Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Where is President Obama on the political spectrum?

Aug 8, 2012#1

Tress

So this little gem was on the AP newswire:
GOP blasts Obama as left of Bill Clinton

A couple things really struck me as odd. First, hearing Newt Gingrich (!!) talk about Clinton as a centrist was amazing. This is the same man who used to rail against Clinton for being so liberal. Second, hearing the GOP continue to paint President Obama as a loony leftist who makes Mao look conservative is weird to me. My perception is that Obama is a centrist more often than not. I have a conservative friend who talks about how liberal he is, but I have liberal friends who complain about how conservative he is.

So my two-part question to you all is this:
1) Where would you put President Obama on the political spectrum?
and
2) Is your decision based on what he's done (or hasn't done) in his first term, or what you perceive to be his philosophy/beliefs/intentions/plans?

Aug 8, 2012#2

GasBandit

Actually, after the election Clinton did move to the center, but he campaigned hard left. Obama's been the opposite - he campaigned on moderation and bipartisan harmony, then made a sharp left turn after being elected.

Aug 8, 2012#3

Tress

GasBandit said:
Actually, after the election Clinton did move to the center, but he campaigned hard left. Obama's been the opposite - he campaigned on moderation and bipartisan harmony, then made a sharp left turn after being elected.

Would you say his approach to healthcare reform is the main reason you see him as hard left?

Aug 8, 2012#4

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
then made a sharp left turn after being elected.

I wish this wasn't a bold-faced lie

Aug 8, 2012#5

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I wish this wasn't a bold-faced lie

I wish you were a pizza and six pack, then it might actually not be unpleasant to be around you if only for a half hour.

Tress said:
Would you say his approach to healthcare reform is the main reason you see him as hard left?

No, that's just a symptom of an overarching life philosophy - he believes that government involvement and centralized planning is the answer to every problem. He wants socialized medicine (Obamacare isn't socialized medicine exactly, but it's still designed to get us there eventually), he wants to enforce "fairness" by taxing more and spending more (all at the federal level of course). He's a dyed-in-the-wool Keynesian. He disdains the free enterprise system and corporate business in general. He opposes every measure that would increase the US's self sufficiency in energy. He thinks it's government's place to make sure you get fed, and clothed, and own a house through subsidies, entitlement programs and government backed loans of dubious solvency. There is, frankly, no area of the human experience where he says "that's not government's responsibility. That's YOUR responsibility as a functioning adult."

Aug 8, 2012#6

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
I wish you were a pizza and six pack, then it might actually not be unpleasant to be around you if only for a half hour.

No, that's just a symptom of an overarching life philosophy - he believes that government involvement and centralized planning is the answer to every problem. He wants socialized medicine (Obamacare isn't socialized medicine exactly, but it's still designed to get us there eventually), he wants to enforce "fairness" by taxing more and spending more (all at the federal level of course). He's a dyed-in-the-wool Keynesian. He disdains the free enterprise system and corporate business in general. He opposes every measure that would increase the US's self sufficiency in energy. He thinks it's government's place to make sure you get fed, and clothed, and own a house through subsidies, entitlement programs and government backed loans of dubious solvency. There is, frankly, no area of the human experience where he says "that's not government's responsibility. That's YOUR responsibility as a functioning adult."

I think there are plenty of counter-examples to those points. It is very easy to cherry-pick the things that aggravate you and ignore the things that refute your beliefs. Since we're not citing all of our claims, I'm just going assert that you (quite typically, actually) are prone to confirmation bias on this issue.

Note: I am not a rabid Obama fan. I would say I disagree with him frequently and that he epitomizes the cult of personality that we've fostered in our political system. I think on some things Obama is pretty big government but I characterize him as pretty moderate.

Aug 8, 2012#7

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
I think there are plenty of counter-examples to those points. It is very easy to cherry-pick the things that aggravate you and ignore the things that refute your beliefs. Since we're not citing all of our claims, I'm just going assert that you (quite typically, actually) are prone to confirmation bias on this issue.

