Voter’s Remorse
I should have known better.
For those of you who have been following me, most of you know that I grudingly voted for Obama last November. It was a ticket-splitting vote: voted for Obama and then voted GOP down the line. I noted that I was going to cast my vote with some trepidation:
While I am supporting Obama, it is with trepidation. I worry that once in office he will veer too far to the Left, pleasing the Democratic base. I can only hope that with so much support from independents and Republicans, that he will realize that he has to govern from the center or face a backlash in 2010.
Well, it seems like my fears have been confirmed. It started with the Stimulus Bill that I thought was too stuffed with pork to do any real good. Now it comes in the form of Obama’s proposed budget.
From far away, it looks good. As David Brooks notes, it spends money in some needed areas like the environment and health care. It’s when you look closer that you see how bad it is and it plays to Obama’s progressive base leaving moderates in the dust. Brooks notes:
There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.
So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.
For true-blue liberals, this is the ultimate wet dream. This what Paul Krugman, the liberal economist for the New York Times said on Friday:
The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.
Like Brooks though, this wasn’t what I signed up for. I had hoped that maybe, just maybe, Obama would govern more center-left. Yes, he would govern with some leftist tendencies, but seeing the amount of moderates, independents and Republicans who voted for him, he would have governed more to the center than to the left.
Yeah, that was a silly hope. As Brooks notes:
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”
Back during the elections, I was somewhat suspicious of Obama’s talk of bipartisanship and new politics. After all, John McCain, the GOP challenger had a real history of reaching out to Democrats and angering fellow Republicans by not being the good conservative soldier. But Obama had no proof of his willingness to compromise other than his words. As McCain tacked rightward during the campaign, it left his message of being able to bridge the partisan divide in tatters and many moderates looked to Obama and gave him the benefit of the doubt despite his voting record. Now, we are seeing that those doubts were real.
Parts of his budget are good and I don’t have much of problem with them. I don’t have a problem with letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy since I never thought that was a good idea. But capping the amount that can be deducted by the upper income as charitable contributions seems somewhat mean.
Also, financing this by only one class is also misguided. My problem with many on the Left is that for all the talk about “being in this together” and of “shared interests” when it comes to paying for government, they seem to think that only the rich should pay. Again, I’m not opposed to having the rich pay more in taxes, but if we want more government services, I think we all have to pitch in some way.
Finally, this loads a lot of deficit on the government. Now, yes, the Republicans went nuts and ran up the deficit. But that doesn’t mean that because the GOP lost its drive to be responsible, that this gives the Democrats a green light to spend, spend, spend. The Obama administration thinks that as the economy recovers, the deficit will become a thing of the past. But if this crisis is so dire, isn’t a little rosy to think that it will end quickly?
What I am learning from this experience is that those of us that call ourselves moderates are not very politically savvy. We are swayed by soothing words. George W. Bush also campaigned as a moderate and talked about being a “uniter, not a divider.” Once in office, he governed from the hard right. Barack Obama talked about being post-partisan. So far, we haven’t seen that.
Just because someone talks about bridging the partisan divide, that doesn’t mean that one will govern as a moderate. Moderates love to listen to words, but the fact is politics is about special interest groups asserting influence. It has been progressive Democrats that have worked hard to get Obama elected. It was the Christian Right that worked to get Bush in the White House. When you have a group doing all it can for a candidate, they expect payback and they get it.
Moderates don’t really like the who party apparatus and all the pleasing of specific interest groups. They don’t get that to exert influence, you have to get involved in the work of democracy to get your candidate elected. If you want a moderate candidate, you have to put some skin in the game. We moderates don’t want to do that.
So, we listen to words. Politicians know this. They need to get some moderate voters to win, so they will say what they need in order to win. Bush did this and I think Obama is doing this as well.
All of this has made me think that it is even more important to stay in the GOP and fight the good moderate fight. But that means getting busy and not simply listen to nice sounding words. I need to work for candidates who will adhere to a more moderate message.
In the end, I need to always listen to my gut. Don’t trust the nice sounding words.
Share This
Related Posts
-
John McCain Defends President’s Speech After Gun Vote
Posted on Apr 19, 2013
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
The Invasion of Our Nation Goes Unpunished (Al-Iraq News, Iraq)
Posted on Apr 15, 2013
-
The Medal of Honor for a Soldier Who ‘Didn’t Fire a Gun…’ – Part II
Posted on Apr 13, 2013
I'm reminded of Obama's inauguration speech, when he mentioned a collective failure to make hard choices. He's absolutely right; we'll see whether that'll change over the next few years. I think the post-recession plans will be a bit more indicative of how he's planning to govern. As has been pointed out here recently, McCain's budget probably wouldn't have been much less in the red.
