One of conservatives' favorite criticisms of President Obama, perhaps second only to the (dubious) argument that his administration has burdened businesses with unprecedented regulatory uncertainty, is that his policies and political objectives have divided the country along lines of political identity.
See http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/opinion/jindal-obama-excuses/index.html for a classic, if underwhelmingly uninsightful, example of such an argument.
And frankly, I can see where that argument is coming from, in that many of Obama's policies have been directed toward, or have a disproportionate impact on, certain subsets of the population as a whole.
Good examples are his repeal of DADT, his embrace of legalizing same-sex marriage, his recent announcement advancing the cause of the DREAM Act, his support of the Equal Pay Act, his support for ending the top Bush Tax Cuts rate, etc.
At the same time, though, I'm curious to know if any of the subscribers to this notion might also be willing to acknowledge that these specific policy positions define broad political goals for the population as a whole, too. Even if you disagree with the means by which Obama seeks to achieve them, do you not believe that Obama's policies are attempts to foster a society of equal opportunity, as he and other liberals envision it?
Originally posted by wittywonkaI would imagine that what Obama and company seek is considered "good" in their eyes. I just don't know if what they deem to be "good" will improve the lives of Americans What worries me are the "sacrifices" that must be made to create their utopia. Of course, it is possible that their perseption of reality is so distorted that they don't fully understand the reprocussions of their policies.
One of conservatives' favorite criticisms of President Obama, perhaps second only to the (dubious) argument that his administration has burdened businesses with unprecedented regulatory uncertainty, is that his policies and political objectives have divided the country along lines of political identity.
See http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/opinion/jindal- ...[text shortened]... are attempts to foster a society of equal opportunity, as he and other liberals envision it?
Originally posted by whodey
I would imagine that what Obama and company seek is considered "good" in their eyes. I just don't know if what they deem to be "good" will improve the lives of Americans What worries me are the "sacrifices" that must be made to create their utopia. Of course, it is possible that their perseption of reality is so distorted that they don't fully understand the reprocussions of their policies.
Originally posted by wittywonka"At the same time, though, I'm curious to know if any of the subscribers to this notion might also be willing to acknowledge that these specific policy positions define broad political goals for the population as a whole, too. Even if you disagree with the means by which Obama seeks to achieve them, do you not believe that Obama's policies are attempts to foster a society of equal opportunity, as he and other liberals envision it?"
One of conservatives' favorite criticisms of President Obama, perhaps second only to the (dubious) argument that his administration has burdened businesses with unprecedented regulatory uncertainty, is that his policies and political objectives have divided the country along lines of political identity.
See http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/opinion/jindal- ...[text shortened]... are attempts to foster a society of equal opportunity, as he and other liberals envision it?
The "vision" is the key. If one accepts the premises behind his vision, then his objectives and methods make perfect sense.
Originally posted by wittywonkaIf this is true, Obama is extremely incompetent in achieving this goal.
Even if you disagree with the means by which Obama seeks to achieve them, do you not believe that Obama's policies are attempts to foster a society of equal opportunity, as he and other liberals envision it?
Obama has had the misfortune of being an economic moderate at a time when radical restructuring of the economy was needed. His stimulus package was too small and largely misdirected, his health reform act was too friendly to big business, his regulations on the financial sector too weak and is being undermined by the regulators, etc. etc. etc. I don't see much that he has done to increase "equal opportunity for all"; his economic policy is in keeping with the general themes of the Post WWII big money parties.