Note: I am not a rabid Obama fan. I would say I disagree with him frequently and that he epitomizes the cult of personality that we've fostered in our political system. I think on some things Obama is pretty big government but I characterize him as pretty moderate.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and there has been the occasional thing Obama has done "right," but these have been not been because of his SOP.

I know there are a lot of people who are disappointed that he's not even MORE of a socialist - that he hasn't enacted single payer, for example - and are also disappointed in practices like kill lists, not closing gitmo and starting more armed conflicts than GW did. But his overall effort has been to push the US to the left. Heck, he even just torpedoed the clinton era welfare reforms that said you have to work to get welfare.

Aug 8, 2012#8

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and there has been the occasional thing Obama has done "right," but these have been not been because of his SOP.

I know there are a lot of people who are disappointed that he's not even MORE of a socialist - that he hasn't enacted single payer, for example - and are also disappointed in practices like kill lists, not closing gitmo and starting more armed conflicts than GW did. But his overall effort has been to push the US to the left. Heck, he even just torpedoed the clinton era welfare reforms that said you have to work to get welfare.

You see, citing an example to demonstrate your point is exactly how confirmation bias works. The only way to break it is to look for disconfirming evidence and people don't generally like to do that.

Aug 8, 2012#9

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
You see, citing an example to demonstrate your point is exactly how confirmation bias works. The only way to break it is to look for disconfirming evidence and people don't generally like to do that.

Good to know that when I go ask my boss for a raise and he says no, and here's why, I can just call him on his confirmation bias.

Aug 8, 2012#10

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
Good to know that when I go ask my boss for a raise and he says no, and here's why, I can just call him on his confirmation bias.

I'm sure confirmation bias has held people back in that way. But how would you counter it in that situation? By presenting evidence that disconfirms his assertions.

Aug 8, 2012#11

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
I'm sure confirmation bias has held people back in that way. But how would you counter it in that situation? By presenting evidence that disconfirms his assertions.

When what you're trying to do is describe a tendency, or a trend, providing a few specific counterexamples doesn't disprove a trend, it just adds noise to the graph. His spoken words testify to his leanings, especially when he gets away from his notes/prompters. He wants to "spread the wealth around." He gives no credit for people who succeed in enterprise, shouting populist platitudes like "you didn't build that! Roads led up to it! You think you're clever but there's a lot of clever people!" He characterizes anyone who succeeds in capitalism as having stood on the shoulders of the poor, if not having stolen from them outright ("romney hood").

The term "socialist" doesn't fit exactly, though some of his actions have pushed the nation toward socialism. Rather, collectivist, or centralist (not to be confused with centrist) might be a better fit.

As for my boss, unless I can provide at least 4 examples to counter each of his one, it makes no difference

Aug 8, 2012#12

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
When what you're trying to do is describe a tendency, or a trend, providing a few specific counterexamples doesn't disprove a trend, it just adds noise to the graph.

That's only true if the data you provide represent the norm, but then you have to be able to demonstrate that it is norm, which means presenting more data, including counter-examples! Cherry-picking is like the restricted-range problem in presenting data. If you don't characterize the data completely, you run the risk of mis-representing any trend that exists. For example, Obama may desire to push the nation towards centralism (which I don't support, btw, except in certain circumstances) but it may only be up to a point, meaning his push would wane beyond a certain degree of centralism, i.e. it wouldn't be a linear progression. But a lot of people characterize political trends linearly. They extrapolate very sparse, soft data to represent a hard, static trend.

Finally, we can't ignore anything about how a politician may have a more nuanced view that can include centralism (again, for example) on some issues but not others. See: the GOP's stance on centralism for many conflicting viewpoints on what the government should have its hands in.

Aug 8, 2012#13

Necronic

GasBandit said:
. Heck, he even just torpedoed the clinton era welfare reforms that said you have to work to get welfare.

No he didn't. Where in the world do you get your news?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

Aug 8, 2012#14

GasBandit

Necronic said:
No he didn't. Where in the world do you get your news?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

Politifact is as big a party hack as Rush Limbaugh. That entire article basically boils down to "that's not what it says it does!" But it is what it does and misrepresents itself.

