It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Is Not Left

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Over and over again on ATS I keep seeing the statement that Obama is a Leftist. I personally don’t feel that is even remotely true, he may have been at one time but certainly not any longer. I feel he has basically taken a Right Wing stance on most social issues as well as economically.

I came across an article from a blogger at The Huffington Post which references a book, The Cause: The Fight for American Liberalism from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama by Eric Alterman and Kevin Mattson that I saw many of my own feelings about Obama in. I’ll share some of excerpts displayed on that blog that I feel really helps define why Obama is not a Liberal or even on the Left at all, as well as some other articles that support my position.

My final eye popping moment came when he signed the NDAA, regardless of his not so comforting signing statements which offer at best, a flimsy protection for US citizens until such time as he is no longer President. Though there had been quite a few other moments that I brushed aside because I trusted him.
I trusted that he would bring our troops home, not start new wars. I even justified it in my own mind that he knew more than I did and I felt he must be ensuring a true end, not leaving a mess behind and creating failed States as so often the US has done in the past.


Just as he promised during the campaign, President Obama doubled down on the war in Afghanistan, now America's longest ever, despite its day-to-day deterioration to the point where it increasingly resembled Vietnam. As with that catastrophe, US forces arrived with inappropriate training for a "nation building" mission and even less rapport and understanding with Afghanistan's traditionalist Islamic culture and politics. Once again, US troops were fighting in the service of a corrupt regime that rigged elections to remain in power and whose denizens appeared more interested in getting rich off heroin sales and distribution, and playing America off against its enemies, than in winning a war. President Karzai regularly referred to the US troops as occupying forces, acting in Afghanistan "for their own purposes, for their own goals, and... using our soil." Also like Vietnam, urgent domestic priorities went begging and created additional pressure to rethink what looked more and more like a failed policy.

Acting in the tradition of imperial presidents like Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush, Obama refused to seek Congressional approval for his Libyan intervention. He rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department and instead argued that US involvement did not constitute the kind of "hostilities" designed to trigger the 1973 War Powers Act. Constitutionally speaking, he had the power to do this, but it was one of many decisions that led supporters to wonder whether John McCain had actually defeated the constitutional law professor Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

Huffington Post

I trusted that his continuation of the bailouts was to keep the economy from crashing and never really thought about why his Department of Justice wasn’t prosecuting these moronic financial leaders that got us into this mess.


In his 2010 State of the Union address, the president admitted that bailing out the banks had been "about as popular as root canal." But he took no steps whatever to assuage the populist anger they naturally engendered. During the fight over the financial reform legislation, they resisted Congressional efforts to place any limits on executive pay as European nations had done, even for companies in which US taxpayers were now the principal stockholders. This at a moment when executive compensation at the America's biggest companies had quadrupled in real terms since the 1970s, even as pay for 90 percent of America remained flat or even declined.

As fearful of being labeled "anti-business" as Democrats traditionally had been of being seen as "soft on defense," the administration apparently decided, as a matter of policy to "protect the interests of creditors, no matter the cost," in Paul Krugman's words. During the fight over the financial reform bill, it consistently took the positions for which the banks were lobbying. Obama and his team were eager to weaken the "Volcker Rule," which sought to prevent "large, systemically important banking institutions [from] undertaking proprietary activities that represent particularly high risks and serious conflicts of interest."



Barack Obama had found it necessary to become a far more conservative president, both in foreign and domestic policy, than the candidate who had first won the race. Upon signing the debt deal, Obama bragged--actually bragged--that the deal would result in "the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was president." This was the same president, who had barely two years earlier, bragged about the level of investment in the economy in exactly the same terms.

Huffington Post

I trusted Obama to fight for Green Energy and he got off to a great start with his Stimulus Package but the Right went on the attack not just on Green Energy but on Global Warming all together.


According to Al Gore, who should know, 'President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis... He has not defended the science against the ongoing withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community... to bring the reality of the science before the public... His election was accompanied by intense hope that many things in need of change would change... Some things have, but others have not. Climate policy, unfortunately, falls into the second category."
As if to demonstrate the accuracy of Gore's critique, not long after it was published, Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities in response to business and Republican pressure.

Huffington Post




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Realizing that Obama was not anywhere on the Left caused the whole elected Left/Right paradigm to crumble in my eyes. The only battle in Washington D.C., for I don’t know how long, is over conflicting Corporate and Authoritarian agendas. As opposed to transparency we get a more authoritarian stance on whistle blowers, perceived enemies of the State and civil liberties…often those three come under DHS.


