Obama as Nixon

Can't find the old Obama thread, so I'm taking the liberty of giving this article its own thing. Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's old economic advisor, makes a very good argument that Obama's closest cognate is not Bush, Clinton or Carter, but rather Richard M. Nixon.

Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?

Obama took office under roughly the same political and economic circumstances that Nixon did in 1968 except in a mirror opposite way. Instead of being forced to manage a slew of new liberal spending programs, as Nixon did, Obama had to cope with a revenue structure that had been decimated by Republicans.

Liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately liberal.

Here are a few examples of Obama's effective conservatism:

• His stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought necessary;
• He continued Bush’s war and national security policies without change and even retained Bush’s defense secretary;
• He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals;
• He caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever;
• And in the past few weeks he has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans.

Further evidence can be found in the writings of outspoken liberals such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has condemned Obama’s conservatism ever since he took office

Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it’s now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, it’s increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.

I have said for the years I have been on this forum that Obama is no way a "socialist" or even that much a "left-winger" and would be viewed more right-wing than our Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, or even Marget Thatcher.

Also the problem with the Health Plan is that is was very conservative based, and it was made even worse to please republicans so it was able to be passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.

---

Is it a fact, or the result of political realities; and is the author making a distinction between the two?

For example, had congress presented Obama with a single-payer plan, would he have signed it? If there was broad support for the Stimulus instead of heated, vitriolic debate, would he have gone bigger? It's easy to set a target (4T IIRC), but will he sign off on a deal that seriously alters Medicare? We'll see on that last one.

I'll definitely be reading the full article tonight, but it seems to me it is making a familiar point - that all presidents are forced towards the political center, and the realities they are faced with trump ideology. I doubt that, at his heart, President Obama is anything close to a small government conservative just as Richard Nixon probably wasn't much of a liberal. Again, I'm not sure if the article is even trying to argue that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Also the problem with the Health Plan is that is was very conservative based, and it was made even worse to please republicans so it was able to be passed.

---

The healthcare bill was passed with no republican votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The healthcare bill was passed with no republican votes.

---

I am going off what I heard from sources not involved in the process (ie: International media into the affair, like BBC.). As the bill kept dragging on, they kept watering it down and making it significantly crapper as time passed in attempts to please republicans and republican opinion, and in the process, making others hate it (liberals/democrats).

I think it was the gray-dogs or whatever they were called were the main reasons, the republican-minded democrats.

If you remember, the original proposal was a national insurance scheme ran by the government which competed at a lower rate than the market, in order to correct the extortion by health insurance companies. Instead, it turned into "Buy insurance or else" from private only companies, who milked this by raising rates, upsetting people who now pay more (like Crazed Rabbit) who even said himself, he would have preferred the original proposal than what came out at the end.


On a different point...

Quote:

---

that all presidents are forced towards the political center, and the realities they are faced with trump ideology

---

I disagree, since it is not "reality" as defined as "it is not feasible or workable", it is "reality" as defined as "There is too much resistance/pressure from those with ideologies which oppose the plan". The original proposal is obviously the better one for many reasons objectively and would have been even cheaper and friendlier to the American people, but it was the opposition which threatened to stop it getting passed resulted in a even crappier "compromise" where no one at all is happy with.

I think there is also a social-cultural difference in America too, compared to lets say Europe:

In Europe, we look at the worst-off in our society and we attempt to resolve their plights, then go around boasting of all these people have this good standard of healthcare compared to America, where the worst-off really do suffer when it comes to healthcare.

In America, they point towards Beverly Hills private-hospital which is closer to a 6-star hotel, and boast of how awesome it is compared to the "crappy European hospitals" and that America has the best healthcare in the world, because this one-off luxurious examples where clients pay millions for treatments are over there in America.

[I think it was you who once posted in reply to a thread about this going "If Canadian healthcare is so good, why do millionaires from Canada come to America for treatment?"]

Sort of "bottom-up" and "top-bottom" perspectives.