Policy divisions with the President

I was asked why I don't care for our current President. Since he's an authoritarian progressive statist ended up being an unacceptable answer, I'll give a serious one...well, the other one was serious, just not specific enough it seems. So, let's look at the positions of the President and see what's not to like, at least in the eyes of this classical liberal.

Foreign Policy

Let's start with foreign policy. Truth be told, I'm not a fan of much of the current U.S. foreign policy. Not under Obama, not under Bush, not under Clinton, etc. all the way back to Ford. I can give Reagan credit where it is due because even though I think he spent way too much money and meddled unnecessarily in some parts of the world, he did create the conditions that brought about the end of the Soviet Union during his tenure. Other than that? Let's see. I question why we continue to have troops in South Korea when the South Korean people don't really want us there. I also wonder why, over 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, we still have so many troops and bases stationed in Europe, strategically placed to "protect" the Europeans from Russia. I'm not saying Russia isn't a threat mind you, just that it doesn't seem like we should be footing the bill for the protection of Europe. Shouldn't the Europeans be doing that? At any rate, I digress.

Let's talk about the foreign policy positions of this administration. They've ended the war in Iraq. Yay! I approve of this action. I was always an opponent of the war and supported ending it in a way that stabilized the country. However, the President is trying to claim credit for this one. Now I will grant that the end of the war happened under his watch...therefore, he gets some of the credit. However, he simply followed the timeline and plan that was already in place which means he really didn't deviate much from the Bush plan. So sure, he deserves some credit and I'm glad the war is over. Then there's Afghanistan. I was always for this war, so to speak. At least, I was for it as much as someone who despises war can be for one. However, I don't think wars should be fought unless one plans to win it. Winning a war requires getting your hands dirty (see WWII). It isn't pretty, it isn't neat and innocents are always lost in the process. This is the primary reason to oppose a war after all. However, Bush went in with a surgical force and then turned it over to NATO. Obama, to his credit has somewhat stabilized things there with his surge. However, I didn't want a surge at this point. I either want us to leave or to fight it to win. Fighting to win does NOT mean negotiating with the Taliban. It does NOT mean worrying about which border the action took place over. It does NOT mean compromising our principles in order to achieve some stability. To fight to win, you basically decide who the enemy is and then bomb them and shoot at them relentlessly until they beg you to stop. That's how you win a war. Nonetheless, we have our surge and we have our relative stability, but in the process, we've alienated Pakistan. Considering they are a nuclear power, was that very wise?

Okay, enough with the wars, let's talk about something good. The President has certainly done well in using Seal Team 6. The elimination of Bin Laden and the saving of hostages were both very well executed. In fact, I wonder if Bin Laden was executed, but that's a different story. I support his strategic and tactical use of this particular branch of the military. Way to go Mr. President!

Now, other foreign policy issues. Well, there were the blunders at the beginning of his Presidency in disrespecting Great Britain. Those can easily be chalked up to inexperience and forgiven. He has gotten much better in this area. Then there is Israel and the Middle East. I don't envy any President dealing with the mess in and around Israel so support Israel, don't support Israel...it is pretty much a no win situation. However, I am one of those people who was very put off by the early days of the President's term when he went around to various Muslim countries apologizing for the United States. I don't believe this gained us respect but rather showed weakness. That's an arguable position either way, so I don't begrudge him his opinion on this, I just don't agree with it.

Then there is Libya. While I disagreed with Mr. Bush's wars, I do have to admit that he at least got Congressional approval to carry them out. I don't recall any Congressional approval for the use of force in Libya. While we may not have had troops on the ground, our planes were certainly bombing targets there. I know, I know. Clinton bombed targets. Reagan bombed targets. I KNOW! My first response is that just because a previous President did it means the current one can is NOT an argument I buy. In fact, I emphatically challenge that assertion. Secondly, Presidents seem to have gotten into their heads that as long as we don't put troops on the ground, then we aren't actually committing our troops and therefore don't need Congressional authorization. Third, we have the War Powers Act which gives the President a certain amount of time to commit troops while seeking Congressional approval. In the case of Libya, the President did NOT seek approval within the time allotted. Therefore, I have to argue that our participation in Libya was an illegal act. That the world is safer without Ghadafi in it is irrelevant. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein too, but I didn't support that war either. Don't get me wrong though. With only a few exceptions, our troops have performed admirably and deserve a lot of credit for carrying out their missions. I support them wholeheartedly. They go and do the job they are sent to do. Whether or not I agree with the mission is not important to how they do their job. I say this just to be clear.

