Is Barack Obama a "radical"?

[Charles Kozierok]

I had Sean Hannity on while making dinner yesterday, and heard him refer to Obama as "radical" about 4,723.4 times, as he does most occasions when I have him on.

I just don't really see it, personally. He may have some radical views, but he seems to keep them out of his policy positions. I haven't really seen him put forth too much that looks particularly unusual, much less radical. If he's really a radical "deep down" or whatever, I'm not particularly inclined to care as long as he's keeping them to himself.

Hannity's been harping on about his "radical associations" for six years now, but that's simple, fallacious guilt by association -- and something that could be applied just as readily to Hannity himself.

Am I missing something here, or is it just propaganda? Or maybe it's just that Hannity himself is so far right that everyone else appears to him as too far left.

 

[cbrunny]

Hannity gets paid to sensationalize. That you're asking this question is proof that it is "worthwhile"

 

[fskimospy]

By his DW-NOMINATE score, which is the best score measuring ideology on a constant scale over time that I am aware of, Obama is the most moderate Democratic president going back at least about 70 years. Perhaps the most moderate 'left' president ever.

Hannity exists to vent the id of the Republican Party. He's not a real person, just a character.

 

[waggy]

Hannity gets paid to sensationalize. That you're asking this question is proof that it is "worthwhile"

once i read it was Hannity saying it i stopped. The guy is fallowing beck and savage.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

By his DW-NOMINATE score, which is the best score measuring ideology on a constant scale over time that I am aware of, Obama is the most moderate Democratic president going back at least about 70 years. Perhaps the most moderate 'left' president ever.

Hannity exists to vent the id of the Republican Party. He's not a real person, just a character.

That looks like a "on average the duck is dead" graph. It depends on the issue. In some ways he's at least as far right as Bush with his terrorism stance. Having people punished for not having insurance isn't generally considered a right ideology.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

once i read it was Hannity saying it i stopped. The guy is fallowing beck and savage.

Yeah, I agree. Hannity is just a moneymaker for Fox. No credibility as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Yamada]

if by "radical" it is meant he fell right in line with the Washington, D.C., political system shaped by the previous Bush Administration...then that would be a resounding "no".

 

[Murloc]

my understanding of the term radical is that it's a sub-branch of liberalism (indeed there's a party here called liberal-radicals because it includes both subsets in one party, after social democracy and communism pushed radicalism towards the center as its view became shared by everyone and they were not edgy anymore), understandable as social liberalism, and that's exactly what he is.

Obama would be in the radical ideological branch of the party (free market but more tax and spending for health care and stuff like that), while most republicans would be in the liberist branch, minus the religiosity and the far right foreign policy (which is the same held by Obama really).
They bicker all the time between the two wings and do nothing but lose votes. One branch wants more state and the other less, but both are essentially liberals (in the european sense of the word).

That's like most of the american political variety concentrated in a single party with 25% of the votes, just add the religious fundamentalists and socialists to each side accordingly, but those never become that important anyway.

 

[randomrogue]

Technically he is a radical. That's fine though. The system does need changing.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ideologues view everyone not in their ideological camp as an extremist on the other side. They are blind toward all shades of grey. This polarization effect is visible on both ends of the political spectrum, but is a more significant problem on the right these days. Clinton was also viewed by many on the right as a radical, and he was no more so than Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

That looks like a "on average the duck is dead" graph. It depends on the issue. In some ways he's at least as far right as Bush with his terrorism stance. Having people punished for not having insurance isn't generally considered a right ideology.

Well the graph quite clearly shows Obama in the left. Interestingly enough, punishing people for not having insurance was a Republican idea from the 90s...which further shows Obama's moderation.

Say what you want, but DW-NOMINATE is the best, most objective measurement of ideology that I know of. If we want to try and answer this question through something other than "sure is!" vs. "Is not!" things like this are the way to do it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well the graph quite clearly shows Obama in the left. Interestingly enough, punishing people for not having insurance was a Republican idea from the 90s...which further shows Obama's moderation.

Say what you want, but DW-NOMINATE is the best, most objective measurement of ideology that I know of. If we want to try and answer this question through something other than "sure is!" vs. "Is not!" things like this are the way to do it.

You forget Hillarycare. If the Republicans were for it in truth why didn't we get it? Like today healthcare is a political pawn. The overall Republican strategy (individuals within the party notwithstanding) was to derail her.

As far as the measure of ideology goes I can see how it differentiates a Carter from a Bush, but when we get down to comparing left vs left for example, it's more problematic, because specifics are given weight which I can't imagine to be absolutes.

 

[woolfe9998]

You forget Hillarycare. If the Republicans were for it in truth why didn't we get it? Like today healthcare is a political pawn. The overall Republican strategy (individuals within the party notwithstanding) was to derail her.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that republican advocacy of the insurance mandate was a tactic meant to defeat Hilcare rather than a sincere belief in it. That may have been, but the original idea for the mandate came before the Hilcare debate, from a conservative think tank. It was originally a conservative idea, so I fail to see how Obama supporting it makes him a left wing radical.

