Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Bevan Shortridge,
He’s still writing SF I see…
From another planet, even.
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Paul Williams,
When you say ‘Obama doctrine’, I’m not sure I know what it is?
I thought I should refresh my memory before commenting and thus found the Obama Doctrine article on Wikipedia. It didn't know it was a thing either, which is why I put it in quotes.
The first paragraph of the article is:
The Obama Doctrine is a term frequently used to describe one or several unifying principles of the foreign policy of U.S. President Barack Obama. Unlike the Monroe Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is not a specific foreign policy introduced by the executive, but rather a phrase used to describe Obama's general style of foreign policy. This has left journalists and political commentators to speculate on what the exact tenets of an Obama Doctrine might look like. Generally speaking, it is accepted that a central part of such a doctrine would emphasize negotiation and collaboration rather than confrontation and unilateralism in international affairs. This policy has been praised by some as a welcome change from the more interventionist Bush Doctrine.[1] Critics, such as former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, have described it as overly idealistic and naïve, promoting appeasement of the USA's enemies.[2] Others have drawn attention to its radical departure from not only the policies of the Bush administration but many former presidents as well.[2][3] Meanwhile, additional political pundits have disagreed entirely, accusing Obama of continuing the policies of his predecessor.
I think you can see it in the Obama administration's preference for dealing with Libya and Syria by essentially forming committees and embracing the kind of restraint on itself that wouldn't have been tolerated under Bush.
There's also a separate article on the foreign policy of of the Obama administration.
We've seen both good and bad here, but I don't think there's any debate that the current US ambassador, David Huebner, is a much more reasonable and constructive figure than that Bush-era idiot Charles Swindells. Interestingly, he's only the third openly gay ambassador in US history, and serves as general counsel to LGBT rights organization, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Neither party offered an alternative to pursuing the Vietnam war, yet the protests accelerated and arguably hastened its end. You seem to be arguing against any kind of concerned citizen activism beyond involvement with political parties and voting.
No, I'm not. I can't see where I did that at all.
But I did take issue with your view that Obama's foreign policy has been "indistinguishable" from Bush's, and that "advances in health care, gay marriage, tax equitability or drug law reform" -- all of them to some degree the fruit of citizen activism over years -- are "trade-offs".
Given that Romney's foreign policy stance seemed relatively similar to Obama's, just worse (especially on military spending), what was the alternative to the trade-off? Informing everyone else they're being "pathetically grateful" just seemed patronising in the circumstances.
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
It wasn’t a foregone conclusion. If there are 9 elections where someone is a 92% to win, there’s a greater than 50% chance at least one of those elections will see an upset. But which one, or will it be two, or none :-)
I understand that. But there are interesting implications to democracy passing through a saturated research environment. At what point do you start to get feedback loops? How much of an impact does being told what's very probably going to happen, or what everyone else thinks, or what you care about, have on individual choices?
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
The possibility that the trajectory around whistleblower persecution would alter?
Under Romney?
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Michael Savidge,
Interesting to have not seen or heard any mention of the passing of Amendment 64 (legalising marijuana in Colorado) in our local news feeds. It’s quite a big deal I would have thought.
It's going to be fascinating to watch. Obama was far more liberal on marijuana reform as a senator and a candidate than he was as president. Where will he stand when federal and state law drive head-on into each other?
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Bart Janssen,
How do you justify spending hours of TV time on a subject that is a forgone conclusion … pretend it isn’t forgone.
Although ... I'm not sure that a future where elections are forgone conclusions is actually all that healthy either.
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Sofie I appreciate Obama’s qualified achievements on a number of issues, but on foreign policy he appears every bit as beholden to vested interests as most hard-line Republicans. I can’t accept that advances in health care, gay marriage, tax equitability or drug law reform are acceptable tradeoffs for a perpetual war economy,
They’re not irrelevant either. And I would strongly debate that Obama’s foreign policy is indistinguishable from Bush’s. The PNAC crazies had the keys to the car for a long time under Bush. He sent John Bolton to the United Nations.
The “Obama doctrine” still treasures the projection of force, still endorses American exceptionalism, but it’s not actually insane – it’s just American foreign policy. I mean, a trade-off compared to what? What was the actual alternative on offer?
-
Ah …. xkcd.
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Hebe,
I have loathed Mitt Romney all the way through, but his concession speech made me wonder if I had the measure of the man. It was extraordinarily heartfelt, and gracious with no trace of malice. I was impressed by him, which is confusing given the campaign awfulnesses. Was the campaign was more about the rabid Republican strategists’ view of electability rather than Romney as a person and what he believes?
The Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts was a moderate, capable man. In some ways his undoing was what he had to become to win the Republican primaries -- and the way he had to pretend he hadn't taken those positions once he was the nominee.
Charle Krauthammer was already beginning the repudiation of Romney -- as a closet liberal -- on Fox News tonight. They want to convince themselves that he only lost because he wasn't extreme enough.
The lunacy of the Republican base is, unfortunately, underwritten with the money of billionaires. Jeb Bush et al have their work cut out for them to to try and wrench their party back from the unreality that pervades it.