United Liberty
Many of us are watching with great interest to see how things are shaping up with likely appointments for the new Obama Administration. Given all the talk about “change” in this election, one would hope that the appointments would indicate some definite moves away from the status quo. Obviously the President’s powers to change much of anything are quite limited by the Constitution (not that this has mattered so much to recent Presidents), with foreign policy being the area of greatest potential for change. An initial look at Obama’s likely appointments in matters of foreign affairs and national security leads this writer to question just how much change, if any, will occur in the conduct of foreign affairs.
First there is Hillary Clinton, the likely Secretary of State who is known for her support of the war in Iraq and for her criticism of Obama throughout the primary compaign for his willingness to talk to undesirable heads of state, as well as his general (seeming) lack of hawkishness. Then there is the decision to keep Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and on top of that, the selection of Jim Jones as National Security Advisor. Jones supported McCain (informally) in the election and is a close friend of McCain, and there can be no doubt that he favors expanded military adventurism, most especially in Afghanistan, just as he has in Iraq. With Jones we can expect a change only in style, away from unilateralism to increased internationalism through a re-energized NATO. With these appointments (among others), those who supported Obama because they want the wars to end and the troops to come home are likely to be greatly disappointed. See Justin Raimondo’s excellent analysis for more detail.
On the economic side of things, it certainly would appear that we are headed for a lot more of the same. Especially noteworthy is the likely appointment of Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury. Geithner is the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and serves as the chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee, which plays a central role in monetary policy involving the buying and selling of government securities and the setting of federal funds rates. With all the bailouts going on, there is no doubt that Geithner is very much involved in the setting of current policies, and there is no doubt that the transistion from Henry Paulson would be absolutely seamless. This in no uncertain terms does not bode well for the financial health of the country, as the current policy course will only prolong the current crisis and ensure that it lasts a long time (possibly a decade) and morph it into a full-blown depression. In short, it seems all but certain that the federal government (and federal reserve) will continue doing all the wrong things, adding enormously to the national debt by subsidizing malinvestment, ultimatley leading to out-of-control inflation (the most insiduous of all taxes) and the collapse of the dollar.
Two things are certain: the current monetary system is unsustainable and is coming to an end soon; and our interventionist, militaristic foreign policy is unsustainable both in terms of finances and of man-power (and the American people will not tolerate the revival of the draft). It seems clear at this point that Obama is proceeding as if he were unaware of these certainties. I’ve said before that neither Obama nor McCain had the slightest clue as to what has led us to where we are today with our financial crisis. Totally absent, too, is any sort of understanding of the role that an imperialist, adventurist foreign policy has played in abetting this crisis.
A great many people who voted for Obama did so in hopes that these things would change. This writer was not under any such illusion, but understands the hopes and frustrations of those who are sick and tired of the status quo and see an Obama Presidency as a real opportunity for change. The evidence that such change is forthcoming does not, so far, seem promising. In light of the above, It is tempting to suppose we may be getting, after all, the “third term of Bush” that a majority of voters rejected in this election. Time will tell. Watchfulness and vigiliance are crucial, as are efforts at educating more people about the alternatives found through putting the different pieces of liberty back together.
In Obama’s book, he said that he read and talked about neo-colonialism while in college. Was that anti-empire radicalism thrown by the wayside once he became a politician?
We certainly aren’t getting a third term of Bush, but a “third term of Clinton” wouldn’t be an inappropriate description.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Yes, I think “third term of Clinton” might be a more apt way of putting it. Clinton did many horrible things in the area of civil liberties and abuse of executive power (usurping legislative powers), but it’s been so much worse under Bush that it’s easy to forget how bad it was under Clinton. In terms of policy, though, there really isn’t much difference going from Clinton to Bush. Bush was, in some ways, “Clinton on steroids” (especially in foreign policy, excutive power, and abuse of civil liberties).
Well Clinton had much greater fiscal responsibility than Bush and was better at getting his message across than Bush. Obama himself isn’t a hawk by any means but he’s got people like Biden and Clinton who aren’t exactly anti-war.
There’s alot of stuff that Obama personally seems on the right page on, like drug policy. I posted an interview with him where he seemed really great on medical marijuana but he followed up by saying it’s not an issue he’s going to “spend political capital” on.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
I should say that the “Clinton on steroids” remark would just as well apply to fiscal policy also, as it has been unbelievably bad under Bush, especially during the past 2-1/2 months with the bailouts. Any Democratic President who had proposed this first would have been run out of Washington on a train, so to speak.
It would certainly appear that Clinton had greater fiscal responsibility, but it does do well to remember that he had to compromise with a Congress that was under Republican leadership after 1994, at a time when Republicans were at least being somewhat more fiscally conservative than have been for the past 8 years (which is to say, Congressional Republicans are far less apt to be fiscally conservative under a Republican White House, which was perhaps one of the strongest arguments against McCain). Had Congress remained under Democratic leadership, the picture might have been different. We can hope that Obama will bring some improvement, even if miniscule, in the areas you cite.
Post new comment