To answer your question, "What has he done that makes him far left": Nothing really.
He was considered one of the most liberal members of the Senate by tallies that consider things like raising minimum wage or supporting stem-cell research or opposing pollution "liberal." In that respect, it's more the nonsense categorization of issues into left/right across party lines that made him so "liberal."
His policies since he took office are decidedly less "liberal" than even his Senate record.
He just signed the largest defense budget in world history (and adjusting for inflation, the biggest ever save WWII), over $680 billion including at least $130 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the loons here say he's soft of defense.
He has repeatedly invoked the same states secret privilege the Bush Administration did to block any court review of torture or other myriad cases where there is well-documented evidence of US government officials committing crimes.
He put the public option on the chopping block as his first negotiating move with a Democratic congress, without ever making the argument as president for a single payer option.
He filled his treasury department and team of economic advisers with top members of the anti-regulation, pro-Randian uber-unfettered capitalism corporate banking world.
He said the only option not on the table in Afghanistan is withdrawal, and has been hawkish on defense (see, the exorbitant defense budget). This despite the fact that an endless stream of military and intelligence analysis concurs our occupation of the country not only is not eradicating terrorism, but is in fact significantly bolstering it.
His pledge to close Guantanamo Bay, still unfulfilled, is totally meaningless because he plans to ship all alleged and untried "terrorist" captives to sites like Bagram Detention Facility and White Horse Detainment facility, where they are treated exactly the same, i.e. abusively and unConstitutionally. This despite the fact that more than 70% of all people captured and held as suspected terrorists have now been deemed not guilty of the charge and let go as wrongly imprisoned men.
He has worked tirelessly to devise an Orwellian system of secret, special courts to try terrorist suspects where they will not be allowed their Habeas rights guaranteed them by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In this instance, he's not only mimicking the Bush Justice Department, but surpassing them in plainly illegal policy to ensure America is never embarrassed by the fact that it wantonly imprisoned and tortured innocent people.
He signed into law an bill reversing 30-year precedent FOIA standards for this same end, simply to ensure pictures documenting that detainee abuse was rampant and Abu Ghraib was not some exception to the rule resulting from a couple bad apples would never be seen.
The list goes on and on and I could provide examples until my fingers bleed. All of the examples show Obama clearly trampling upon civil liberties, perhaps the most central focus of what is now deemed the liberal agenda, and embracing the most secretive, abusive, and violent policies of the Bush era under the guise of keeping us safe. In terms of what Obama has actually significantly done, not talked about or said or who he appointed as a qualified, highly-credentialed and successful adviser on green jobs who happened to be a Marxist and had no authority or power to actually do anything... but done, as in implemented policy, there is far more to substantiate the claim that he's neo-conservative than there is to substantiate the claim he's a far-left liberal.
Now I don't think he's actually a neo-conservative, he's simply institutionalizing the worst abuses of the Bush Administration for his own convenience. But it's decidedly not something anyone on the left, much less the "far left" would ever do.
The policies he has enacted that could be considered leftist are the de-prioritization of marijuana possession and sale in states that have legalized the same (but the argument can easily be made this is a conservative states' rights issue and lots of true conservatives and libertarians oppose Draconian drug laws), spoken to the leaders of countries unfriendly to the US (something called diplomacy that's been sorely lacking of late and leads to unnecessary war and poor international standing, unlike Bush being cozy with the Saudis, or Reagan with the terrorist Contras, Osama, and Saddam), and... well, there really isn't much else. He's definitely big government, but so is every president since FDR. He's no more or less big government than his last four predecessors. Size and power of government used to be, along with either progressive or status quo social agenda, the most clearly delineating factor between liberal and conservative, but in terms of American politics and policy that's long gone out the window. Sadly, now both want big government, just for different ends.
The bank bailouts opposed almost unanimously by Americans weren't socialist government takeover operations where we now genuinely own the banks, but rather a gift to the banking industry, orchestrated by Goldman Sachs' top brass, to let them see enormous profit and remain above the recession they caused. It's corporate welfare of the Reagan/Bush I/Bush II variety. If the government actually practically owned those banks, they wouldn't be kept in the dark about where their taxpayer dollars are going and the government would be benefiting from the enormous profit the banks are raking in. The supposedly socialist healthcare bill, now stripped of states' right to opt-out and pursue a single-payer system, is essentially the same thing. A bailout for the insurance companies it purports to hurt, which is why they support it. It's not about the socialization of medical care, but rather the further privatization of profit, which now all Americans will be forced to buy.