In a few areas, including obsessiveness about leaks, Obama was even worse than Bush had been. Speaking to a conference of liberal activists in October 2010, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero pronounced himself "disgusted" with the administration's policies on civil liberties and national security issues. He went on: "Guantanamo is still not closed. Military commissions are still a mess. The administration still uses state secrets to shield themselves from litigation. There's no prosecution for criminal acts of the Bush administration. Surveillance powers put in place under the Patriot Act have been renewed. "What's more, the Obama continued the Bush Administration's war on openness and transparency in government, setting the Justice Department loose on government whistleblowers failing to support journalists' right to protect their sources against judicial coercion up to and including the threat of prison for a New York Times reporter.
Obama himself mocked liberal disappointment at, of all places, a $30,000 per person fundraiser in Greenwich, Connecticut at the home of an unfortunately named fellow named "Rich Richman," "Gosh, we haven't yet brought about world peace and--[laughter]. I thought that was going to happen quicker." In March of that same year, Obama joked to a group of students about the manner in which the liberal Huffington Post would have treated Abe Lincoln. "Here you've got a wartime president who's making a compromise around probably the greatest moral issue that the country ever faced because he understood that `right now my job is to win the war and to maintain the union,'" Obama told the students. "Can you imagine how the Huffington Post would have reported on that? It would have been blistering. Think about it, `Lincoln sells out slaves.'"



The labor movement's key priority, passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, received only tepid administration or Congressional support. Nothing was done to reform America's broken (and deeply exploitative) immigration policies. (The pace of deportations actually increased during Obama's presidency by roughly twenty percent above that of an equivalent period during the Bush Administration's tenure). Reproductive rights for women were actually narrowed.

Huffington Post

His most recent foray into the Authoritarian Right is his push to renew FISA, the warrantless spying Bill.

In February, Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote a joint letter to Congressional leaders demanding “speedy . . . reauthorization of these authorities in their current form” — “without amendment.” The ACLU’s Michelle Richardson yesterday wrote:

Remember the George W. Bush warrantless wiretapping program? The one that was so illegal that Congress had to pass a special law to ensure that no one was prosecuted for it or sued by their customers for facilitating it? And was found by independent reviewers to be pretty pointless anyway? And was then brilliantly codified and written into stone by Congress? And which almost immediately went off the rails, being used to collect all sorts of stuff it wasn’t supposed to? It’s back!

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) rewrote our surveillance laws, which had generally required a warrant or court order for surveillance of people in the US. Under the FAA, the government can get a year-long programmatic court order for general bulk collection of Americans’ international communications without specifying who will be tapped. It is up to the administration to decide that on its own after the fact, without any judicial review. . . . Once the National Security Agency sucks up these phone calls, texts, emails and Internet records, it can use them pursuant to secret rules that they swear protect our privacy.

Salon

The media, both Left and Right, continues to prop Obama up as a Liberal. Both sides are being dishonest in the light they individually cast him in. All for our benefit, to provide the illusion of choice and to keep us angry and hateful with each other, because if we stood together for even a brief time the illusion would collapse like a house of cards.

Barack Obama is a lot of things — eloquent, dissembling, conniving, intelligent and, above all, calm. But one thing he is not is weak.
This basic truth is belied by the meager Obama criticism you occasionally hear from liberal pundits and activists. They usually stipulate that the president genuinely wants to enact the progressive agenda he campaigned on, but they gently reprimand him for failing to muster the necessary personal mettle to achieve that goal. In this mythology, he is “President Pushover,” as the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently labeled him.

This story line is a logical fallacy. Most agree that today’s imperial presidency almost singularly determines the course of national politics. Additionally, most agree that Obama is a brilliant, Harvard-trained lawyer who understands how to wield political power.

Considering this, and further considering Obama’s early congressional majorities, it is silly to insist that the national political events during Obama’s term represent a lack of presidential strength or will. And it’s more than just silly — it’s a narcissistic form of wishful thinking coming primarily from liberals who desperately want to believe “their” president is with them.

Salon

What is the Left equivalent of a RINO anyway? Zebra, mule? Either way as I have said repeatedly, none of our elected or appointed officials seem to have any loyalty to any ideology anymore.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
There is no left wing in government, period. Not just American government, but world wide.

They are all right wing, some more liberal than others.

To be truly left wing a government has to be revolutionary, ran by the workers, and working towards worker ownership, socialism. All governments have been in the hands of the capitalist establishment since the beginning.
They tried to form a worker party in the UK, when they started the Labour Party in the 1920's but as usual power corrupted. This is why some socialists called themselves anarchists, because they new a revolutionary government was not possible and would lead to more corruption.