Finally, a few little things and one really big not so little one. First the really little and insignificant one. I didn't think he should have accepted the Nobel prize. I didn't think it was appropriate for a sitting President to accept such an honor. Several Presidents had been honored in this way in the past, but I don't believe any of them were serving at the time. Nonetheless, this is a minor point that has little to do with policy and everything to do with my opinion of what one should or shouldn't do as President. However, I can't imagine what the prize committee was thinking. After all, he received a peace prize while our country was still involved in two separate wars. At any rate...moving on. President Obama promised on the campaign trail that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Not the base, but the prison. I support this position. However, we are now in year 3 of his term. Guantanamo is still open. He campaigned that he would end warrantless wiretapping and waterboarding. He hasn't. Okay, so he's tough on terror. Good for him. That's a position he has to take it seems. However, here's the really big one for me. He had an American citizen who was known to consort with terrorists killed. But he was a terrorist and he was overseas you say? All right. At what point did the Constitution cease to apply. When he left our national borders or when he consorted with known bad guys. After all, we have no evidence that he actually committed a crime against the United States. He was killed because of his potential threat. No trial or due process was afforded him. If we had evidence that he'd done wrong against this country, he could have been tried in abstentia, even if in one of the military kangaroo courts they set up for terrorists. But no. We just killed him. This gives me great pause as an American citizen who occasionally travels overseas. It seems the President now thinks that I can be killed simply because I kept the wrong company.

Domestic Policy

Domestic policy is an even stickier issue. This is largely due to the fact that I don't like either side on this. When it comes to individual rights, unalienable rights, personal rights, civil rights, human rights, constitutional rights, negative rights, whatever you want to call them, both parties generally get it wrong. Also, when it comes to economic policy, both parties generally get it wrong. It seems that they get it wrong in different ways with different motives and different negative outcomes, but two wrongs never have made a right. Nevertheless, what specifically about this President do I disagree with?

I'll start with the bailouts. Everyone says, "but the bailouts were done under Bush" and I say you are so right. However, Obama was a Senator at the time. How did he vote on the bailouts. You guessed it. He supported them. In fact, most politicians from both parties supported them. Therefore, I don't give him a pass on that one. Then we had the stimulus. Why would we have stimulus. After all, the only people who think that government spending stimulates jack is the military and Keynesian economists. Keynesian economics preaches that with the right amount of government intervention and the right amount of government control, the economy can be controlled and result in full employment and price stability. This is a widely accepted economic theory and the President has made it clear through his statements that he subscribes to it. The reason people confuse him for a full blown socialist is because he is a Keynesian. So are most socialist, but don't expect the average person to be able to tell the difference. Nonetheless, Keynesian economics has never worked anywhere in the world. Where it is applied in gusto, it doesn't result in price stabilization or anything resembling full employment. In fact, most of the socialist states of Europe have used this theory in justifying their public policy. It seems Keynesianism is Europe has now resulted in economic collapse, inflation, deficit spending, high unemployment over an extended period of years (predating the current economic crisis), and shortages (which is actually a common effect of price fixing), but it has certainly not resulted in prosperity, price stability, or near full employment and yet it is the free market and Wall Street that are the problem? The President has pursued his Keynesian agenda with gusto. Through the bailouts, the stimulus packages, etc. He's even "monetized" the debt. For the non economists out there, that just means he's authorized the federal reserve bank to print so much money that we can use it to pay our debts. If you or I did this, we'd be arrested. Fortunately, the government actually has the authority to print money, but we've never done it at this rate before.

His promise during the campaign to have an open and transparent administration was a welcome change from the Bush years of executive privilege. However, other than letting everyone know who comes and goes from the White House, nothing has really changed.