The only people who call him far left are so far right they don't have any real sense of what the term means. Reading what they write and listening to what they say makes it abundantly clear they have no concept of history and were unfamiliar with socialism, Marx, laissez-faire capitalism, fascism, etc. until they became right wing radio talking points with the intent to do nothing more noble than try to assure their team (the GOP) won.
In terms of the policies he has implemented, he's a moderate Democrat which makes him a moderate period. In most equivalent Western democratic countries, their conservative party's platform lines up with our Democratic party platform. Democrat does not equal liberal any more than Republican equals conservative. He's a very standard-issue Democrat, that's quite different and in fact incompatible with being a leftist.
I do recognize that his personal opinions or beliefs either likely are or once were further to the left, but what matters is what a political leader does not what they privately think, and Obama has taken every opportunity to rebuke the left and embrace the nebulous middle while mimicking a ton of far-right neoconservative policies on national security, defense, and the so-called "War on Terror."
In short, you're not gonna find evidence he's a far left liberal because he isn't one. The posts so far either try to smear him by association with people he never granted any power or don't seem to grasp that with someone as disingenuous and politically minded as Obama, what he tells a Union group 6 years ago that contradicts his actions now is proof of no more than that he's an opportunist who tells different groups what they want to hear like nearly every political leader for the past several decades. If there's one thing I wish the right would grasp about Obama, it's that he's filled with more empty rhetoric that sounds nice but isn't carried through in his policy than just about any POTUS. Judge him by his actions, which actually affect us, not his words which are merely meant to make us feel better about the terrible state of things.
The proof is in the pudding and the pudding ain't very liberal.
*Side note: I agree with your estimation that Obama is certainly not a far-leftist, but while the rest of the board was banging you on spurious claims of changing goal posts, no one seemed to notice a blatant factual error I should bring to your attention: There are 9 Supreme Court Justices, not 12.
He was considered one of the most liberal members of the Senate by tallies that consider things like raising minimum wage or supporting stem-cell research or opposing pollution "liberal." In that respect, it's more the nonsense categorization of issues into left/right across party lines that made him so "liberal."
His policies since he took office are decidedly less "liberal" than even his Senate record.
He just signed the largest defense budget in world history (and adjusting for inflation, the biggest ever save WWII), over $680 billion including at least $130 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the loons here say he's soft of defense.
He has repeatedly invoked the same states secret privilege the Bush Administration did to block any court review of torture or other myriad cases where there is well-documented evidence of US government officials committing crimes.
He put the public option on the chopping block as his first negotiating move with a Democratic congress, without ever making the argument as president for a single payer option.
He filled his treasury department and team of economic advisers with top members of the anti-regulation, pro-Randian uber-unfettered capitalism corporate banking world.
He said the only option not on the table in Afghanistan is withdrawal, and has been hawkish on defense (see, the exorbitant defense budget). This despite the fact that an endless stream of military and intelligence analysis concurs our occupation of the country not only is not eradicating terrorism, but is in fact significantly bolstering it.
His pledge to close Guantanamo Bay, still unfulfilled, is totally meaningless because he plans to ship all alleged and untried "terrorist" captives to sites like Bagram Detention Facility and White Horse Detainment facility, where they are treated exactly the same, i.e. abusively and unConstitutionally. This despite the fact that more than 70% of all people captured and held as suspected terrorists have now been deemed not guilty of the charge and let go as wrongly imprisoned men.
He has worked tirelessly to devise an Orwellian system of secret, special courts to try terrorist suspects where they will not be allowed their Habeas rights guaranteed them by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In this instance, he's not only mimicking the Bush Justice Department, but surpassing them in plainly illegal policy to ensure America is never embarrassed by the fact that it wantonly imprisoned and tortured innocent people.
He signed into law an bill reversing 30-year precedent FOIA standards for this same end, simply to ensure pictures documenting that detainee abuse was rampant and Abu Ghraib was not some exception to the rule resulting from a couple bad apples would never be seen.
