the corporations that make the rules. They don't want more Government because more Government means more oversight and possibly less freedom to do what they want to do: i.e, run rip-shod over the public and make more money. Most wingnuts I've come across are strongly motivated by greed and for the most part could give a rat's ass about foreign policy or anything else that doesn't directly affect putting more money into their own pockets. They are not critical thinkers; thinking hurts too much. They are not compassionate, nor are they conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve anything of value for future generations. They care only about themselves and the here and now. And everyone must believe that America is incapable of wrongdoing, no matter the circumstances. You know the saying . . . "love it or leave it." Well, it was that stubborn American-style bullheadedness of these people that helped make my decision to leave much easier.

As for DKOS, I've lurked over there since the site's inception and believe its only goal is to get Dems elected. While some Kossacks continue to put a smile on my face with their wit and intellect,  those posters are few and far between. And many of the best have jumped ship by now. It's really much more satisfying to hang out here and follow y'all.

by sgr2 on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 11:28:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well done on all points.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 11:33:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can understand rich wingnuts who actually own companies wanting to get the Government out of the way of their profit maximisation.  The bit I don't understand is the poor wingnuts who don't own anything and are barely surviving spouting the same ideology even though they are being screwed by the rich wingnuts...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 11:49:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do. I've had a diary planned about this for over a year now, but haven't had time to write it.

It's based on an ideology of omnipotence and self-determination. Corporations are private individuals, they're private individuals, therefore they don't like government interference.

Of course it's quite mad, but there is an internal logic to it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 11:51:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wingnuts almost uniformly have an atavistic reverence for violence.

Not in the sense that they are themselves brutal thugs (though that too sometimes), but in the sense that they view violence as the only measure of power. Unless there is a man with a gun or a whip behind you, it is assumed that he cannot exercise power over you. And if no power is being exercised over you, your behaviour is assumed to be fully voluntary and completely your own to decide.

In other words, they skipped over all major advances in the social sciences for the last hundred years or so.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 01:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can understand why wingnuts reared in authoritarian (and violent) household see authority and a capability/propensity for violence as almost the same thing.  I can also understand their contempt for a political system which is complex, compromised based and seeks consensus rather than subjugation.  For them force is the solution: so now what's the problem?  

And the problem is usually the libruls who are too wussy to apply force at every opportunity to get their way. Obama's predilection for bipartisanship, consensus and compromise will elicit nothing but contempt from them.  It shows them he's weak and not a man of power.  It's almost a sexual thing - dominance and submission - which can also be found in fanatical religious organisations.

This carrying a gun is a psychological statement and requirement to demonstrates their power and dominance over others.  It demonstrates a contempt for the arts of persuasion and negotiation - something they are usually terrible at.  To me it all smacks of extreme emotional immaturity that I associate with repressive societies and sexual norms, male dominance, and reverence for AUTHORITY.

Maybe I should read The mass psychology of fascism...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 02:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My point isn't so much about wingnuts being willing to apply violence to get power. My point is that most wingnuts I've met have a blind spot the size of a carrier task force when it comes to all the ways you can exercise power without the application of violence.

This leads them to the naive assumption that there is no power in private relationships, since the government holds the monopoly on the exercise of organised violence. Since there can be no power in private relationships, there can be no asymmetries of power, and thus there can be no oppression. Therefore, smaller government means less oppression, meaning more freedom.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 02:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... fondly imagine "the market" will make them free is only the Government would get out of the way.

Most of them can't imagine anything.  They are simply repeating what they hear from Rush or on FOX.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Wed Jun 2nd, 2010 at 11:36:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series