Now for one of my biggest issues with the President. His supposed czars. These are all advisers to the President who have not been confirmed by Congress. Obama isn't the first President to have one, but he is certainly the most prolific. In fact, there is some controversy over what constitutes a "czar" position. Nonetheless, depending on who is doing the counting, Obama pretty much ends up with nearly 40 political advisers that aren't confirmed by the Senate. That's a LOT! If you read this blog at all, then you know I am sort of a stickler for the Constitution and therefore I generally have a problem with any Presidential appointee that isn't confirmed...call me crazy. This was always a small problem under previous Presidents, Bush compounded it and Obama exploded it.

I could mention that I'm opposed to abortion on demand, that I believe welfare should be left up to the states, that I don't think federal funds should be used to pay for abortions, that I believe Social Security is a federally mandated ponzi scheme that should be phased out and replaced with something that makes sense, works and doesn't allow the federal government to "raid" the trust fund (which doesn't actually exist by the way). However, these are all positions that can be argued one way or another where common ground and compromise might help resolve issues.

Not that this President is particularly interested in compromise or resolutions. But how can you say that you ask? Easy. Let's start with how the Health Care bill he's so proud of was drafted. In secret meetings with only members of his own party present. Yeah, that creates bipartisanship and cooperation. Or, how about how that same piece of legislation was forced through the Congress. After campaigning that every piece of legislation would be available on his website to be read before a vote was taken, they passed this one without anyone reading, including the Congress. They did it using a parliamentary procedure that had never before been used in this way. They simply shoved it down the throats of the American people, whether we wanted it or not. This is to be expected when one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency (never a good idea it seems). However, this issue became one of the centerpiece issues of the 2010 elections and Democrats who had supported the maneuvering and the bill in general were swept out of office in almost every swing race. This took the House of Representatives away from the Democrats and created a mixed Congress (this is usually a good thing).

However, President Obama is bound and determined to get his policies in place regardless of what Congress does or says. Last time I checked, the legislature made the laws, the executive enforced the laws and the judicial interpreted the laws. However, I know I'm a bit naive since apparently the judicial and the executive can also make laws. Between activist judges on both sides of the aisle, Bush's signing statements (which obama campaigned against and now uses himself when convenient) and all the executive orders that have no basis in legislative history, I'm kind of tired of all the law making taking place in someplace other than the Congress. Now, this should concern you whether you agree with certain policies or not. After all, if the President can ignore legislation or simply create legislation out of thin air and do whatever he wants to do, then what is the role of Congress. Sure, there are many regulations and executive orders that are legitimately allowed because Congress passed some legislation that required them, but Obama has taken this concept well beyond that.

I'll give several examples. Net neutrality legislation was rejected by the Congress, yet the executive branch threatened the industry with turning the internet into a utility if they didn't accept regulations. These regulations had no basis in law because Congress had already rejected it, but the industry was more afraid of being turned into a utility so much of it capitulated. A couple of companies are still fighting it in court. Also, cap and trade legislation was soundly rejected by the Congress, yet the administration has proceeded to create regulations that would institute large swaths of the cap and trade agenda simply by designating carbon dioxide a pollutant which allows them to use the clean air act to regulate it. Last time I checked, Congress needed to change the law to designate something a pollutant. Congress clearly and resoundingly said no. Therefore, the President did it anyway. What?!

Finally, other egregious things that have happened include the recent passage of the NDAA. Obama stated he disagreed with the language of that bill given untold expansion of power to the executive and he even threatened a veto. Yet, when it came down to it, the President signed the bill, expanding his own power and that of all future Presidents while seriously comprising the Constitution since the bill basically allows the indefinite imprisonment of people (and yes, U.S. citizens) inside the United States. I suppose I can't blame him too much here. After all, what President wouldn't choose to expand their own power. I don't seem to recall one at the moment but feel free to point one out.

In essence, the President has pretty much acted to expand the power of the federal government, to expand the power of the executive and to ignore the will of Congress and therefore by extension, the will of the people. Do I think things would be different if we had a different President? Not so much. After all, I've said the two parties are two sides of the same bad coin. The only real difference we'd have, in my opinion, is that you'd have someone who was interested in destroying the Constitution more slowly than our current President is.