The list goes on and on and I could provide examples until my fingers bleed. All of the examples show Obama clearly trampling upon civil liberties, perhaps the most central focus of what is now deemed the liberal agenda, and embracing the most secretive, abusive, and violent policies of the Bush era under the guise of keeping us safe. In terms of what Obama has actually significantly done, not talked about or said or who he appointed as a qualified, highly-credentialed and successful adviser on green jobs who happened to be a Marxist and had no authority or power to actually do anything... but done, as in implemented policy, there is far more to substantiate the claim that he's neo-conservative than there is to substantiate the claim he's a far-left liberal.
Now I don't think he's actually a neo-conservative, he's simply institutionalizing the worst abuses of the Bush Administration for his own convenience. But it's decidedly not something anyone on the left, much less the "far left" would ever do.
The policies he has enacted that could be considered leftist are the de-prioritization of marijuana possession and sale in states that have legalized the same (but the argument can easily be made this is a conservative states' rights issue and lots of true conservatives and libertarians oppose Draconian drug laws), spoken to the leaders of countries unfriendly to the US (something called diplomacy that's been sorely lacking of late and leads to unnecessary war and poor international standing, unlike Bush being cozy with the Saudis, or Reagan with the terrorist Contras, Osama, and Saddam), and... well, there really isn't much else. He's definitely big government, but so is every president since FDR. He's no more or less big government than his last four predecessors. Size and power of government used to be, along with either progressive or status quo social agenda, the most clearly delineating factor between liberal and conservative, but in terms of American politics and policy that's long gone out the window. Sadly, now both want big government, just for different ends.
The bank bailouts opposed almost unanimously by Americans weren't socialist government takeover operations where we now genuinely own the banks, but rather a gift to the banking industry, orchestrated by Goldman Sachs' top brass, to let them see enormous profit and remain above the recession they caused. It's corporate welfare of the Reagan/Bush I/Bush II variety. If the government actually practically owned those banks, they wouldn't be kept in the dark about where their taxpayer dollars are going and the government would be benefiting from the enormous profit the banks are raking in. The supposedly socialist healthcare bill, now stripped of states' right to opt-out and pursue a single-payer system, is essentially the same thing. A bailout for the insurance companies it purports to hurt, which is why they support it. It's not about the socialization of medical care, but rather the further privatization of profit, which now all Americans will be forced to buy.
The only people who call him far left are so far right they don't have any real sense of what the term means. Reading what they write and listening to what they say makes it abundantly clear they have no concept of history and were unfamiliar with socialism, Marx, laissez-faire capitalism, fascism, etc. until they became right wing radio talking points with the intent to do nothing more noble than try to assure their team (the GOP) won.
In terms of the policies he has implemented, he's a moderate Democrat which makes him a moderate period. In most equivalent Western democratic countries, their conservative party's platform lines up with our Democratic party platform. Democrat does not equal liberal any more than Republican equals conservative. He's a very standard-issue Democrat, that's quite different and in fact incompatible with being a leftist.
I do recognize that his personal opinions or beliefs either likely are or once were further to the left, but what matters is what a political leader does not what they privately think, and Obama has taken every opportunity to rebuke the left and embrace the nebulous middle while mimicking a ton of far-right neoconservative policies on national security, defense, and the so-called "War on Terror."
In short, you're not gonna find evidence he's a far left liberal because he isn't one. The posts so far either try to smear him by association with people he never granted any power or don't seem to grasp that with someone as disingenuous and politically minded as Obama, what he tells a Union group 6 years ago that contradicts his actions now is proof of no more than that he's an opportunist who tells different groups what they want to hear like nearly every political leader for the past several decades. If there's one thing I wish the right would grasp about Obama, it's that he's filled with more empty rhetoric that sounds nice but isn't carried through in his policy than just about any POTUS. Judge him by his actions, which actually affect us, not his words which are merely meant to make us feel better about the terrible state of things.
The proof is in the pudding and the pudding ain't very liberal.
*Side note: I agree with your estimation that Obama is certainly not a far-leftist, but while the rest of the board was banging you on spurious claims of changing goal posts, no one seemed to notice a blatant factual error I should bring to your attention: There are 9 Supreme Court Justices, not 12.
Last edited:
