Has Obama harmed traditional liberalism and Democrats' positions?

The loyalty to Obama by Democrats is astonishing to me and appears unique to Obama. Historically, Democrats had no problem protesting Democratic presidents - such as LBJ ("Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many boys did you kill today?") - while Republicans supported LBJ. Now, partisan lines are so absolute that Obama is like Rev. Moon leading his mindless worshippers.

Here are many examples:

1. While infuriated at the the government monitoring who checks out library books, Democrats now support the government using drones in the USA to watch all Americans.

2. There is silence by Democrats over record numbers of refusals to comply with Open Records requests.

3. Democrats used to condemn and protest drone strikes in other countries - which Obama condemned in campaigning - but now support even increases in foreign drone strikes.

4. Democrats support massive increases in the militarization of the police including Federal police.

5. Democrats dropped all criticism of not closing Gitmo, something Obama campaigned on doing.

6. Democrats are silent on hypocrisy and contradiction and failure - from the administration cancelling allowing anyone else with pre-existing conditions to have affordable insurance under ObamaCare - to Obama lying and then admitting to proposing sequestration to then oppose what he got passed, drone strikes, Gitmo, and the rest.

You also hear over and over on this forum extreme arguments that the Bill of Rights are irrelevant in terms of the power of Congress, where liberals used to intensely support the Bill of Rights.

Has Obama redefined and even reversed many liberal and Democratic traditional stances and priorities?

joko104 said:

The loyalty to Obama by Democrats is astonishing to me and appears unique to Obama. Historically, Democrats had no problem protesting Democratic presidents - such as LBJ ("Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many boys did you kill today?") - while Republicans supported LBJ. Now, partisan lines are so absolute that Obama is like Rev. Moon leading his mindless worshippers.

Here are many examples:

1. While infuriated at the the government monitoring who checks out library books, Democrats now support the government using drones in the USA to watch all Americans.

2. There is silence by Democrats over record numbers of refusals to comply with Open Records requests.

3. Democrats used to condemn and protest drone strikes in other countries - which Obama condemned in campaigning - but now support even increases in foreign drone strikes.

4. Democrats support massive increases in the militarization of the police including Federal police.

5. Democrats dropped all criticism of not closing Gitmo, something Obama campaigned on doing.

6. Democrats are silent on hypocrisy and contradiction and failure - from the administration cancelling allowing anyone else with pre-existing conditions to have affordable insurance under ObamaCare - to Obama lying and then admitting to proposing sequestration to then oppose what he got passed, drone strikes, Gitmo, and the rest.

You also hear over and over on this forum extreme arguments that the Bill of Rights are irrelevant in terms of the power of Congress, where liberals used to intensely support the Bill of Rights.

Has Obama redefined and even reversed many liberal and Democratic traditional stances and priorities?

Click to expand...

You look at temporary acceptance of your noted "infractions" yet ignore the Obama main mission; expanding the size and scope of federal control, especially increasing income redistribution programs - the #1 goal of the left.

It was injured long before then. He's just mainstream.

Know what hurt mainstream traditional liberalism? All those worthless Vietnam hippies who destroyed their brains with too many psychodelics getting old enough and becoming a major voting bloc.

I like to think that if John Kennedy were alive today and meeting Obama, he'd slap Obama in the face and tell him to grow a pair.

joko104 said:

The loyalty to Obama by Democrats is astonishing to me and appears unique to Obama. Historically, Democrats had no problem protesting Democratic presidents - such as LBJ ("Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many boys did you kill today?") - while Republicans supported LBJ. Now, partisan lines are so absolute that Obama is like Rev. Moon leading his mindless worshippers.

Here are many examples:

1. While infuriated at the the government monitoring who checks out library books, Democrats now support the government using drones in the USA to watch all Americans.

2. There is silence by Democrats over record numbers of refusals to comply with Open Records requests.

3. Democrats used to condemn and protest drone strikes in other countries - which Obama condemned in campaigning - but now support even increases in foreign drone strikes.

4. Democrats support massive increases in the militarization of the police including Federal police.

5. Democrats dropped all criticism of not closing Gitmo, something Obama campaigned on doing.

6. Democrats are silent on hypocrisy and contradiction and failure - from the administration cancelling allowing anyone else with pre-existing conditions to have affordable insurance under ObamaCare - to Obama lying and then admitting to proposing sequestration to then oppose what he got passed, drone strikes, Gitmo, and the rest.

You also hear over and over on this forum extreme arguments that the Bill of Rights are irrelevant in terms of the power of Congress, where liberals used to intensely support the Bill of Rights.

Has Obama redefined and even reversed many liberal and Democratic traditional stances and priorities?

Click to expand...