Frankly, I blame the people, who won't tolerate tax hikes or spending cuts. The history of governments failing to make hard choices is a reflection of the people failing to do so.
Yes, don't forget Obama was the lesser of evils in the election choices. McCain and “four more years” (2004's election chant for Dubya) would've been an unsalvageable disaster for our country. At least Obama cares about this country and wants to save it. He may make many mistakes trying to save it but at least he isn't hoping it will fail.
I too do not think Ill of Obama. At least not yet. I had wished him success until I saw this Stimulus bill and then on top of that the Budget he proposed to congress.
I had hoped as I pulled the handle for John McCain knowing it was a losing vote that Obama would prove me a lair. He still might. There is still hope.
But as Ive reflected on the last 8 months of campaigning and electioneering there was no peep from Moveon.org………….nary a peep from Michael Moore despite Obama's insistence that he was going to govern as a Moderate. This alone for me had solidified the belief that this was Akin to the Democrats silencing of Jesse Jackson to win the White House in 1992.
I knew what Obama was. I had no disillusions. I had hoped that I would be proven wrong. Perhaps Obama might prove me wrong even yet, but Im not sure. I think he owes too many debts that he has to pay and when the chips are down………..Presidents govern to their base and the far left is indeed his base.
OMG – I just read the best one-liner. “Obama lied; the economy died”
HA HA HA HA!
(sorry to repeat myself, but I LOVE THIS!)
Always go with a proven commodity over a good speechmaker. A political record speaks more accurately than anything coming from a candidates mouth.
Know the feeling, as I had high hopes for Geroge W. Bush, too…
I have an inkling of how you feel.
I supported the invasion of Iraq. But by the fall of 2003, when it became obvious there were no WMD's, the remorse set in for me.
All I can say is that Obama's policies haven't even had the opportunity to fail.
The thing is, did Obama suddenly announce the ideas of carbon caps, or passing the S-Chip on the shoulders of smokers?
No , he's doing exactly what he said he would. I don't particularly like either of these two objectives, but I voted for him anyway.
I just don't see the agenda shift everybody is speaking to. Let me know what's different now from what he said on the campaign trail. I'm not saying are hasn't been a change, I just want to know specifically what items.
Thanks
Yes, specifics are nice to hear when one is also hearing broad-sweeping generalized criticism of something…lol..
Well fear not the country has just headed down the path of European socialism.
Theres no point in arguing. The GOP cannot filibuster this budget and they can pass it with 51 votes from the senate.
Interesting George. I would have taken you for an antiwar type from the get go.
However that is and always has been my point to taking rash action on anything. I was opposed to the Iraq war and did not support even the Afghanistan war because I felt we were not thinking it through carefully enough and the debate we were having was the same we are having now about the budget.
The Budget is a done deal. Just as the invasion of Iraq was a done deal. The only thing left is the screaming and the hollaring by both sides.
Grenschemes–
I understand your point about taking rash action. But I'm just not sure how rash an action the budget is.
Time will tell.
As for my initial support of the war, I read a book by a fool named Kenneth Pollack (I'm too embarrassed to Google the title) that made a case for it. And I believed the case he made was built on fact. I notice that Pollack is still considered credible enough to write occasional articles in places like the Washington Post. I guess that's because pundits, unlike Presidents, don't get discredited just because they're completely wrong.
As for Obama, he's a Democrat. The congressional majorities are Democrats. It's not a surprise that they plan to govern like Democrats. I favor that–but I'm aware that they could make mistakes. Big ones. It seems to me that the problem with President Bush was his unwillingness to admit mistakes, let alone to learn from them.
I realize you're not a huge fan of George W. Bush. Or of the Congressional Republicans. But I think the whole budgeting process–the whole political process–would work better if the Republicans would offer serious alternatives. They should be suggesting specific spending cuts. Maybe they should even be suggesting tax increases to pay for the spending they instituted when they ran the government.
Instead, they're offering nothing. When there was a Republican President, they voted yes on everything. Now that there's a Democratic President, they're voting no on everything. It's two sides of the same coin: failing to live up to their responsibilities.
I guess the Limboid base likes it. But if I were a moderate Republican, I'd be feeling buyers' remorse on those down-ticket Republicans who aren't upholding my viewpoint in the legislative process.
I agree with Silhouette, Obama was never viewed as the second coming for most moderate liberals, but the lesser of evils when compared to McCain. If he leaves office with the econony in better shape than he found it in, and without having started any major wars that kill thousand of Americans and tens of thousands of others, then he will be a raging success compared to the conservative “champion” he replaces. Like others I feel anxiety about all the spending, but I also realize that times of crisis require serious solutions and sacrifice may be a part of it. So far the sacrifices are still small compared to the sacrifices Americans have had to make in the past at various points in history.
