First off...I think that your definition of liberal is essentially accurate, although I would disagree that most liberals believe that you have to grow the size of government.
Yep, that one is my bad. I wrote it a few time sand on my last flesh out I forgot that it should be and/or between size and scope. Scope is in there because while I consider the "growing" to not necessarily simply mean the size or $ amount, but things like its role, their influence, their control over things, etc, others sometimes don't relaize that. Thus "scope". My bad on forgetting the /or part.
#1 - Again....I think that this is an accurate description of a liberal philosophy. However, I don't think there is anything that Obama has done or proposed that can be said to follow this principle. Where has Obama sought to increase taxes in order to expand Government?
Obama suggested the increase of the current tax rates on certain tax brackets by passing a bill that would maintain the current tax brackets for some but increase it for others. This was in part pitched because the funding was needed and assumed to help cover the cost of the government expansions under the health care law, amongst other things. You also have his push for the addition of tax increases to certain segments of the population to pay for the various increased government spending that's occuring as part of the debt cieling debate. Raising taxes as a means of maintaining, increasing, or paying for recently increased, government spending is a liberal economic idea.
#2 - I don't agree that this is a liberal principle at all. I don't see liberals anywhere suggesting that the amount of pay a person can obtain should be limited by the government. And again....I don't see anywhere where Obama has proposed or implemented anything close to this.
It's an increase in government regulation (scope) in the interest of fairness. That fits the definition. This was evident in part with companies that took bailout money, with strings attached to that money that the government gets to cap their CEO pay. While you can argue that such a requirement is perfectly reasonable and undrestandable, and perhaps it is, you can't argue that the notion of doing so is liberal regardless of whether or not it came along with public funds.
#3 and #4 are pretty much the same thing. And I would agree that environmentalism is probably more of a liberal idea, but not all Republicans are anti-enviroment. I don't see anything inherently "liberal" about encouraging green technology by offering incentives. Hell....even Republicans are ok with handing out subsidies to oil companies in order to encourage drilling...which is a similar enticement, albeit at the other end of the spectrum. I would agree that Obama's cap and trade ideas are in line with liberal thinking. However, there has not really been much proposed in the way of cap and trade...but certainly Obama does hold that particular view.
Similar, not the same though. Secondly, faulty premise. Environmentalism and Government forced "green" policy are not synonymous. Government forced "Green" policy can be Environmentalism, but Environmentalism doesn't have to be.....well you get it. It's the Square and Rectangle thing we learn in elementry school. Conservatives absolutely can be environmentalists. However, using the federal government to force or coerce people into doing it is the important part here, not the environmentalism.
Also, again, tax incentives themselves are not the liberal notion but rather the purpose behind them and aim of them, and mind you many conservatives even find subsidies to oil companies problematic in that they find them ALL problematic but IF they are here in the budget then you come down to other conservative principles to determine where they go, but that's a whole different topic. It's the notion of using the tax incentives to steer the public in a way that is more "fair" and "good" for society.
Finally, in terms of cap and trade, please look up American Clean Energy and Security Act.
#5 Public work programs such as the New Deal and/or the Stimulus plan are not uniquely "liberal". These are programs that are widely supported throughout the political spectrum. So I would disagree with you that this is a "liberal" idea.
On the Federal Level I think here we're just going to end up disagreeing with that notion. Public works for the sake of public works for the sake of just getting people employed and paid despite it being government money, yeah..I'd consider that one on the liberal side of things.
I think the one thing that we probably can agree on is that Obama is neither completely a moderate nor completely a liberal. You see him as a moderate liberal. I see him as a slightly liberal leaning moderate.
I see
HIM as a solid liberal who has some strong liberal leanings and, since coming into the Presidency and being made aware of more of the security issues facing the country, is more moderately liberal when it comes to Defense issues.
I see his
PRESIDENCY as moderately liberal due to political pressures and realities given the climate in the country in the early parts of his tenure and the make up of the congress in his later parts.
As a general reference, my political lingo for scale would be.
Fringe - Extreme - Strong - Solid - Moderate - Left Leaning Mod - Mod - Right leaning Mod - Moderate - Solid - Strong - Extreme - Fringe
I think the VAST majority of the American public fall within the Solid to Solid range, with a fair amount (largely in the political establishment and politically knowledgable people) in the "strong" categories on each side. I think Extreme individuals on both sides are a relative minority and I think the true "fringe" is even less, with the true "fringers" pretty much doubling back around as the scale is almost more of a circle then a true line.
