by Tinker » Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:43 pm
Barack Obama is what I said he would be when the elections were going on. People were too busy coming up with new and inventive ways to say, "Obamaton", to listen to me. And now that he's been elected people don't remember because they were too busy coming up with new and inventive ways of saying "Obamaton". I think the problem here is one of terminology. Obama isn't a NeoConservative like Bush, rather he is a NeoLiberal like every single President since World War II. NeoConservatism was NeoLiberalism repackaged, it was a very clever fnord, and the rubes bought it. But it's the same old thing, the unquestioned hegemonic stability theory in action. Basically, I knew this going in, I never thought Obama was a 'new kind of politician', what I thought was that he was a very clever, very smart, and very measured politician. Nothing I have seen as yet has changed that viewpoint. As things move along, I am finding myself with less tolerance for the traditional NeoLiberal agenda that Presidents share regardless of party, but that is a different thing. It is not surprising that Libya was put on the chopping block, and it is not surprising that Syria is next. They are Marshall Planning the Middle-East. I just think that Obama's administration is doing it with less style and panache, but with a lot more sophistication and sublety than his predecessors.
Anyone, regardless of which side you were on, that ever thought Obama was not a Neo-Liberal simply did not listen to the man. It's always funny when people talk about his engagement in Afghanistan as evidence that he's gone against the wishes of his base, when one of his campaign promises was that he'd INCREASE troops in Afghanistan.
The canary didn't die because this mine is dangerous, it died because it's lazy and wasn't raised with a proper work ethic.