Only in Marxism does the left support a form of government/state, but it is a temporary government/state that is supposed to be ran by the workers, and actively working towards true socialism. Once socialism is achieved the government/state is supposed to be dissolved as the ultimate goal of the left is free association...


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not all socialists are Marxists. Anarchists traditionally were socialists who rejected the political path and wanted direct action, revolution, to implement worker ownership.

Calling the dems left-wing is an insult to real left-wingers. Obama is liberal, as compared to say Bush, but liberal does not mean left-wing or socialist.

The terms left and right are not used in their traditional sense anymore, they are simply used as terms to differentiate between two parties that are basically the same thing.


The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...


edit on 5/26/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
You're right on point Kali.I've come to the conclusion that the left right ideals are nothing more than a fallacy to divide people. Instead of focusing on the real issues plaguing the U.S. such as the education, debt, and employment levels, real issues that determine the health of a society. We are left squabbling over simplistic social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and racial/social equality with the left right paradigm.Understand that I do feel these social issues are important to a societies health, but when we look at the big picture they are minor issues that should easily be solved. The saying "not seeing the forest for the trees" comes to mind when talking about social issues and how it relates to the overall health of the U.S. Just watch the upcoming presidential election, and how it more than likely will be dominated by social issues.PS: I kind of winged this comment, so please don't take it as I don't think social issues are important. They are important. Just not as important as some of these other issues that have put this country in a black hole of poor education, poor employment, and an ever increasing debt. The OP makes some very fine points that should be obvious to everyone, left or right.
edit on 26-5-2012 by GD21D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Obama is as left as he is allowed to go.

The thing about leftist/liberals is that they have to hide their true agenda. If there was no barriers we all would be in trouble.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

I mostly agree, even in Europe they swung Right a while ago and are starting to swing back Left now. I don't think Obama is Liberal compared to Bush though...I think they're about on the same mark if not Obama being a little further right.

The Republican Crop we have had since the Civil Rights movement has claimed to embrace Conservatism but they have not at all. They have swung all the way up to Reactionism. Democrats who claim to be Liberal are more Conservative Liberals which is still on the Right of the spectrum but swing all the way up to Reactionists too.

reply to post by GD21D
 

Thank-you for your kind words. Social issues are important but I agree fixing the economy should be number 1 priority, well maybe number 2, we have got to flush the rats and let them know en masse we don't buy their crap anymore. The rest might be easier to tackle after lol.



Understand that I do feel these social issues are important to a societies health, but when we look at the big picture they are minor issues that should easily be solved. The saying "not seeing the forest for the trees" comes to mind when talking about social issues and how it relates to the overall health of the U.S. Just watch the upcoming presidential election, and how it more than likely will be dominated by social issues.


A lot of our woes would go away in my opinion if we adopted a more Libertarian approach to society...live and let live. As long as what one does doesn't physically or emotionally harm/rob from another it should be of no one else's concern.

edit on 26-5-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Obama is as left as he is allowed to go.

The thing about leftist/liberals is that they have to hide their true agenda. If there was no barriers we all would be in trouble.


link?

Another person buying into the left/right fallacy.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 


If that were the case Obama's first two years would have brought us the sweeping changes he promised. We would have less laws, not more and the corrupted would be out on the sidewalks looking for jobs like too many other Americans.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Obama is as left as he is allowed to go.

The thing about leftist/liberals is that they have to hide their true agenda. If there was no barriers we all would be in trouble.


If you are talking about the pseudo-left of government you are correct, but the same goes for the other side. If you think both sides are not doing the same thing, you are simply naive or have an agenda.

The true left, of the people, has nothing to hide and never have.

The capitalist class of the establishment has everything to hide, and have the power of the government and state to help them.

Proof is in how so many, so easily, fall for the system that exploits them. The proof is in how thin the vail of reality is when you understand it. You only think you're free because the alternatives constantly fed you are the places your military is "liberating". Liberating you from your own thoughts. The political alternatives that have been used to condition you are despot dictatorships labeled 'communism' for political reasons, not as a description of their economic systems. We are fed a lies from the day we are old enough to listen.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Obama is what every elected President becomes a pragmatist. Ideals go by the way side when reality is shoved in your face. Even what you thought was a simple issue to support pre-election now takes on a complextity many times greater and with more variables than most people can imagine. Once you become President you are no longer are leading a party, cause or campaign. You are running the richest most powerful nation in all history, simple ideology has to be tossed aside.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Carseller4
 


If that were the case Obama's first two years would have brought us the sweeping changes he promised. We would have less laws, not more and the corrupted would be out on the sidewalks looking for jobs like too many other Americans.