Aug 8, 2012#15

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
Politifact is as big a party hack as Rush Limbaugh. That entire article basically boils down to "that's not what it says it does!" But it is what it does and misrepresents itself.

Uh, your link basically says, "nuh uh, it totally abolishes it!" In fact, I get the impression that they are reacting to the potential authority they could claim with the move, rather than what they have actually asserted so far.

Aug 8, 2012#16

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
Uh, your link basically says, "nuh uh, it totally abolishes it!" In fact, I get the impression that they are reacting to the potential authority they could claim with the move, rather than what they have actually asserted so far.

Federal Agencies, especially under the current administration, have often done distressing things well past what common sense would dictate would be the "spirit of the law" pertaining to their powers. You can't leave the door open for potential abuse by government, they can't resist temptation. I can think of 15.9 trillion examples that testify to that.

Aug 8, 2012#17

Tress

GasBandit said:
Politifact is as big a party hack as Rush Limbaugh. That entire article basically boils down to "that's not what it says it does!" But it is what it does and misrepresents itself.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

"No! You don't believe the lizard Illuminati are running everything because you're probably one of them!"

Aug 8, 2012#18

GasBandit

Tress said:
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

"No! You don't believe the lizard Illuminati are running everything because you're probably one of them!"

It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see how often those in federal government have used loopholes and technicalities for political purposes, and claiming legislation and politicians lie is not exactly a wild accusation.

Aug 8, 2012#19

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
You can't leave the door open for potential abuse by government, they can't resist temptation.

I actually agree, but that wasn't the original claim. And I think that is why it is so hard to have an honest discussion about these kinds of things. The rhetoric trumps the actually issue.

Aug 9, 2012#20

Necronic

GasBandit said:
Federal Agencies, especially under the current administration, have often done distressing things well past what common sense would dictate would be the "spirit of the law" pertaining to their powers. You can't leave the door open for potential abuse by government, they can't resist temptation. I can think of 15.9 trillion examples that testify to that.

Which is why this law is cool, because it gives authority to the states to manage this stuff. I have yet to find a single article that shows how this will possibly result in the conclusion that you and Romney have drawn.

My favorite part in this one though is that this is legislation that Romney and almost every other Republican governer actually wanted wayyyyyy back in 6 years ago.[DOUBLEPOST=1344540607][/DOUBLEPOST]And so we're clear, the only part of that article that makes the argument that you could remove the "work" from "work for welfare" is where it says that in the past State Bueracracts have in the past authorized Hula dancing/bed rest/being a lazy bastard as work.

My problem with this argument is that it's effectively a federalist argument coming from a republican. It's saying that the State's can't be trusted to do the right thing, so we better leave it to the Federal govt.

THIS IS WHY I AM NOT VOTING FOR ROMNEY. This is a joke.

Aug 9, 2012#21

Espy

So wait. Is Obama a half-terrorist Muslim socialist or not?

Aug 9, 2012#22

drifter

Don't be silly. He's a half-Muslim socialist terrorist.

Aug 9, 2012#23

Tress

Espy said:
So wait. Is Obama a half-terrorist Muslim socialist or not?

From what I can tell, Obama basically embodies everyone's political fears. Afraid of the socialist, government planning, wealth-redistrubing goblin under your bed? It's Obama. Scared of a militaristic plutocrat armed with hellfire drones who pretends to help minorities but really does nothing? That's the Obama Monster hiding in your closet.

Aug 9, 2012#24

Charlie Don't Surf

Tress said:
From what I can tell, Obama basically embodies everyone's political fears. Afraid of the socialist, government planning, wealth-redistrubing goblin under your bed? It's Obama. Scared of a militaristic plutocrat armed with hellfire drones who pretends to help minorities but really does nothing? That's the Obama Monster hiding in your closet.

except one of these is backed up by things he has actually done, and the other is complete bullshit made up by AM radio

Aug 9, 2012#25

Tress

Both are the result of unrealistic and unfounded expectations. And I'm willing to bet someone on the conservative side of the argument would say something like "except one of these is backed up by things he has actually done, and the other is complete bullshit made up by NPR."

