Larry Kudlow, no raving Leftist he, evaluates Obama’s economic team as being predominantly center-right. And this seems to give him hope that Obama is going to talk a Left leaning game, while governing more from the center.
In fact, there is no question that Obama’s economic team is right of center. All three are market-oriented. They’re also pro-free-trade. Hopefully Summers and Geithner maintain the Robert Rubin King Dollar policy of the Clinton years. And if Ms. Romer can stop tax hikes, that will help the greenback even more.
At a minimum, both Romer and Geithner could have served under Gerald Ford or George H. W. Bush. But they may be more pro-growth than that. Romer’s study of the damage of tax hikes on the economy and her emphasis on investment are right on target. In a New York Times story, a former Treasury colleague of Geithner’s says, “he’s no liberal.” As for Summers, while he has been mau-maued by Democratic feminists and some of the unions, he is a tough, clear-headed thinker who has for years tried to merge Keynesian and supply-side policies. No mean feat.
It seems possible than in the arenas of foreign policy and economics, based on the pick’s the president-elect has made, we may be in for a president who talked Left to get nominated, moved to the center to get elected, and then, amazingly, continues to STAY in the center on foreign policy and economics, at least. More than one pundit thinks that this means Obama has already begun his re-election campaign, and is saving the real leftward jerk for a second term when he has nothing to lose by it.
What’s maddening about this is that if Obama simply doesn’t take too many damaging actions, the economy will recover on its own during his first term, and he’ll get the credit for it, regardless if some of his actions actually slow the recovery, similar to Clinton getting credit for the 1990s surge, even though his higher taxes arguably slowed it down.
If it is true that Obama intends to create centrist foreign policy and economic policy, it’s going to drive the Left totally bananas. To counteract the fury of the loony Left, Obama will have to placate them by following through on certain hard-left promises he has made, like the Freedom of Choice Act, union card check, very Left judicial appointments, probably extreme environmental positions, and so on.
I’ve said it before: the best those of us in the center-Right can hope for is that he doesn’t keep all his campaign promises.
November 27th, 2008 6:59 am
Except this isn’t true. Most analysts think that he ran towards the center in the primary, and actually moved to the left in the general election.
But I do think that, for the most part, his team that he has put together has been “center-right.”
November 27th, 2008 10:24 am
What “most analysts” do you read? He clearly went Left of Hillary on the war, etc., during the primary, and he clearly tried to co-opt Republicans on “tax cuts” in the general. He clearly began to talk somewhat more moderately about the war during the general than he had during the primary.
His non-economic domestic policy team will be quite left.
November 29th, 2008 9:25 am
Etc? Is that shorthand for “I don’t know what else to add to this list, so I will say etc.?”
FWIW, he ran on that tax cut plan (with increases for the top bracket) in the primaries too. He also ran to the right of Hillary on healthcare, and also did not really change his war policy from the primary to the general election. He also ran to the right of Hillary on education.
I can tell you that most of those on the left liked what he was saying more in the general election than in the primary.
November 29th, 2008 9:34 pm
Dave, Obama didn’t begin to constantly stress the tax plan he had until the general. It was there, but not mentioned nearly so often, until he was directly challenged by McCain’s plan to cut taxes and keep the Bush tax cuts, too.
I don’t recall education being much of an issue in the campaign at any time… so whatever you define as “right of Hillary” on that point doesn’t matter much. I would not say he was “right of Hillary” on healthcare, just different… and the main point is that both were quite left.
And your assessment of the left’s feelings about him in the general vs. the primary is interesting, but not persuasive.
Do you read anything besides major media, Daily Kos and Huffpo, watch/listen to anything besides big three nets, CNN and NPR?
Just curious.
It’s what he STRESSED in the campaigns that matters more than what his website said his specific positions were (his website changes pretty often… maybe you’ve noticed all the things that get changed when a little attention is paid to them?). A couple of bloggers have chronicled this… it’s pretty funny.
I apologize for saying etc., etc. I won’t use words like etc., etc., anymore when I’m talking to you.