As with most Obama-focused criticisms, any of this that even a degree of truth has less to do with Obama and more to do with changing cultural and political contexts associated with the Technological Revolution and the Information Age. But most of it is based on fundamental misinterpretations on what exactly the Democratic Party is and represents to begin with.

Gipper said:

It was injured long before then. He's just mainstream.

Know what hurt mainstream traditional liberalism? All those worthless Vietnam hippies who destroyed their brains with too many psychodelics getting old enough and becoming a major voting bloc.

I like to think that if John Kennedy were alive today and meeting Obama, he'd slap Obama in the face and tell him to grow a pair.

Click to expand...

Agreed, in spades. Presidents are supposed to be leaders: leaders make decisions, losers make excuses. Obama makes excuses.

Diogenes said:

Agreed, in spades. Presidents are supposed to be leaders: leaders make decisions, losers make excuses. Obama makes excuses.

Click to expand...

Those sorts of observations are hollow inventions of right-wing political culture. They have no persistent reality or meaning.

I voted "Other" as today's liberals have no connection to Classical Liberalism...

joko104 said:

The loyalty to Obama by Democrats is astonishing to me and appears unique to Obama. Historically, Democrats had no problem protesting Democratic presidents - such as LBJ ("Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many boys did you kill today?") - while Republicans supported LBJ. Now, partisan lines are so absolute that Obama is like Rev. Moon leading his mindless worshippers.

Here are many examples:

1. While infuriated at the the government monitoring who checks out library books, Democrats now support the government using drones in the USA to watch all Americans.

2. There is silence by Democrats over record numbers of refusals to comply with Open Records requests.

3. Democrats used to condemn and protest drone strikes in other countries - which Obama condemned in campaigning - but now support even increases in foreign drone strikes.

4. Democrats support massive increases in the militarization of the police including Federal police.

5. Democrats dropped all criticism of not closing Gitmo, something Obama campaigned on doing.

6. Democrats are silent on hypocrisy and contradiction and failure - from the administration cancelling allowing anyone else with pre-existing conditions to have affordable insurance under ObamaCare - to Obama lying and then admitting to proposing sequestration to then oppose what he got passed, drone strikes, Gitmo, and the rest.

You also hear over and over on this forum extreme arguments that the Bill of Rights are irrelevant in terms of the power of Congress, where liberals used to intensely support the Bill of Rights.

Has Obama redefined and even reversed many liberal and Democratic traditional stances and priorities?

Click to expand...

This stuff isn't about liberalism or progressivism.

Rather, this stuff is about executive power.

And the same kinds of things happen when a Republican is in the White House as well.

Morality Games said:

Those sorts of observations are hollow inventions of right-wing political culture. They have no persistent reality or meaning.

Click to expand...

Of course they have meaning, and Obama "persistently" makes excuses. This brush-off is what's "hollow."

ttwtt78640 said:

You look at temporary acceptance of your noted "infractions" yet ignore the Obama main mission; expanding the size and scope of federal control, especially increasing income redistribution programs - the #1 goal of the left.

Click to expand...

Why do people think this? I have never understood why conservatives think that all 'the left' wants to do is increase the size of government? I understand that their is a difference between being conservative and being a republican. Yet I always seem to run into conservatives who think that all liberals are democrats and visa versa. I'm not saying that you do, you definitely chose the word left, not liberal. However, I would say I am definitely to the left, but I don't think increasing the size of the federal governement and income redistribution is the path forward. I just never understand why any and all ideas that come out of the left are instantly perceived as the left trying to increase the size of government and control peoples lives. I hear it all the time and it's so confusing to me.

Harshaw said:

Of course they have meaning, and Obama "persistently" makes excuses. This brush-off is what's "hollow."

Click to expand...

Obama does have an unusual tendency to try and explain things and put them in context. I suppose that is easy to market as "making excuses."

Morality Games said:

Obama does have an unusual tendency to try and explain things and put them in context. I suppose that is easy to mistake as "making excuses."

Click to expand...

It's funny how that "context" always makes it someone else's fault, as if he, as President, is powerless. :roll:

Harshaw said:

It's funny how that "context" always makes it someone else's fault, as if he, as President, is powerless. :roll:

Click to expand...

What makes something somebody else's fault is the casual relation between that person and the outcome in question. It is purely a question of logical associations. Even if Obama had no problem assigning responsibility for various outcomes to the decisions and policies of the previous Administration or Congress, as far as the logical associations he draws goes, he is usually correct.