“Yes, don't forget Obama was the lesser of evils in the election choices. McCain and “four more years” (2004's election chant for Dubya) would've been an unsalvageable disaster for our country.”
I don't find this argument compelling. As the author stated, McCain was actually the candidate that had the history of being a moderate – he just wasn't able to defeat the eloquence of President Obama. The “Four more years” tagline was nothing more than that – a tagline.
Oh you poor little dear! You can't even stand 6 weeks of a new administration before running off pouting about how you were taken. Well, I have a couple reactions.
First, all of the things he campaigned on were going to cost money. If you think it was going to happen without any spending, I'm not sure what you were expecting. Also, spending on energy, education, and healthcare are the sort of investments we have to spend on, because they (hopefully) will reduce our costs down the road. I think the deficits do look scary. But I believe that these deficits simply reveal one thing: how big the problem is. It's time we faced up to the costs of solving our problems. It's a pity Obama has to be the one to deliver the message, but I expect the American public to have a little bit more spine than your post suggests. I do hope that Obama gets a chance to explain his budget in a national address, cuz the numbers are gigantic.
Secondly, you should keep in mind that his budget proposal is a starting point. Personally, I expect he's thrown everything in so that as it gets whittled down, he ends up where he wanted it in the first place.
So take cheer and try to have a bit more courage.
After 8 years of being dragged to the extremes of the far right's furthest limits of unadulterated madness…one step back toward the center and the righties act as if its Armageddon. One step to left of center, and we now see plenty of moderates becoming infected with the right's private label of fear flavored kool-aid. Get a hold of yourselves already and realize you're experiencing a nauseating, head filling cocktail of leftover right leaning toxicity blended with the new White House administration's political philosophy.
Your culture shock will fade soon enough. Even sooner if you realize the US federal government is poised.to invest serious bucks into a national upgrade of our society. Not some flea bite on the other side of the planet, not some patch work quasi-banana republic on some Senator's wish list…but here…at home…on US!
Now please, it's one thing to hold the ropes trying to keep the ship sailing without you…quite another to torpedo it before it even leaves dry dock. Lose the fear folks…lose the fear.
Dennis represents a center right voter who got 'okey doked' by the campaign claims that Obama was going to be postpartisan and pragmatic rather than an ideological liberal. He rightly resents that.
Welcome back to the dark side, Dennis. I'm glad that at least some of the duped centrists will hold the administration accountable.
There are no words adequate to describe how silly it sounds for people to have already come to these kinds of conclusions after Obama has only been in office for weeks. It sounds like Dennis just has gone back into buying into the decidedly non-moderate ideology of the Republicans when it comes to government. After all, he bought into this
Dennis, after what your party has managed to do to the middle class just how much do you think they have left to give? Have you forgotten or never accepted how much of our nation's wealth has flowed upwards?
Name one thing that Obama has supported in his stimulus or his budget that he did not support in his campaign.
When you have two choices, you have to swallow a lot of things you don't like. But you're accusing Obama of a bait-and-switch and that's not at all what he's done.
What Obama has done is sell liberalism as common sense – the same way Reagan sold conservatism. Why did he sound so “eloquent” and “centrist” on the campaign trail? Because, unlike other liberals before him, Obama knew how to frame liberalism as the perfect medicine for the moment.
Oh, and the utter collapse of Reaganite de-regulation on the financial markets helped to make Obama's liberalism-as-common-sense line much easier to sell.
Well said i420! Geeze, why would anyone think this would be easy in the wake of Bush II? Let's all get real, and for heavens sake, don't be afraid to grow a little more backbone!!!
Obama is merely keeping his campaign promises. Don't you remember? Repeal tax cuts for the rich, assure affordable health care for all, etc? I think moderates' problem is that they told themselves, “He won't really keep those promises,” because it has been such a long time since any President enacted truly progressive policies. Then when Obama actually kept his promises, moderates freaked out. I guess you'd have preferred that Obama be just another dishonest politician, huh?
Some of what Dennis' critics here are saying is true. I clearly heard Obama state these policies during the campaign, and that's why I would never have been persuaded to vote for him.
However, there were other things that he said which obscured some of the policy stuff, which I'm sure was attractive to center right voters who were fed up with the status quo. For instance, he campaigned on reform (yet many of his appointees have had lobbyist ties and ethical problems.) He campaigned on transparency (well, it's early yet to pass any judgment on that but he did break the promise about posting bills online for 48 hours, on a very big and very important piece of legislation.) He campaigned on being postpartisan and pragmatic, and I don't think it's a stretch then for moderate right wingers to think he might have modifed some of his spending plans based on the current crisis yet he holds firm to pushing a highly ideological agenda even with big deficits.