But it’s really funny when people on the Left try to deny that Obama has been the most Left presidential nominee in history. Of course, to do that, they have to ignore the left-leaning magazines that have so named him, like National Journal, etc.
Oops.
November 30th, 2008 6:53 am
Well you may be the only person who would say that. I have not seen one person, other than you, say that Hillary did not have a more progressive, or “Left,” plan than Barack Obama.
No… the main point is whether or not Obama moved to the right or left in the general election.
In other words, do I read things from the right wing of the Republican Party? FWIW, I don’t really read much major media, I almost never read DK and Huffpo, I don’t watch the big three nets, I rarely, if ever, watch CNN, and only occasionally read NPR. So yea… I get information from other sources.
Typically etc. is not used after just one thing. And you still have not been able to give me other examples. I don’t care if you use etc, but I think it is intellectually lazy to use it in replace of actually coming up with examples.
The National Journal did not call Obama the “most Left presidential nominee in history.” It called him the most liberal Senator in 2007. I am pretty sure that you can understand that those are two different things. Of course, to call him the most liberal Senator in 2007, one needs to completely ignore the vast majority of other publications who say that otherwise, but I guess it is easier to choose the one source that agrees with you than the several that disagree.
Oops.
November 30th, 2008 8:51 am
“. . . one needs to completely ignore the vast majority of other publications who say that otherwise…” Can you please NAME at least two of the vast majority of publications who say otherwise?
November 30th, 2008 10:55 am
Sure… first, the National Journal ranked him 16th and 10th in the two preceding years, so already we have a case of limited sample size meaning very little.
The widely respected Voteview had Obama 11th and 21st most liberal in the last two Senate sessions.
I need to look for the others, but when people tried to make a big deal out of this in the spring, the National Journal was the ONLY ranking that had Obama in the top five of most liberal senators, and again, that was for only one year.
You probably should also look at the methodology of the very flawed National Journal rankings.
If you seriously think that Obama is more liberal than Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, or even Ted Kennedy, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you in Alaska.
November 30th, 2008 3:29 pm
Dave, this is one time when I hope you’re correct. If Obama is indeed less left than he appears, than his associations and alliances suggest, and than his voting record suggests, that would be wonderful. This is one time when “time will tell” is certainly true.
I’m curious. What DO you read for news and information, if not major media or left media?
I invite you to name a more left presidential nominee of a major party than Obama, at any time in history.
I don’t see Obama ever vetoing anything that comes of the Democrat congress because it is “too left”. Do you?
November 30th, 2008 10:33 pm
I didn’t say that I didn’t read left media. I said that I didn’t read DK or Huffpo. I read a lot of left media, and I also read a lot of blogs across the political spectrum. I often read the right leaning Chicago Tribune. I read Time Magazine weekly, so that is probably the biggest exception to me not reading major media.
I do not believe that I have a very good gauge on where different candidates stood on the made-up political spectrum. But I do know that we have not had ANY “left” presidential nominees, including Obama.
No, but I also don’t see the Democrat controlled Congress actually passing any legislation that is very “left.”
November 30th, 2008 10:45 pm
Dave, my friend… you live in a dream world, or just don’t know what the word “left” means. So the political spectrum doesn’t really exist, huh?
I suspect you’re playing the usual game of denying that anyone exists who fits some idealized category, similar to our “socialism” discussion.
So OK, no differences exist, there are no spectrums, no one fits in any category, and no one in the USA is either left or right, and it’s all a conspiracy of the media and academia.
And also nothing worth discussing, because without meaningful terms and categories, not thinking is possible, let alone communication.
But the Communist Party USA was still pretty excited about Obama’s candidacy. I guess they just didn’t know as much about him as you do.
November 30th, 2008 10:58 pm
Who said that?
You really are the master of the straw man.
November 30th, 2008 11:09 pm
Dave, there are no straw man arguments, because there are no meaningful definitions or categories to be so excoriated. Or if the categories exist, no current USA politician fits in any of them.
