Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
really, so what has Obama overturned from the Bush presidency? Stem cell research and what else?
|
You're missing the point.
The author is trying to assert that ultimate success or failure of a presidency is derived in the durability of their actions...ok, I think we'd all agree there's truth in that.
But the idea that because some Bush policies are still in place -- not even two years later -- that they've been time tested is absurd.
Additionally, he really only gives two examples (war and taxes) as evidence...
On war:
The Bush policy was to spread democracy through nation building. Where nation building wasn't practical, like in Iran, a divisive approach was employed. Afghanistan was pretty much ignored. Security concerns post 9/11 led to an anything goes mindset.
Obama's policy by contrast is focusing more on short-term stability and targeting terrorists directly. An open approach has been taken on problem areas like Iran by engaging the people and working to build coalitions through diplomacy. The Afghanistan policy has been expanded to include Pakistan. There's certainly still some nation building going on (a Marine friend of ours is currently building a school I think) but the objective is not to create a Western style democracy. Obama immediately reigned in controversial techniques to ensure behavior was more in line with the Law...
One would assume there would be many similarities in what's visible as you can't just flip orders with 100K+ people on the ground. Additionally, some things are just common sense and would probably be found in any policy.
But there are also substantial differences in philosophy that can't be ignored.
What time will tell is if one was more beneficial than the other, but they're so intertwined it may be impossible to unwind them.
On taxes:
Obama has been very consistent on the belief that the Bush tax cuts should be extended for most Americans, but by excluding the wealthy he's in line with a progressive approach. He's also supported (and gotten) tax breaks for the middle class and extensions of benefits for the unemployed and lower wage earners all to encourage "trickle up" economics.
Sure, he caved on extending the cuts to the wealthy, but this was really a compromise required by poor politics.
I don't see how this is validation of Bush policy. If the economy wasn't still puttering along we'd be seeing higher taxes and many economists will argue that they are inevitable regardless. Less than durability, it's mostly a matter of bad timing.
-spence
Linear Mode