And I don't know how much he actually said this, but I think there was a presumption that he'd be more accessible to the media than Bush (yet already journalists are complaining he's even less so- and he's completely pissed off Fleet St.) Also, a presumption that he'd reverse some of the Executive power grab yet he's being criticized even from within his own party (by Sen Byrd) for creating zillions of czars who will be unaccountable to Congress, and he's attempted to place the oversight of the census within the White House instead of Cabinet.
In short, yes, Dennis might have overlooked some of the policy statements that Obama made during the campaign, but I presume he saw much that he liked in these other 'style of governance' areas and yet Obama hasn't delivered much at all on those things to make the bitter pill of big government easier to swallow.
And, on the issue of passing judgement so quickly- we're witnessing an unprecedented 'running start' with this presidency, so there should be no honeymoon period of waiting and seeing when there's so much major policy being pushed through so quickly.
I read this post and think, what a chore it must be to be a “moderate.” Anyone with an eight grade education could see Obama for what he was. Too many “moderates” were hoodwinked by the MSM. Anyone who couldn't see the blind adoration of the MSM for “the One” for what it was should have turned in their voter registration card.
Obama didn't change, twenty minutes on the internet could have shown you who he really is. The uninformed “moderates” who voted for him are partially repsonsible for the crap we have in Washington now. You gave him and the demo party the green light to destroy our ecomony and alienate our best allies. Thanks, losers. Maybe you'll vote the right way in the next election, if we have one . . .
By the way, Bush did work very well with the demos in Congress in his first term. Into the beginning of his second term approached they turned on him to pave the way for a demo presidential bid.
Wow. You claim to be a moderate yet you looked at the two candidates and chose NOT to vote for the guy who riled up his party with his moderate tendencies to vote AFFIRMATIVELY for a guy whose entire background was of a hardcore leftist. And now you say you have voter's remorse?
I don't know what otherwise reasonable people saw in this guy. The only thing I can thing of is that they were in some sort of hypnotic trance.
This is a cautionary tale. PAY ATTENTION during the election cycle. LOOK at what the candidates have actually DONE in their careers. LISTEN closely to what they are saying and ASK YOURSELF does this make sense or are are they just trying to GET OVER ON ME?
McCain completely abandoned any claims to moderation from the moment he started his candidacy. His promises were to his constituency were all about how far to the right he would go. In addition he was never, ever a moderate. That's a myth. And above all else, we must remember one of the major reasons that John McCain did not deserve the vote of any rational citizen. Three words. Vice President Palin.
Jim,
What was it about Palin you didn't like? If it was the MSM over-hyped coverage of her as an ultra-conservative and dumb hick, did you bother to check those claims out? She was given the dirty end of the stick from day one. It only highlighted for me how great a threat the Dems saw in her. I think if you'd look at her record in Alaska, you might find that she is neither dumb nor an ultra-conservative.
I believe McCain is and was well-known for his ability of gain agreements across the aisle. I think that speaks volumes of his moderate standing. I didn't particularly like him, I thought he was somewhat wishy-washy. But, compared to Obama and Biden – it was a no-brainer. Particularly, in these precarious times with our real enemies so blatantly chomping at the bit for Obama to win it.
reading through the usual delusions posted above is amusing, in a predictable sort of fashion.
what's even funnier, albeit in a much darker fashion is that any of you believed for even a second that Ear Leader wasn't going to do exactly what he's doing now: killing the market, taxing us into servitude, crushing free enterprise and selling our allies down the river.. he's already well on his way to being the worst President ever, easily eclipsing Carter from his previously undisputed throne.
it's all right there in the acronym: One Big Ass Mistake America
Yes, mintexas, I did research her. Probably more thoroughly than you did. You, after all, have an inherent desire to think well of her. Dumb? No. Bright enough for the job, especially given the age of McCain? Also no. She is ignorant. Yet she thought she was ready for a job well above her qualifications. All you have to understand about why I will not be voting for Republicans or considering them worthy of office any time in the near future is to read the comment of redc1c4 and understand that he represents the current mainstream of the Republican party.
“It only highlighted for me how great a threat the Dems saw in her. ~ mintexas”
Yes, a great threat! So great in fact they would be falling over themselves if she were to be on the ticket in 2012, falling over themselves in joy I believe.
And that current mainstream is growing and growing and you know it. Sorry you won't be voting our way, but I don't think we're gonna need ya – bye bye and good riddance Jim.
Satterfield – Palin is ignorant? Hmmm – and Obama had made how many executive decisions prior to taking the office of the president, and had made a comment about decisions being made above his pay grade (his words not mine)? Your latter comment describes your ignorance to looking at opinions from all sides – you have totally written off Republicans…that's okay – you impeached your credibility as an open-minded and intelligent person. In other words, you're defined as a Liberal.