Aug 9, 2012#26

Charlie Don't Surf

I'm sure they would, but- AM Radio actually does make up bullshit about Obama on a daily (hourly?) basis

Aug 9, 2012#27

GasBandit

Only Charlie can protect the beloved president from a media made obsolete by 4 orders of magnitude.

Aug 9, 2012#28

Charlie Don't Surf

I don't even fucking like Obama. I just hate bold-faced lies more

Aug 9, 2012#29

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I don't even fucking like Obama. I just hate bold-faced lies more

The phrase I think you're attempting is "bald faced". As interesting as it might be to try to imagine typographical font transmission through monoaural audio.

Aug 9, 2012#30

Eriol

drifter said:
Don't be silly. He's a half-Muslim socialist terrorist.

Remind me, are we in the Judean People's Front, or the People's Front of Judea?

Aug 10, 2012#31

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
The phrase I think you're attempting is "bald faced". As interesting as it might be to try to imagine typographical font transmission through monoaural audio.

*reads link, realizes that definitions for both versions are given, and they both fit*

Aug 10, 2012#32

sixpackshaker

Eriol said:
Remind me, are we in the Judean People's Front, or the People's Front of Judea?

SPLINTER!!!

Aug 10, 2012#33

Bubble181

The first problem with this question lies with the fact that the "political spectrum" is completely different depending on where you are and in what context. "Moderate" in Texas isn't the same as "moderate" in California - not to mention in other countries.
The second problem with this question is that it's not a single axis. It's perfectly possible to be ethically left-wing/liberal (in favour of abortions, ok with gay marriage,...) and economically conservative/right-wing/whatever. It's a false dichotomy constantly being presented to the people by media and politicians themselves, because that makes it easy to say "good guys" and "bad guys".

Generally speaking, though, in what he claims he wants to do and what he does, in a European context (which isn't relevant but heyooo), he's somewere centrist-right to right-wing on most issues. In an Alabama local politics context (as inferred by me from all those awesome movies about black liberation and based on never having been there in my life

), he'd be extremely left-wing. *shrug*

Aug 10, 2012#34

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
*reads link, realizes that definitions for both versions are given, and they both fit*

But the original was bald. You know, before the hipsters with their font obsessions got ahold of it.

Aug 10, 2012#35

Covar

The worst are italicized-faced lies.

Aug 10, 2012#36

tegid

GasBandit said:
But the original was bald. You know, before the hipsters with their font obsessions got ahold of it.

It's funny how I always interpreted that bold as

bold

[bohld] Show IPA

adjective, bold·er, bold·est.

not hesitating or fearful in the face of actual or possible danger or rebuff;courageous and daring: a bold hero.

not hesitating to break the rules of propriety; forward; impudent: Heapologized for being so bold as to speak to the emperor.

necessitating courage and daring; challenging: a bold adventure.

beyond the usual limits of conventional thought or action; imaginative:Einstein was a bold mathematician. a difficult problem needing a boldanswer.

striking or conspicuous to the eye; flashy; showy: a bold pattern.

which gives an understandable meaning to the expression without need of a historic explanation. Not that I have anything against the original expression, but this is actually the first time I've heard about it. I don't think it has anything to do with fonts.

On topic, I'd say that putting Obama in the far left is kinda wrong, for starters because I don't think there's evidence to put him so deep into the left, plus it's a bit shortsighted.

The kind of shortsightedness of someone who's in the political right but believe themselves a moderate (so their whole perception of political spectrum is shifted) or of someone who knows that they're conservatives but just can't be bothered to differentiate from the positions that are far from theirs, lumping everything beyond a certain, not so extreme, leftist position, as 'far left'. I mean, if obama is far left, what about actual socialists? Where'd European countries be? What about communists? Are they extrem far far crazy left?
I guess it's just a matter of where you center your spectrum and how much of a width you allow in it.

Aug 10, 2012#37

MindDetective

Covar said:
The worst are italicized-faced lies.

