The Obama Doctrine In Action | ThinkProgress

Do we or don't we except Yglesias' thesis here?

there’s a tendency, which I think is somewhat misguided, to take all of Obama’s “hawkish” actions and fold them into a narrative about continuity with Bush administration policies since Bush was also “hawkish.” There are some real continuities, but I think this business is actually an example of discontinuity.

The difference—and I think it’s a big difference—is that the Bush administration took a very ideological view of “the war on terror.” They viewed the United States as broadly in conflict with a vast-yet-hazily-defined array of Muslim Bad Guys such that Saddam Hussein and the government of Iran were somehow part of the same problem as Osama bin Laden. The conceptual alternative to this that Obama offered (and I think you see it in early coverage of Obama’s national security thinking from Spencer Ackerman and yours truly) was to think of al-Qaeda as a specific, narrow thing that ought to be obsessively targeted and destroyed. His team viewed the Iraq War as a catastrophic distraction from that task, and also repeatedly clashed with John McCain over the need to more forcefully disregard Pakistani government views about hitting targets in Pakistan. You see in the rising body count that this all wasn’t just talk. There’s been some kind of meaningful reallocation of national resources away from Bush’s geopolitical vision in favor of a much more literal global effort to identify, locate, and kill members of al-Qaeda. This whole suite of undertakings is in significant tension with the administration’s desire to pursue a rules-based global order and if Obama asked me I’d tell him he’s tilted too far against his own big picture ideas. Still, world affairs doesn’t exist on a two-dimensional hawk/dove axis and this militaristic aspect of Obamaism should be seen as a departure from Bush’s view of the terrorism problem.

Simplicity Itself

Obama is blinded by a ‘pathology’

President Obama says secretaries pay higher tax rates than the millionaires who employ them and he believes that’s unfair. OK, fine. Lower the secretary’s tax rate until it matches the millionaire’s. Problem solved, fairness achieved.

Of course, a lower tax rate for anyone would mean diminishing Obama’s ability to redistribute wealth as he sees fit. After all, that would mean less revenue for the federal government and we simply can’t have that, can we? That might force Americans to be charitable to one another, and the government to spend less.

Empowering citizens by confiscating less of their equity is not an option for a president who is blinded by liberal pathology and a hatred for vintage American culture.

Not being able to make such a choice also reveals the truth about the president’s intolerant, hate-filled abettors. Residing in the cultish tenet that it’s OK for Obama to implement a doctrine of post-modern economic justice, they seek nothing less than full control over the value of other peoples’ lives as vengeance for demographic disparity.

If you don’t agree that lowering the tax rate for secretaries is fair and still believe Obama has a bleeding heart for them, answer this: Why does Obama refuse to provide incentives through tax code modifications so millionaire employers will pay their secretaries more?

Pat Du Gard

Eugene