I invited you to pick a more left Presidential nominee of a major party than Obama at any time in USA history. Your silence (actually, your inability to do so… we both know you would if you could) speaks volumes. You just can’t face the fact, for whatever reason, so you divert. You question the very existence of the political spectrum in the same sentence as saying we haven’t had any “left” presidential nominees.
Self-contradiction is not very convincing as a rhetorical tool.
December 1st, 2008 7:21 am
that would be another straw man, but you already know that. And straw man arguments can exist without “meaningful definitions or categories,” but I am assuming that you already know that too.
You have an interesting definition of silence. I responded to your question, not with silence, but with an honest answer.
What fact? You have not given any facts about it. You have cited one very flawed National Journal study and claimed that it said something that it didn’t say.
Yes… I was using your language to respond.
In terms of political spectrums, I do not believe that “left” and “right” are good categorizations of political ideologies. I don’t believe that political ideologies fit neatly and simply on a straight line. I also do not believe that we have a significant “left” in the United States. I think that anyone who calls Democrats “the left” has a very limited understanding of political ideologies.
I also think that while there are differences between the Republican and Democrat parties, it is not nearly as much as people make it out to be. I don’t think that Republicans are as conservative as many so-called liberals claim that they are, and I believe that mainstream Democrat policies are as centrist as possible.
It is only self-contradiction because you want to distort what I am saying. And rhetorical tools that I am using are better than using straw man arguments every time that you respond to me.
December 1st, 2008 9:46 am
Ah, we have no significant Left in the USA.
Pretty funny. Have you heard the term “useful idiot”?
Do we have a Right?
December 1st, 2008 11:45 am
Ah… do tell who you believe would fall under the “significant Left.”
Not really, at least not that has any significant influence. We have a center-left party, and a center-right party. And those to the left and right of those two parties have little/no influence or significance currently.
December 1st, 2008 11:51 am
I wish it was true. I really, really do.
But the differences between the parties are huge, and the America we end up with in 50 years will be enormously different if what you call the “center left” predominates or grows. Doubt this? Just look at the last 50 years, make a list of what you would call “center left” initiatives and policies that have been implemented, and imagine the America we would have without them.
The differences are enormous between the parties now, and getting larger all the time.
December 1st, 2008 5:53 pm
I propose that a person who still maintained the political views today that they had, and were considered ‘liberal’, 30-40 years ago, would be considered a ‘conservative’ today by accepted conversational standards. Accepted conversational standards, however, must be accepted by the receiver within the conversation and even then, the acceptor may change dialogical meaning to suit the moment from their own perspective. A straw man can quickly morph into “hey, man, let’s have another beer” and there you go. A center-right party becomes a center-left party when everyone left (presumably to have another beer). And then they were all under the little/no influence and we are all very confused.
December 2nd, 2008 6:18 am
Give me some examples of what was “liberal” 30-40 years ago, but would be “conservative” now.
December 2nd, 2008 6:41 am
Dave, I choose to give the same kind of examples you give. None.
December 2nd, 2008 1:10 pm
Huh? What are you talking about? What examples was I supposed to give, but did not?
You made an assertion … I would like to know what you mean by it.
December 2nd, 2008 1:57 pm
John Kennedy’s policies would generally be more at home in the Republican Party of today than the Democrat Party of today, both foreign and domestic.
December 2nd, 2008 2:26 pm
Of course… that (partisan identity) us a very different discussion than ideology.
Again I ask – what was liberal 30-40 years ago that is conservative now?
December 2nd, 2008 3:27 pm
Um.. Dave, this discussion seems like a time waster to me, because whatever policy I point to that was promoted by liberals, you will say it was really a conservative policy. Understanding as I do that you don’t accept common definitions for political discussion, I’ll just say that John Kennedy, the presumed liberal in comparison to Nixon, was for tax cuts, strong national defense, anti-communisim, space exploration, he nominated a pro-life Supreme Court Justice, etc., all of which passed as liberally defensible positions at the time…. but no more.
There are no Scoop Jackson or Harry Truman democrats left, it would seem, the closest being Joe Lieberman, who was ejected by his party.