I'm not sure I can believe this.

Aug 10, 2012#38

Covar

MindDetective said:
I'm not sure I can believe this.

Try saying that again, this time sans serif.

Aug 10, 2012#39

Bubble181

tegid said:
The kind of shortsightedness of someone who's in the political right but believe themselves a moderate (so their whole perception of political spectrum is shifted) or of someone who knows that they're conservatives but just can't be bothered to differentiate from the positions that are far from theirs, lumping everything beyond a certain, not so extreme, leftist position, as 'far left'. I mean, if obama is far left, what about actual socialists? Where'd European countries be? What about communists? Are they extrem far far crazy left?
I guess it's just a matter of where you center your spectrum and how much of a width you allow in it.

You forget that, especially in America (though the same is true for all countries; just especially so for the ones with a two-party-system), it pays to try and demonize your competitor.
If you've got the choice between a moderate left-wing and a moderate right-wing, as an independent moderate, you'll look at both, consider your options, think....
If you've got the choice between a moderate left-wing and a Neo-Conservative Anti-Poor SuperNazi, you'll obviously choose the leftist.
If you've got the choice between a moderate right-wing and a Communist Hippie Anti-American Stalinist, you'll obviously choose the right-wing guy.

While criticizing your opponent is obviously a good thing to do in politics, occassionally, it's getting worse and worse*. More and more, politicians are choosing to try and smear mud all over their opponent, instead of trying to shine a light on themselves. Who is going to vote for Obama this time around? And who's going to vote against Romney? Who's going to vote for Romney, and who's going to vote against Obama?

*Not specific to the US. We may have some 12 or 15 parties in Belgium, but the last few years have seen all parties gang up on one other, newer party. They've been demonized by literal comparisons to nazis, to being crypto-communists, to wanting to destroy our country, to wanting to destroy Europe, being fascist neocon slaves to Big Bussiness, .... you get the picture.

Aug 10, 2012#40

Charlie Don't Surf

Unfortunately for conservatives, sometimes things change.

Aug 10, 2012#41

Tress

Sorry Bubble, I should have written the question as: "How would you classify President Obama within the current US political spectrum, because we don't give two shits about the European scale when discussing domestic politics."

Aug 10, 2012#42

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
You forget that, especially in America (though the same is true for all countries; just especially so for the ones with a two-party-system), it pays to try and demonize your competitor.
If you've got the choice between a moderate left-wing and a moderate right-wing, as an independent moderate, you'll look at both, consider your options, think....
If you've got the choice between a moderate left-wing and a Neo-Conservative Anti-Poor SuperNazi, you'll obviously choose the leftist.
If you've got the choice between a moderate right-wing and a Communist Hippie Anti-American Stalinist, you'll obviously choose the right-wing guy.

While criticizing your opponent is obviously a good thing to do in politics, occassionally, it's getting worse and worse*. More and more, politicians are choosing to try and smear mud all over their opponent, instead of trying to shine a light on themselves. Who is going to vote for Obama this time around? And who's going to vote against Romney? Who's going to vote for Romney, and who's going to vote against Obama?

*Not specific to the US. We may have some 12 or 15 parties in Belgium, but the last few years have seen all parties gang up on one other, newer party. They've been demonized by literal comparisons to nazis, to being crypto-communists, to wanting to destroy our country, to wanting to destroy Europe, being fascist neocon slaves to Big Bussiness, .... you get the picture.

Clearly (and I'm not being sarcastic here), this election is already about voting against, and not voting for, one or the other. Obama now has a 4 year record he can't use to rally support, and Romney is a new england windsock RINO that makes half his intended base ill. Nobody wanted Romney to win the primary other than the country club GOP party heads. As each candidate is, at best, uninspiring, they turn to negative campaigning. I've long said Romney's only hope is to make the election about Obama, and Obama stands to win if he can keep the scrutiny on Romney.

Heck, this week alone is illustrative: Romney's SuperPAC is running ads talking about the aforementioned welfare changes, and Obama's SuperPAC is saying Romney hasn't paid his taxes and kills your wife.