 

[werepossum]

I had Sean Hannity on while making dinner yesterday, and heard him refer to Obama as "radical" about 4,723.4 times, as he does most occasions when I have him on.

I just don't really see it, personally. He may have some radical views, but he seems to keep them out of his policy positions. I haven't really seen him put forth too much that looks particularly unusual, much less radical. If he's really a radical "deep down" or whatever, I'm not particularly inclined to care as long as he's keeping them to himself.

Hannity's been harping on about his "radical associations" for six years now, but that's simple, fallacious guilt by association -- and something that could be applied just as readily to Hannity himself.

Am I missing something here, or is it just propaganda? Or maybe it's just that Hannity himself is so far right that everyone else appears to him as too far left.

I agree with the bolded. He expressed some radical views as a state senator, but he's been more moderate than I dared hope as President.

Hannity gets paid to sensationalize. That you're asking this question is proof that it is "worthwhile"

Good point. Personally I find Hannity completely unwatchable after Colmes left. I only realized the beauty of two sides arguing once it became only one side arguing.

Ideologues view everyone not in their ideological camp as an extremist on the other side. They are blind toward all shades of grey. This polarization effect is visible on both ends of the political spectrum, but is a more significant problem on the right these days. Clinton was also viewed by many on the right as a radical, and he was no more so than Obama.

Clinton put forth Hillarycare, a total government takeover of health care that would literally put you in prison for doing something so heinous as spending your own money for your own health care. That's way more radical than Obamacare, so Clinton was way more radical than Obama who is basically black Bush.

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree with the bolded. He expressed some radical views as a state senator, but he's been more moderate than I dared hope as President.


Good point. Personally I find Hannity completely unwatchable after Colmes left. I only realized the beauty of two sides arguing once it became only one side arguing.


Clinton put forth Hillarycare, a total government takeover of health care that would literally put you in prison for doing something so heinous as spending your own money for your own health care. That's way more radical than Obamacare, so Clinton was way more radical than Obama who is basically black Bush.

Even if I agreed with you about the radicalness of Hilcare, which was certainly to the left of Obamacare, a POTUS isn't defined by a stance on one issue. Clinton was a moderate.

Oh, and no way is Obama a "black Bush."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that republican advocacy of the insurance mandate was a tactic meant to defeat Hilcare rather than a sincere belief in it. That may have been, but the original idea for the mandate came before the Hilcare debate, from a conservative think tank. It was originally a conservative idea, so I fail to see how Obama supporting it makes him a left wing radical.

"Think tanks" and pundits for either party come up with all sorts of ideas. What matters is what actually happenes. How many Congressmen and Senators have proposed things which were never embraced? Again, if this was part of their agenda why was it never implemented? I think it's fair to say that parties will use such tactics to derail the other and the proof of not being sincere is that it never happens even when it could have. Machiavellian tactics.

 

[woolfe9998]

"Think tanks" and pundits for either party come up with all sorts of ideas. What matters is what actually happenes. How many Congressmen and Senators have proposed things which were never embraced? Again, if this was part of their agenda why was it never implemented? I think it's fair to say that parties will use such tactics to derail the other and the proof of not being sincere is that it never happens even when it could have. Machiavellian tactics.

Perhaps, but in this case, the Heritage Foundation proposed the mandate in 1989, 2 years before Clinton even ran for POTUS.

Moreover, the healthcare mandate does make sense in the framework of conservative ideology. The idea is that people who are not in the system of health insurance are free riders. They leach off the people who are in the system. A mandate disallows this and forces them to pay for at least part of their insurance, giving them a stake in the game. Read Justice Roberts' opinion upholding the mandate. Roberts is a legitimate conservative, not some RINO.

I stand by my position here, that advocacy of the mandate is not a left wing radical position. Hardly any lefties even supported the idea before it became part of Obamacare. Most of the earlier support was from conservatives. Also, the far left disapproved of the mandate, saying it was corporate welfare. Saying it's left wing radicalism is disingenuous historical revisionism at best.

 

[sandorski]

Of course he's radical, he's Black.

Now I'm not calling Hannity a Racist, nor the Republicans, nor even most of the people who are uneasy by the fact that Obama is Black. Face the facts though, hinting at Race has a big affect amongst many US Voters and has clearly been part of the Republican strategy recently.

 

[Lithium381]

Hannity . . . lol I can't stand to listen to him. . . even when he has a good point, it seems like he's trying to twist something, or spin it so hard that it feels artificial . . .

more on topic: i think obama spits "radial" rehetoric, but in his actual actions, he honestly hasn't been THAT bad for a left wing democratic liberal hack job.. . 😉

 

[Anarchist420]

I thought radical meant the opposite of reactionary.

Anyway, Obama is a statist and authoritarian through and through, but so is just about everyone else in D.C.

It does piss me off when Hannity criticizes Obama because the former is getting approximately 1/3 of what he wants while I'm getting nothing. I also have good reason to believe that Hannity wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul if he had got the nomination.