Now you’ll say those aren’t really “liberal” positions, because, of course, you are in charge of your own private dictionary and time machine.
Actually, I’m not sure why you want to have this discussion, since these political spectra are all artificial creations of media and academia designed purely for polemic utility, and have no actual basis in reality.
Now you’ll say, “huh? I didn’t say that,” and we’ll be off again.
So I’ll let Melody take it from here on this thread, if you really want to pursue it.
December 2nd, 2008 4:27 pm
Again… I am asking what ISSUES were liberal then, but conservative now. I don’t want to know what a “token liberal” did. I want to know what specific issues were liberal 30-40 years ago, but are conservative now.
I don’t think that any of the positions that you listed were liberal. They have been acceptable to liberals, but they are not liberal positions. Positions that are acceptable to liberals are different than liberal positions.
December 2nd, 2008 6:08 pm
Dave says, “We have a center-left party, and a center-right party. And those to the left and right of those two parties have little/no influence or significance currently.” What is your evidence of this and how would you define ‘center-left’ and ‘center-right’?
December 2nd, 2008 9:44 pm
Their policies?
December 3rd, 2008 6:35 am
I knew you wouldn’t answer.
December 3rd, 2008 12:39 pm
Funny, coming from a person who never answers a question that I ask her.
I would generally describe the center-left as those who believe in the free market, believe in a strong military, believe in the death penalty, believe in women’s right to choose, believe in a very moderate redistribution of wealth in order to provide slightly more equality, etc. They tend to be very willing to use military force to solve problems. They are anti-gay marriage, but believe that same-sex couples should have some rights. The vast majority of Democrats fit into this group.
The center-right is not very different. They believe in the free market, believe in a strong military, believe in the death penalty, believe in a minimal redistribution of wealth in order to provide slightly more equality, etc. They tend to be very willing to use military force to solve problems. The are anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. The vast majority of Republicans fit into this group.
So I don’t have to re-type it, I will just link to how I would categorize left and right, which I wrote about a few years ago here. And I don’t think that mainstream politicians fit into either grouping very well.
I don’t think it is that simple to box things into some single plane political spectrum. But the above categories are generally true. It is also not all encompassing, and I know that I left many issues out.
FWIW, one of the big reasons I don’t like the left/right spectrum is that it doesn’t accurately portray the complexity of the issues. There are economic conservatives who are social liberals – are they right or left? What about economic liberals who are socially conservative – right or left?
But again, Melody… I am still waiting for you to answer my question, one that was asked before your question. But, if history is a good indicator, I will just continue to wait.
December 3rd, 2008 7:25 pm
Dave, you’re over-simplifying in a sense, because your analysis of “positions” and assigning them to left or right, or center-right/center-left, fails to account for the STRENGTH with which a person might be committed to an issue.
You mention people who are “left” on one issue, and “right” on another, as if there is some conundrum about how they should be categorized. It’s quite simple: they fit in the category represented by the people for whom they vote, because how they vote demonstrates the strength of their commitment to an issue, or a set of issues.
So: if you’re “socially conservative” but “economically liberal”, your vote shows the world just HOW conservative or liberal you are in sum. I know some people who claim to be “pro-life” but vote Democrat. They just want to SAY they’re pro-life, for whatever reason, but if it is more important to them to get an economic liberal in office, they aren’t *very* pro-life.
That’s the wonderful thing about votes. In the end, they represent an either-or decision (unless you’re a person who wastes your vote on an impossible candidate), however much post-modern types would like to deny the validity of binary logic.
So, in another sense, Dave, you’re over-complicating. Those people who “straddle” the left/right spectrum vote, one way or the other. Their vote for the left (even if they want to tell themselves they are “center-left”) has the same result as the vote of a “far-left” person, doesn’t it?
I am waiting to see just how committed all the putatively pro-life Lefty Christians are, who voted for Obama, in four years when abortions have not been reduced, and when Obama has not done anything to reduce them, despite his platform and election year rhetoric.
