Richard Spencer

The Obama Transformation

Posted by Richard Spencer on August 29, 2008

Before 85,00 adoring fans, the man of “Hope” and “Change” finally got down to specifics and told us who he really is and what he really plans to do as president.

Well, sort of…

Energy Independence in 10 years (a timeline politicians typically reserve for impossible tasks) was joined by a pretty conventional grab bag of federal goodies: public school teachers shall get higher salaries (of course), we shall all have “affordable, accessible health care” (which doesn’t exactly sound like “universal healthcare”), and government shall, somehow, close the mythic “gender gap” in income by, I guess, mandating that women get paid more. That Obama promises to do it all while lowering taxes for 95% of American sounds like he’ll be continuing with the “deficits don’t matter” tradition of the past eight years. 

Beyond Obama’s “new” politics, another major revelation took place at the National Convention, but one that will be discussed sub rosa in the blogosphere—Obama was transformed from Antiwar Leftist to Liberal Hawk. 

In many ways, this began with Joe Biden’s workmanlike speech on Wednesday evening. Yes, on one level, Biden was brought on as a kind of northeast Catholic “regular guy” who will supposedly attract all those “hardworking Americans” who voted for Hillary. But the Delaware senator was also selected for his “foreign-policy expertise” that he supposedly accrued while sitting on appropriations committees, being helicoptered around the world to oversee foreign elections, and voting for a lot military action. Biden, interestingly, opposed the first Gulf War, but there’s little doubt that what he brings to the ticket is a foreign-policy philosophy of the Brookings Institute, Democratic Leadership Counsel, New Republic bent.

Biden says we don’t need a “good soldier” (McCain) but a “wise leader” in the White House. But when he expounded upon the many examples of Obama’s good judgment, he didn’t mention that Obama opposed the authorization of use of force in Iraq (which, of course Biden supported.)

Instead, Biden talked about the conflagration in the Caucuses, and scolded Bush and McCain for not doing enough:

“In recent days, we’ve once again seen the consequences of the neglect with Russia’s challenge to the free and democratic country of Georgia. Barack Obama and I will end this neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we’ll help the people of Georgia rebuild.”

Being that McCain’s top people are still advocating for Georgia’s entrance into NATO and promising that they’ll get the IMF and other “international authorities” involved with rebuilding Georgia—and the senator himself bizarrely claimed “We’re all Georgians!”—I can’t imagine what more Biden could want McCain to do on this matter.

Echoing his Veep, Obama promised that’s he’s the best prepared to “curb Russian aggression.”

When speaking of Afghanistan, Biden calls Obama “wise” in the sense that he’ll increase troop levels: 

Now, let me ask you: whose judgment should we trust? Should we trust John McCain’s judgment when he said only three years ago, ‘Afghanistan—we don’t read about it anymore because it’s succeeded’? Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?

The fact is, al-Qaida and the Taliban—the people who actually attacked us on 9/11—have regrouped in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and are plotting new attacks. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff echoed Barack’s call for more troops.

It’s a “surge strategy” in Afghanistan. As I’ve discussed before, both parties have benefited from, and sought to perpetuate, a series of bumper-sticker antitheses—“pro-war vs. antiwar,” “confront evil” vs. “tough diplomacy,” “unilateralism vs. multilateralism” etc. But this rhetoric masks the fact that since Obama and McCain have won their parties’ nominations, they been moving ever closer together in terms of their actual foreign-policy programs.

If Obama’s elected, it will probably take years for his most ardent admirers, those who wept at Mile-High or rooted him on from home, to realize that the Man of Change will offer much more continuity in foreign affairs than his “new politics for a new time” promises. In turn, the realist/conservative justification for supporting Obama is swiftly vanishing…


Comments

I wonder how sincere either Obama
or Biden were regarding Georgia.

The neocons want to build up
Georgia’s anti-aircraft capability.
However...Russia recognized South
Ossetia and Abkhazia and today
Georgia broke ties with Russia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7588428.stm

How far are Obama and Biden in
thrall to the ideas of the C.F.R.?
That group is sometimes almost
as aggressive as the PNAC (imho).

Personally, I don’t think that a
drop of American blood should be
shed for S. Ossetia, Abkhazia, the
Crimea; or any other former area of the U.S.S.R.

This country can’t afford another
“foreign adventure” by the neocons
or the social programs of the Democrats.

“In turn, the realist/conservative justification for supporting Obama is swiftly vanishing… “

Exactly. Which is why supporting Bob Barr is so important. His victory would explode the neo-con domination of both parties. Now it’s more clear than ever that both the Republicans and the Democrats are just fronts for foreign agents to control American politics. That has to stop.

“This country can’t afford another
“foreign adventure” by the neocons
or the social programs of the Democrats.”

Let alone the social programs of the Democrats *and* the hawkishness of the neoconservatives - which seems to be what both McCain and Obama stand for.

Also, Obama suggested that, once he’s restored our alliances, he’ll use them to confront Russia.  I don’t think that’s what conservatives looking to Obama as an alternative have in mind.

Posted by Tom K on Aug 29, 2008.

Click to flag this comment as abusive

What is the point of voting this year?

@ Robert

That’s the beauty of non-compulsory voting. It keeps those tired of the system at home and lets those with a stake in the election make all the decisions. It’s brilliant. It guarantees the the “two” party mafia will never loose control.

With Obama, one gets a “Free Market Socialist” and with Mr. McCain , one gets a “Big Government Conservative”. This Elegy To Illogic alone would generally be enough to deep six the most sturdy Nation but factor in the further distress of Neo-conservatives entrenched like chiggers into the soft underbellies of both camps and you get a Nation that not only destroys itself but takes down with it whoever might be standing nearby.

The Citizens of the United States of America are not electing a President , they are choosing an Executioner brought to them by a pair of tag-team torturers named the U.S. Congress and President George W. Bush .

Post a Comment

By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.