I also think that it is better to avoid labels though and simply go by how centralist or decentralist they are.

That said, this country has really only had one decentralist President and that decentralist President was John Tyler. Harding was good but he was quite a nationalist. Coolidge was also a nationalist. Grover Cleveland let his bias towards business get in the way of being an extreme decentralist. Van Buren's whole Presidency was plagued by the Second Seminole Wars, Jefferson compromised way too much, and Johnson was against secession. Zachary Taylor was good, but he didn't live through a whole term.

Those presidents that I didn't mention in this post... they weren't very good.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Perhaps, but in this case, the Heritage Foundation proposed the mandate in 1989, 2 years before Clinton even ran for POTUS.

Moreover, the healthcare mandate does make sense in the framework of conservative ideology. The idea is that people who are not in the system of health insurance are free riders. They leach off the people who are in the system. A mandate disallows this and forces them to pay for at least part of their insurance, giving them a stake in the game. Read Justice Roberts' opinion upholding the mandate. Roberts is a legitimate conservative, not some RINO.

I stand by my position here, that advocacy of the mandate is not a left wing radical position. Hardly any lefties even supported the idea before it became part of Obamacare. Most of the earlier support was from conservatives. Also, the far left disapproved of the mandate, saying it was corporate welfare. Saying it's left wing radicalism is disingenuous historical revisionism at best.

If I said it was "radicalism" then the last part would be true, but I haven't done so. That would have been Hannity, whom I've already indicated a distaste for.

Roberts supported a punishment tax that's true, which the Administration went to some lengths to not call a tax.

So what's this?

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

So Congress can't regulate people for doing nothing, but it can. All it has to do is call it a tax instead of appealing to the Commerce Clause. It's a distinction without meaning.

 

[woolfe9998]

If I said it was "radicalism" then the last part would be true, but I haven't done so. That would have been Hannity, whom I've already indicated a distaste for.

Roberts supported a punishment tax that's true, which the Administration went to some lengths to not call a tax.

So what's this?



So Congress can't regulate people for doing nothing, but it can. All it has to do is call it a tax instead of appealing to the Commerce Clause. It's a distinction without meaning.

I think you're getting off topic arguing about the legal rationale for the mandate. The topic is whether Obama is a left wing radical. While you did indicate distaste for Hannity, you also said that you don't associate the mandate as a right wing idea. I think I've explained that not only was it first advanced by conservatives, but why it's consistent with conservative ideology.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think you're getting off topic arguing about the legal rationale for the mandate. The topic is whether Obama is a left wing radical. While you did indicate distaste for Hannity, you also said that you don't associate the mandate as a right wing idea. I think I've explained that not only was it first advanced by conservatives, but why it's consistent with conservative ideology.

Let's examine the other side of the coin. If any liberal of note proposes anything does that then mean liberals are compelled to accept it as valid? Proposed yes. Accepted? No.

Your last point is partially true. The ends is consistent, however the means? I don't think you'll see many arguments for compulsion through punishment by taxation for something which isn't mandated in itself. That isn't irrelevant, that was a key objection all along and at the end why it was not wanted to by the majority of voters. An argument for the ends justifies the means can be made, but that's what it would be.

You are the legal guy here so I'll ask a question related to health care. It appears that there will be insufficient funding to finance Obamacare. What are the limits of the government to coerce people?

 

[ivwshane]

Obama a radical? People who use that term with regards to politicians probably dont understand what the term means.

Absolutely none of Obamas policies are radical.

Radical
1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.

Even Obamcare was not a radical policy, not only does it have roots from past republican policies but its also a copy from a policy from a former republican governor and republican presidential nominee who implemented it in his state.

 

[woolfe9998]

Let's examine the other side of the coin. If any liberal of note proposes anything does that then mean liberals are compelled to accept it as valid? Proposed yes. Accepted? No.

Your last point is partially true. The ends is consistent, however the means? I don't think you'll see many arguments for compulsion through punishment by taxation for something which isn't mandated in itself. That isn't irrelevant, that was a key objection all along and at the end why it was not wanted to by the majority of voters. An argument for the ends justifies the means can be made, but that's what it would be.

The mandate has elements that are appealing and appalling to both the left and the right. It gets more people insured (left-good) but it feeds money into corporations (left-bad). Similarly, it takes people off the free ride (right-good) but uses a government mandate to do it (right-bad? maybe.) Remember, much of the right thinks the government can coerce people with respect to their reproductive choices. Tell people they can't have an abortion or go to jail=good, but tell people they have to buy health insurance or pay a small penalty=bad.

I don't see the mandate as clearly left or clearly right. You said it yourself, conservative favoritism of the issue was to oppose a liberal healthcare initiative. What makes you think their opposition to it now isn't for the exact same reason?

You are the legal guy here so I'll ask a question related to health care. It appears that there will be insufficient funding to finance Obamacare. What are the limits of the government to coerce people?

I don't quite understand the question. First of all, what do you mean "insufficient funding to finance Obamacare." Please source that so I understand the issue better. Your question about "coercion" seems awfully broad.