My prediction? They’ll vote for Obama again, regardless of the abortion frequency in the interim, because if they were very pro-life in the first place, they’d have voted for McCain.
It is not so complex, in the end.
December 3rd, 2008 7:54 pm
Obviously… which is why I don’t like the oversimplification into somewhat manufactured ideologies.
I find this to be pretty absurd, actually. You are essentially saying that a person who votes for a Republican is a Republican, even if they hold their nose while doing it. You are essentially saying that if someone is slightly more “left” than “right,” they are a leftist.
Actually, in many places votes are not an either or. The either/or that you speak of is only true in the incredibly flawed two-party system in (most of) America.
Wrong. They could be very pro-life, but find that there are other things that are more important.
Maybe it isn’t complex in your world, but in my view it is QUITE complex. And it has nothing to do with being post-modern, but instead having to do with the complexity of looking at a multitude of issues.
December 3rd, 2008 8:14 pm
Sure it involves a multitude of issues. But the decision about which issue is more important than another issue is the binary one, which in the end causes the binary vote.
I hear people blather on and on about how they balance issues and candidates, but for most people, some issue is overwhelmingly more important, and more revealing of a candidate’s worthiness to govern, than any other. Sure, some of the issues cluster together… people who are pro-life tend to be for a strong national defense, and the death penalty in appropriate cases, because they believe in both life and justice. But if I know a candidate is pro-life, and votes with other pro-life politicians on most other issues most of the time, that tends to be all I need to know, and it has proven to be a pretty reliable guide.
People who are pro-choice tend to be against the death penalty, and often don’t favor as strong a national defense, and are often for more redistribution, because to be pro-choice you have to put justice, and life, second to other things. These issues cluster because there is an orientation about the nature of life behind them, but some “single issue” voters are actually quite sensible, within their framework.
I’ve recommended it before: but read Thomas Sowell’s book, “A Conflict of Visions”. It explains nicely why seemingly unconnected issues cluster together in political parties and social movements.
Dave: you can’t be VERY pro-life and vote for candidates whose policies have led, and will lead, to more abortion. Unless you’re fundamentally ignorant, of course… some folks believe they can vote for “pro-life” democrats and be OK. Very silly.
Your assessment, that other democratic systems are superior to ours, is pretty funny. Do you mean parliamentary systems? They often produce even more extreme results on the one hand, and sometimes complete paralysis on the other.
December 3rd, 2008 9:27 pm
Nice… like how you claim that opposition to the death penalty is somehow putting something else above life.
Please tell me where I said other democratic systems were superior. My assessment was that the American two-party system is incredibly flawed, as it creates a false sense of either/or that doesn’t need to exist.
December 3rd, 2008 9:55 pm
Dave, I’m still not used to the habit you have of speaking in non-referential absolutes. You said, “Incredibly flawed.” That implies some kind of standard by which you are judging. Unless you want me to think you’re judging everything against some never-existent hyper-ideal, isn’t it reasonable for me to assume you are comparing our system to some less flawed one?
If all systems are equally flawed, then the observation is literally meaningless without some other standard, which you should mention if you have that in mind.
I know of no Democratic system other than ours that isn’t essentially a parliamentary system in some version or other.
So tell me the system against which you are assessing ours in judging it “flawed”.
December 4th, 2008 7:29 am
Any nation that uses instant runoff voting would be a start. I would also say that New York’s fusion system is better than what most states use.
Any voting system where you have extremely limited options (i.e. the US Presidential race) is a flawed system.
December 4th, 2008 9:23 am
Trivial differences.
I’m sure that James Madison is rolling over in his grave in discomfort at your criticism.
December 4th, 2008 9:50 am
IRV is not a trivial difference at all.
December 4th, 2008 9:51 am
Yes… because his Democracy was so great that the vast majority of the country wasn’t even allowed to vote. Yup – lets go back to that.
December 4th, 2008 10:01 am
Dave, do you know the meaning of the word “anachronism”? Just curious.
December 4th, 2008 10:10 am
Yes.