Aug 10, 2012#43

AshburnerX

Am I the only one who thinks it's REALLY odd for the Republicans to have not named a VP yet? It's less than 3 months till the election! I'm starting to wonder if the problem is that no one wants to tarnish their image by being seen with Romney...

Aug 10, 2012#44

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Am I the only one who thinks it's REALLY odd for the Republicans to have not named a VP yet? It's less than 3 months till the election! I'm starting to wonder if the problem is that no one wants to tarnish their image by being seen with Romney...

No, VP nominees are typically announced either in July or August, sometimes even late august. Examples:

Palin: Aug 29th
Biden: Aug 23rd
Quayle: Aug 16th

source

Aug 10, 2012#45

AshburnerX

Maybe it just seems that way because there really hasn't been a lot of positive reporting coming out of the Repubs this year. Then again, they might just be waiting till the last minute in case they pull another Palin.

Aug 10, 2012#46

GasBandit

I must say Romney's running a pretty weak campaign. His lackey's rebuttal to the "romney killed my wife" ad was deep in the heart of Facepalm territory. "If she'd lived in Massachusetts, she'd have had health insurance." Whuh. Duh. Fuh.

Aug 10, 2012#47

tegid

Ugh, that's stupid. But, really, that ad's disgusting and these kind of things should simply not exist :/

Aug 10, 2012#48

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
I must say Romney's running a pretty weak campaign. His lackey's rebuttal to the "romney killed my wife" ad was deep in the heart of Facepalm territory. "If she'd lived in Massachusetts, she'd have had health insurance." Whuh. Duh. Fuh.

I think a lot of it is just because of Romney's methodology. He's very risk adverse, always having an escape plan or a back-up if a certain scheme fails. He never does anything that may have lasting consequences and this has been pretty much his MO for years. Hell, it's one of the reasons why he didn't leave Bain Capital officially until long after the SLC Olympic Games: He didn't know if it would work out and he wanted to make sure he had a job after he was done.

Obama's the reverse: He's willing to bet big and risk it all. NO ONE thought he'd get his healthcare bill passed and that raid on Bin Laden was a huge gamble, but have arguably paid off. If ether had failed, he'd have been toast.

Aug 10, 2012#49

Tress

AshburnerX said:
Maybe it just seems that way because there really hasn't been a lot of positive reporting coming out of the Repubs this year. Then again, they might just be waiting till the last minute in case they pull another Palin.

I think I know the reason it feels as though they are taking too long to name a VP. Romney won the primary months ago, albeit unofficially. There hasn't been a race in the GOP field for a while. So it feels like they should have a VP by now.

Aug 10, 2012#50

AshburnerX

Tress said:
I think I know the reason it feels as though they are taking too long to name a VP. Romney won the primary months ago, albeit unofficially. There hasn't been a race in the GOP field for a while. So it feels like they should have a VP by now.

That COULD be it.

Aug 10, 2012#51

Tress

GasBandit said:
I must say Romney's running a pretty weak campaign. His lackey's rebuttal to the "romney killed my wife" ad was deep in the heart of Facepalm territory. "If she'd lived in Massachusetts, she'd have had health insurance." Whuh. Duh. Fuh.

This kind of thing is why a friend of mine recently decided not to vote for Romney. He's a pretty staunch Republican, but he can't stand how much "Romney whines like a pussy about every little thing." He doesn't like how weak Romney comes off in debates and while campaigning. I have no idea who he will vote for instead.

Aug 10, 2012#52

AshburnerX

Tress said:
This kind of thing is why a friend of mine recently decided not to vote for Romney. He's a pretty staunch Republican, but he can't stand how much "Romney whines like a pussy about every little thing." He doesn't like how weak Romney comes off in debates and while campaigning. I have no idea who he will vote for instead.

He really is a bad candidate for Republicans. He lacks the traits that Republicans love, like charisma and force of personality. This is why Chris Christie was called for so hard: He may be overweight, but he has a force of personality and that "take no prisoners" attitude that really appeals to the Right Wing.

Forums