WWGWD said:

Why do people think this? I have never understood why conservatives think that all 'the left' wants to do is increase the size of government? I understand that their is a difference between being conservative and being a republican. Yet I always seem to run into conservatives who think that all liberals are democrats and visa versa. I'm not saying that you do, you definitely chose the word left, not liberal. However, I would say I am definitely to the left, but I don't think increasing the size of the federal governement and income redistribution is the path forward. I just never understand why any and all ideas that come out of the left are instantly perceived as the left trying to increase the size of government and control peoples lives. I hear it all the time and it's so confusing to me.

Click to expand...

Gee, I can't imagine why us libertarians fight the left wing for expansion of government. It's not "think" - fiscal liberals are in favor of a giant redistribution machine. If you disagree, then maybe you should change your lean.

Also, I don't see him saying the word "Democrat" at all. Leftists want larger government - either directly or by proxy. If they're honest, they'll voluntarily expand government, or they'll demand that government perform functions that require expansion by necessity.

Do you not favor higher taxes for the rich? Do you not favor higher capital gains taxes? Do you not favor an expansion of (or at minimum, a retention of current levels of) entitlements in this country? If you can look me in the font and tell me that you don't agree with all those, I won't put you down as a rank-and-file ultra-liberal.

Gipper said:

It was injured long before then. He's just mainstream.

Know what hurt mainstream traditional liberalism? All those worthless Vietnam hippies who destroyed their brains with too many psychodelics getting old enough and becoming a major voting bloc.

I like to think that if John Kennedy were alive today and meeting Obama, he'd slap Obama in the face and tell him to grow a pair.

Click to expand...

I'd like to think that if Barry Goldwater saw what douches and losers the current crop of "Conservatives" are he would call them worthless traitors because that is what that they are.

joko104 said:

Has Obama redefined and even reversed many liberal and Democratic traditional stances and priorities?

Click to expand...

Yup, pretty much in the same way Bush changed the conservative and GOP traditional stances; bringing about a much harsher fascist front. Obama has done the same to the Democrats.

Just another similarity between Bush and Obama.

iguanaman said:

I'd like to think that if Barry Goldwater saw what douches and losers the current crop of "Conservatives" are he would call the worthless traitors that they are.

Click to expand...

I don't consider Goldwater a conservative. He was probably the first true American libertarian.

Conservatives don't trash Nixon the way he did.

Morality Games said:

Those sorts of observations are hollow inventions of right-wing political culture. They have no persistent reality or meaning.

Click to expand...

It is modern liberalism that has no persistent reality or meaning.

Gipper said:

Gee, I can't imagine why us libertarians fight the left wing for expansion of government. It's not "think" - fiscal liberals are in favor of a giant redistribution machine. If you disagree, then maybe you should change your lean.

Also, I don't see him saying the word "Democrat" at all. Leftists want larger government - either directly or by proxy. If they're honest, they'll voluntarily expand government, or they'll demand that government perform functions that require expansion by necessity.

Do you not favor higher taxes for the rich? Do you not favor higher capital gains taxes? Do you not favor an expansion of (or at minimum, a retention of current levels of) entitlements in this country? If you can look me in the font and tell me that you don't agree with all those, I won't put you down as a rank-and-file ultra-liberal.

Click to expand...

OK, I felt like this was totally a fair enough assessment of leftist beliefs until that last part, lol. This is where I get stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't disagree the may in which government operates now, totally works the way you describe. My problem is, I like government, just not an intrusive, inefficient and overbearing one. And this is where I get in trouble with my conservative friends, because as soon I say I think the federal government could have a effective role in people's lives, I apparently sprout horns and carry a pitch fork. (I'm not talking all conservatives, but it's happened enough times, I find it to be a pattern).

Here is what I think on the questions I asked, you tell me if you think I'm now a lepper. Tax rates should be fair. You should get to pay less taxes because you can afford an army of lawyers who can find you every loop hole in the book. I think it's a bit of a cop out to simply say, well you make more, so your taxes should go up. We need to look much closer at the tax code, and make it more efficient, but yes, I don't think the wealthy are paying enough taxes in general. I think capital gains taxes (which I do not pretend to know a lot about), should remain higher on short term gains, then long term gains. I also think that those tax rates should be tied to inflation and interest rates, since all of them affect the stock market. As far as entitlement, that needs a whole overhaul, from top to bottom. Entitlement programs do not work the way they did 20 years ago. Do I think they can still be useful and helpful to improving the quality of life for citizens of this country, absolutely. However, they have been used to often to pander for votes, and have lost all semblance of being productive and insentivising people. Those programs just aren't what they were intended to be.

So, you tell me, where does that put me on the political scale?

Morality Games said:

What makes something somebody else's fault is the casual relation between that person and the outcome in question. It is purely a question of logical associations. Even if Obama had no problem assigning responsibility for various outcomes to the decisions and policies of the previous Administration or Congress, as far as the logical associations he draws goes, he is usually correct.

Click to expand...

