"The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground... They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise."Hey Cheney, that's an excellent analysis of Obama's bailout plan! Huh? Let me explain:
Cheney's talking about the war on terror, of course, and he's upset because one of the first rules of Republican defense policy is absolute moral certainty. In economics, however, moral certainty doesn't exactly have the same currency as, say, the stock market or quarterly earnings reports or actual currency.
Obama's overall strategy has been both politically safe and ideologically unpeggable, drawing criticism from both conservatives who want him to let Detroit go and liberals who want him nationalize the banks. But even with a vacuum for a right wing opposition and middling public opinion toward the economy, he's come out looking like a moderate, and a popular one at that. I'd bet that the Obama team does "take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum," as Cheney said. Indeed the economic debate ranges between a five-year spending freeze and the federal appropriation of New York's financial district, it's a nice thing to be seen in the middle.
Perceived moderation might be one of Obama's strongest defenses. There was recently an interesting piece in the Weekly Standard predicting that Obama would fall into the same traps as his predecessor:
Just as Bush's success in fending off domestic terrorism in the wake of 9/11 created a safe environment that may have made his gargantuan efforts in the direction of national security feel like overkill, any success Obama's policies actually achieve may reinforce the appearance that he has gone too far and spent too much in his efforts to resolve the economic crisis.I'm sympathetic to the argument that Obama's budget is a beast, but "gone too far" to resolve the economic crisis? If anything most critics argue that he's been too incremental, introducing public-private gimmicks when what the country really needed was a swift bout of bank takeovers. Cheney and the Standard are waiting for the moment of overreach. The trouble is that, as of today, the president's racing past his opponents without having to swerve too far outside the middle of the road.
Incredibly insightful article.
The Debate just mirrors the debate between people for "Is torture ok if it is preventing American lives to be lost?” Can we have our cake and eat it too? For the love of god(s) if we behave like our enemies (torturing) how are we any better? Oh they are much worse than when it comes to torture, but we have little faith in our capabilities to get information out of prisoners if we resort to these primitive tactics. Don’t we have truth serums and psychological tricks to get information out of people? Maybe I have been watching too many cop movies. If we abolish torture it will work like a free market where we have to come up with innovative methods to compensate, and so information snatching from the bad guys is more ethical. It’s hard to sell your country (the U.S.) as one with a good moral ethical standing when people can see you hiding your dirty tricks and tactics through your sleeves. We may call ourselves a great country, but keep in mind we dropped the only nuclear weapons in recorded history. America’s logic is so flawed, whether the ends justifies the means in these scenarios should be taken into consideration, because newly developing democracies will follow our dirty footsteps as well as our “moral path” and say “Hey, you guys did it, why can’t I?”. If we came up with the MK Ultra program (for those of you who are unaware it was the CIA creating brain washed – mind controlled agents to be assassins in Manchurian candidate like scenarios, and if you think I’m being far fetched or a conspiracy theorist just do a little research on the topic) can’t we just do some crazy stuff like that to the terrorists? Just so you all don’t think I’m taking Obama’s side on the matter. I think torture is wrong – but I don’t think Obama has done jack squat (although it’s still a little too early to judge him just yet). Yes, the media is in love with Obama, like a horny dog on the side of your leg. Cheney is still probably Satan himself though, and even if he makes some good points, you know there is so much he is keeping from you – and let’s face it, a guy who wears a scowl on his face 24/7 is probably: always unhappy, keeping secrets, or a jerk face who lies to you. So neither Obama or Cheney are the winners in this debate, I’d say we need to listen to some of the FBI and NSA agents who came up with non torture tactics to extract information that worked. Besides, if America wasn’t perceived as such hypocritical assholes in the World who put their troops in double or triple digit countries, these terrorists probably wouldn’t fox with us as much. Just ask Canada, when was the last time a terrorist bombed their country?
If anything most critics argue that...
What does that mean? Who qualifies as a critic, what are the qualifications, and who counted up and measured the qualifers? Where can I find the list?
Or is that short hand for: "I, the author, think that most commentators who I, the author, consider worthy, by my, the author's, inscrutable standards, argue...."