[News] Where is President Obama on the political spectrum?

[Tress]

So this little gem was on the AP newswire:
GOP blasts Obama as left of Bill Clinton

A couple things really struck me as odd. First, hearing Newt Gingrich (!!) talk about Clinton as a centrist was amazing. This is the same man who used to rail against Clinton for being so liberal. Second, hearing the GOP continue to paint President Obama as a loony leftist who makes Mao look conservative is weird to me. My perception is that Obama is a centrist more often than not. I have a conservative friend who talks about how liberal he is, but I have liberal friends who complain about how conservative he is.

So my two-part question to you all is this:
1) Where would you put President Obama on the political spectrum?
and
2) Is your decision based on what he's done (or hasn't done) in his first term, or what you perceive to be his philosophy/beliefs/intentions/plans?

 

[GasBandit]

Actually, after the election Clinton did move to the center, but he campaigned hard left. Obama's been the opposite - he campaigned on moderation and bipartisan harmony, then made a sharp left turn after being elected.

 

[Tress]

Actually, after the election Clinton did move to the center, but he campaigned hard left. Obama's been the opposite - he campaigned on moderation and bipartisan harmony, then made a sharp left turn after being elected.

Would you say his approach to healthcare reform is the main reason you see him as hard left?

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

then made a sharp left turn after being elected.

I wish this wasn't a bold-faced lie

 

[GasBandit]

I wish this wasn't a bold-faced lie

I wish you were a pizza and six pack, then it might actually not be unpleasant to be around you if only for a half hour.

Would you say his approach to healthcare reform is the main reason you see him as hard left?

No, that's just a symptom of an overarching life philosophy - he believes that government involvement and centralized planning is the answer to every problem. He wants socialized medicine (Obamacare isn't socialized medicine exactly, but it's still designed to get us there eventually), he wants to enforce "fairness" by taxing more and spending more (all at the federal level of course). He's a dyed-in-the-wool Keynesian. He disdains the free enterprise system and corporate business in general. He opposes every measure that would increase the US's self sufficiency in energy. He thinks it's government's place to make sure you get fed, and clothed, and own a house through subsidies, entitlement programs and government backed loans of dubious solvency. There is, frankly, no area of the human experience where he says "that's not government's responsibility. That's YOUR responsibility as a functioning adult."

 

[MindDetective]

I wish you were a pizza and six pack, then it might actually not be unpleasant to be around you if only for a half hour.

No, that's just a symptom of an overarching life philosophy - he believes that government involvement and centralized planning is the answer to every problem. He wants socialized medicine (Obamacare isn't socialized medicine exactly, but it's still designed to get us there eventually), he wants to enforce "fairness" by taxing more and spending more (all at the federal level of course). He's a dyed-in-the-wool Keynesian. He disdains the free enterprise system and corporate business in general. He opposes every measure that would increase the US's self sufficiency in energy. He thinks it's government's place to make sure you get fed, and clothed, and own a house through subsidies, entitlement programs and government backed loans of dubious solvency. There is, frankly, no area of the human experience where he says "that's not government's responsibility. That's YOUR responsibility as a functioning adult."

I think there are plenty of counter-examples to those points. It is very easy to cherry-pick the things that aggravate you and ignore the things that refute your beliefs. Since we're not citing all of our claims, I'm just going assert that you (quite typically, actually) are prone to confirmation bias on this issue.

Note: I am not a rabid Obama fan. I would say I disagree with him frequently and that he epitomizes the cult of personality that we've fostered in our political system. I think on some things Obama is pretty big government but I characterize him as pretty moderate.

 

[GasBandit]

I think there are plenty of counter-examples to those points. It is very easy to cherry-pick the things that aggravate you and ignore the things that refute your beliefs. Since we're not citing all of our claims, I'm just going assert that you (quite typically, actually) are prone to confirmation bias on this issue.

Note: I am not a rabid Obama fan. I would say I disagree with him frequently and that he epitomizes the cult of personality that we've fostered in our political system. I think on some things Obama is pretty big government but I characterize him as pretty moderate.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and there has been the occasional thing Obama has done "right," but these have been not been because of his SOP.

I know there are a lot of people who are disappointed that he's not even MORE of a socialist - that he hasn't enacted single payer, for example - and are also disappointed in practices like kill lists, not closing gitmo and starting more armed conflicts than GW did. But his overall effort has been to push the US to the left. Heck, he even just torpedoed the clinton era welfare reforms that said you have to work to get welfare.

 

[MindDetective]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and there has been the occasional thing Obama has done "right," but these have been not been because of his SOP.

I know there are a lot of people who are disappointed that he's not even MORE of a socialist - that he hasn't enacted single payer, for example - and are also disappointed in practices like kill lists, not closing gitmo and starting more armed conflicts than GW did. But his overall effort has been to push the US to the left. Heck, he even just torpedoed the clinton era welfare reforms that said you have to work to get welfare.

You see, citing an example to demonstrate your point is exactly how confirmation bias works. The only way to break it is to look for disconfirming evidence and people don't generally like to do that.

 

[GasBandit]

You see, citing an example to demonstrate your point is exactly how confirmation bias works. The only way to break it is to look for disconfirming evidence and people don't generally like to do that.

Good to know that when I go ask my boss for a raise and he says no, and here's why, I can just call him on his confirmation bias.

 

[MindDetective]

Good to know that when I go ask my boss for a raise and he says no, and here's why, I can just call him on his confirmation bias.

I'm sure confirmation bias has held people back in that way. But how would you counter it in that situation? By presenting evidence that disconfirms his assertions.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm sure confirmation bias has held people back in that way. But how would you counter it in that situation? By presenting evidence that disconfirms his assertions.

When what you're trying to do is describe a tendency, or a trend, providing a few specific counterexamples doesn't disprove a trend, it just adds noise to the graph. His spoken words testify to his leanings, especially when he gets away from his notes/prompters. He wants to "spread the wealth around." He gives no credit for people who succeed in enterprise, shouting populist platitudes like "you didn't build that! Roads led up to it! You think you're clever but there's a lot of clever people!" He characterizes anyone who succeeds in capitalism as having stood on the shoulders of the poor, if not having stolen from them outright ("romney hood").

The term "socialist" doesn't fit exactly, though some of his actions have pushed the nation toward socialism. Rather, collectivist, or centralist (not to be confused with centrist) might be a better fit.

As for my boss, unless I can provide at least 4 examples to counter each of his one, it makes no difference

 

[MindDetective]

When what you're trying to do is describe a tendency, or a trend, providing a few specific counterexamples doesn't disprove a trend, it just adds noise to the graph.

That's only true if the data you provide represent the norm, but then you have to be able to demonstrate that it is norm, which means presenting more data, including counter-examples! Cherry-picking is like the restricted-range problem in presenting data. If you don't characterize the data completely, you run the risk of mis-representing any trend that exists. For example, Obama may desire to push the nation towards centralism (which I don't support, btw, except in certain circumstances) but it may only be up to a point, meaning his push would wane beyond a certain degree of centralism, i.e. it wouldn't be a linear progression. But a lot of people characterize political trends linearly. They extrapolate very sparse, soft data to represent a hard, static trend.

Finally, we can't ignore anything about how a politician may have a more nuanced view that can include centralism (again, for example) on some issues but not others. See: the GOP's stance on centralism for many conflicting viewpoints on what the government should have its hands in.

 

[Necronic]

. Heck, he even just torpedoed the clinton era welfare reforms that said you have to work to get welfare.

No he didn't. Where in the world do you get your news?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

 

[GasBandit]

No he didn't. Where in the world do you get your news?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

Politifact is as big a party hack as Rush Limbaugh. That entire article basically boils down to "that's not what it says it does!" But it is what it does and misrepresents itself.

 

[MindDetective]

Politifact is as big a party hack as Rush Limbaugh. That entire article basically boils down to "that's not what it says it does!" But it is what it does and misrepresents itself.

Uh, your link basically says, "nuh uh, it totally abolishes it!" In fact, I get the impression that they are reacting to the potential authority they could claim with the move, rather than what they have actually asserted so far.

 

[GasBandit]

Uh, your link basically says, "nuh uh, it totally abolishes it!" In fact, I get the impression that they are reacting to the potential authority they could claim with the move, rather than what they have actually asserted so far.

Federal Agencies, especially under the current administration, have often done distressing things well past what common sense would dictate would be the "spirit of the law" pertaining to their powers. You can't leave the door open for potential abuse by government, they can't resist temptation. I can think of 15.9 trillion examples that testify to that.

 

[Tress]

Politifact is as big a party hack as Rush Limbaugh. That entire article basically boils down to "that's not what it says it does!" But it is what it does and misrepresents itself.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

"No! You don't believe the lizard Illuminati are running everything because you're probably one of them!"

 

[GasBandit]

You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

"No! You don't believe the lizard Illuminati are running everything because you're probably one of them!"

It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see how often those in federal government have used loopholes and technicalities for political purposes, and claiming legislation and politicians lie is not exactly a wild accusation.

 

[MindDetective]

You can't leave the door open for potential abuse by government, they can't resist temptation.

I actually agree, but that wasn't the original claim. And I think that is why it is so hard to have an honest discussion about these kinds of things. The rhetoric trumps the actually issue.

 

[Necronic]

Federal Agencies, especially under the current administration, have often done distressing things well past what common sense would dictate would be the "spirit of the law" pertaining to their powers. You can't leave the door open for potential abuse by government, they can't resist temptation. I can think of 15.9 trillion examples that testify to that.

Which is why this law is cool, because it gives authority to the states to manage this stuff. I have yet to find a single article that shows how this will possibly result in the conclusion that you and Romney have drawn.

My favorite part in this one though is that this is legislation that Romney and almost every other Republican governer actually wanted wayyyyyy back in 6 years ago.[DOUBLEPOST=1344540607][/DOUBLEPOST]And so we're clear, the only part of that article that makes the argument that you could remove the "work" from "work for welfare" is where it says that in the past State Bueracracts have in the past authorized Hula dancing/bed rest/being a lazy bastard as work.

My problem with this argument is that it's effectively a federalist argument coming from a republican. It's saying that the State's can't be trusted to do the right thing, so we better leave it to the Federal govt.

THIS IS WHY I AM NOT VOTING FOR ROMNEY. This is a joke.

 

[Espy]

So wait. Is Obama a half-terrorist Muslim socialist or not?

 

[drifter]

Don't be silly. He's a half-Muslim socialist terrorist.

 

[Tress]

So wait. Is Obama a half-terrorist Muslim socialist or not?

From what I can tell, Obama basically embodies everyone's political fears. Afraid of the socialist, government planning, wealth-redistrubing goblin under your bed? It's Obama. Scared of a militaristic plutocrat armed with hellfire drones who pretends to help minorities but really does nothing? That's the Obama Monster hiding in your closet.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

From what I can tell, Obama basically embodies everyone's political fears. Afraid of the socialist, government planning, wealth-redistrubing goblin under your bed? It's Obama. Scared of a militaristic plutocrat armed with hellfire drones who pretends to help minorities but really does nothing? That's the Obama Monster hiding in your closet.

except one of these is backed up by things he has actually done, and the other is complete bullshit made up by AM radio

 

[Tress]

Both are the result of unrealistic and unfounded expectations. And I'm willing to bet someone on the conservative side of the argument would say something like "except one of these is backed up by things he has actually done, and the other is complete bullshit made up by NPR."

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I'm sure they would, but- AM Radio actually does make up bullshit about Obama on a daily (hourly?) basis

 

[GasBandit]

Only Charlie can protect the beloved president from a media made obsolete by 4 orders of magnitude.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I don't even fucking like Obama. I just hate bold-faced lies more

 

[GasBandit]

I don't even fucking like Obama. I just hate bold-faced lies more

The phrase I think you're attempting is "bald faced". As interesting as it might be to try to imagine typographical font transmission through monoaural audio.

 

[Eriol]

Don't be silly. He's a half-Muslim socialist terrorist.

Remind me, are we in the Judean People's Front, or the People's Front of Judea?

 

[Ravenpoe]

The phrase I think you're attempting is "bald faced". As interesting as it might be to try to imagine typographical font transmission through monoaural audio.

*reads link, realizes that definitions for both versions are given, and they both fit*

 

[sixpackshaker]

Remind me, are we in the Judean People's Front, or the People's Front of Judea?

SPLINTER!!!

 

[Bubble181]

The first problem with this question lies with the fact that the "political spectrum" is completely different depending on where you are and in what context. "Moderate" in Texas isn't the same as "moderate" in California - not to mention in other countries.
The second problem with this question is that it's not a single axis. It's perfectly possible to be ethically left-wing/liberal (in favour of abortions, ok with gay marriage,...) and economically conservative/right-wing/whatever. It's a false dichotomy constantly being presented to the people by media and politicians themselves, because that makes it easy to say "good guys" and "bad guys".

Generally speaking, though, in what he claims he wants to do and what he does, in a European context (which isn't relevant but heyooo), he's somewere centrist-right to right-wing on most issues. In an Alabama local politics context (as inferred by me from all those awesome movies about black liberation and based on never having been there in my life ), he'd be extremely left-wing. *shrug*

 

[GasBandit]

*reads link, realizes that definitions for both versions are given, and they both fit*

But the original was bald. You know, before the hipsters with their font obsessions got ahold of it.

 

[Covar]

The worst are italicized-faced lies.