Not when you have Senators/Representatives looking towards their next election. He pushed the envelope, bribed/conned a few of his supporters for their support and look what happened in 2010. He went too far and his party paid the price.

Obama is a 100% leftist but is reigned in by the American political system. (Thank God!)

We still have to keep a sharp eye out, because the only way a leftist agenda gets advanced is when we fall asleep and let in happen.

As far as those who think there is a left/right paradigm, those that advance this theory are usually leftists trying to hide their agenda.
edit on 26-5-2012 by Carseller4 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Antony Sutton explains it pretty succinctly. I recommend everyone read this and re read it till they get it.

www.prisonplanet.com...


And read any other of his works. He has authored many books, including "The War On Gold" and "Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler".




As far as those who think there is a left/right paradigm, those that advance this theory are usually leftists trying to hide their agenda.



Some of them are, then some of us truly understand it.
edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 


So is it that the elected Right is hiding their Leftist agenda or is the President pandering to the Left while promoting a Right agenda? Because they are writing legislation and passing legislation in lock step with each other, so it's one or other.
edit on 26-5-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
So let me get this straight.... you were for the stimulus and the baillouts but you support OWS and wonder why the country is in so much financial debacle, you don't have a problem at all borrowing from China to do all this stuff, or printing off money from the Fed, allowing inflation to drive up prices of everything.....



And now you are mad at Obama because he couldnt make the Republican Congress go along with his madness and drunk spending.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


If Obama is doing any thing considered to be "right" it's only because it is part of the whole NWO package. He is a true leftist ideologist, using the Presidency as a springboard for world socialism. He also happens to be using it for his personal ambitions. Now he may truly believe all that gobbledigook about spreading the wealth, but it's the lie of the serpent. Apparently Dick Morris has come out with a new book detailing all the UN treaties the administration is working on. The POTUS is turning our sovereignty over to the UN as we speak.

www.dickmorris.com...
edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


You know how I know Obama is left? Cause he sure as hell aint right.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


The health care reform wasn't enough for you I see. It was the single most important piece driving us wildly into socialist Utopialand, and you are unhappy because the DSA in Congress couldnt ruin us more with that cr**^ Cap and Trade bill.

Obama is as far left as it goes regardless of his temporary wanderings into centrism. Even Bill Clinton is further right than Obama.

Well at least I know you get your Kool Aid from Huffpo so I'm not surprised by your outlook.
edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
So what is one to do?

They get mad if you call Obama a left winger and they get mad when you call Obama a right winger.

Decisions Decisions.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Kali74
 


The health care reform wasn't enough for you I see. It was the single most important piece driving us wildly into socialist Utopialand, and you are unhappy because the DSA in Congress couldnt ruin us more with that cr**^ Cap and Trade bill.

Obama is as far left as it goes regardless of his temporary wanderings into centrism. Even Bill Clinton is further right than Obama.

Well at least I know you get your Kool Aid from Huffpo so I'm not surprised by your outlook.
edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


If California was left and Nevada was right. Obama would be someplace in the middle of Russia. The man is at best a socialist and at worst a want to be self appointed dictator. The socialist argument is moot as he has voiced his want for this publicly multiple times. People need to wake up to what he is and what he actually wants for our country. That said, I don't consider old Mitt any better of a solution..........



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




So let me get this straight.... you were for the stimulus and the baillouts but you support OWS and wonder why the country is in so much financial debacle


No I was not for the bailouts but I was also scared of economic collapse in the US. The stimulus package sounded good at the time, create jobs etc...but it turned out just as corrupt as anything else in government, with a bunch of already millionaires and billionaires walking away with more millions and billions. In other words the money went up.

Obamacare couldn't be more Corporatist. Who benefits the most from it? Health Insurance companies. Can you sight any other perceived Leftist Laws, Acts or EOs that Obama has incorpated into America? If he is so Left why does sign all the legislation that House puts forth? His power of Veto may not be enough to stop their Bills from becoming Law but if he opposes them he should veto them anyway, take a stance against them...he doesn't.

If he is so Left, why are all his Cabinet positions occupied by Capitalists? He may talk a good liberal game and pander to the left voters but that's where it ends. After all someone had to seduce the left into acceptance of Authoritian Corporatism.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join