Right, because after all the times he told people to hold him accountable, all the times he said he "owned" it, it was still always someone else's fault, no matter how long they've been gone, and how long he's been running things. You apparently lap it up like a kitten's milk, though.

A leader takes responsibility. And that even includes times when thinks aren't actually his fault. Why? He's the guy in charge, and that's what effective leaders do. Constantly blaming others is weak, weak "leadership."

WWGWD said:

So, you tell me, where does that put me on the political scale?

Click to expand...

Emerging neocon, one who is in the process of coming over from the dark side. Welcome!

Right, because after all the times he told people to hold him accountable, all the times he said he "owned" it, it was still always someone else's fault, no matter how long they've been gone, and how long he's been running things. You apparently lap it up like a kitten's milk, though.

Click to expand...

You trust your own perceptions of how things work far too much.

A leader takes responsibility. And that even includes times when thinks aren't actually his fault. Why? He's the guy in charge, and that's what effective leaders do. Constantly blaming others is weak, weak "leadership."

Click to expand...

As far as that goes, Obama has. He just doesn't receive credit or recognition for it by the opposition, other than to insult him for perceived insincerity.

The idea the Obama is somehow unique in the degrees to which he takes or does not take responsibility among presidents or among politicians of any time period, nation, or cultural context is entirely a narrative fiction spun specifically because it was scientifically deduced by the opposition leaders and their think tanks that their base was receptive to such criticism and that it could be used to mobilize effective political action against Obama. It is made up and exists inside the opposition's heads.

Even if there was any degree of truth echoing somewhere in the observation, there would be no way to know where the good critical appraisal starts and where the right-wing delusion ends, because the right-wing that manufactured and produced the observation was never interested in fair-minded evaluation of Obama from the very beginning, because it served no specific goal of theirs to appraise his motivations, goals, or achievements from a fair-minded perspective.

It is modern liberalism that has no persistent reality or meaning.

Click to expand...

Okay then.

Diogenes said:

Agreed, in spades. Presidents are supposed to be leaders: leaders make decisions, losers make excuses. Obama makes excuses.

Click to expand...

That is the thing I despise about Obama..he makes SO many excuses.

He never seems to take responsibility for his mistakes or the things he has to go back on.

DA60 said:

That is the thing I despise about Obama..he makes SO many excuses.

He never seems to take responsibility for his mistakes or the things he has to go back on.

Click to expand...

Mostly because the things he is supposed to take responsibility for are manufactured drama. Taking Benghazi an example, many more embassies were attacked during the Bush Administration, but even the opposition didn't have much to say about it, as it seemed like one of the realities of fighting a guerrilla war against terrorists who have no qualm attacking civilian government targets and are willing to hurt the United States in anyway they can. In most cases their plots and attacks can be countered, but they will succeed sometimes so long as we are in anyway exposed to their assaults, which will be the case in regions where their organizations have political and cultural influence.

Then you have a hotly contested presidential election, and suddenly a successful attack on an embassy acquires new meaning that did not exist previously.

Morality Games said:

Mostly because the things he is supposed to take responsibility for are manufactured drama. Taking Benghazi an example, many more embassies were attacked during the Bush Administration, but even the opposition didn't have much to say about it, as it seemed like one of the realities of fighting a guerrilla war against terrorists who have no qualm attacking civilian government targets and are willing to hurt the United States in anyway they can. In most cases their plots and attacks can be countered, but they will succeed sometimes so long as we are in anyway exposed to their assaults, which will be the case in regions where their organizations have political and cultural influence.

Then you have a hotly contested presidential election, and suddenly a successful attack on an embassy acquires new meaning that did not exist previously.

Click to expand...

I was not thinking about Benghazi.

I was thinking about how he promised to close Gitmo and just blames everyone else when it did not get done.

He also promised to half the deficit in his first term - again, he just makes excuses.

And please save me the pro-Obama nonsense as to why the above two did not come to pass.

I have heard it ALL before and they are total nonsense.


And there are many other instances.

He NEVER takes responsibility for his failures...never.

He is a terrible POTUS.

He goes back on his word.

He is hurting the economy - unemployment is worse now then when he took over despite the fact the national debt has skyrocketed. And speaking of skyrocketed - that describes the growth in food stamp usage since he took over.

He whines about the sequester even though he was the one who pushed for it SO strongly last year and he signed it into law.

He deliberately ramped up the war in Afghanistan and now America (and the West) are going to leave having failed miserably (despite valiant efforts from the troops) as that country is clearly going to revert back to almost exactly the way it was before 9/11 once the foreign troops leave.

Foreign policy, the economy, spending.

You name it - this guy has failed at it and yet he never takes responsibility for his failures.


The guy is a spineless loser as a POTUS.