Obama's 100th day in Office
Today marks Obama's 100th day in office and while it is way too early to fully judge what he will be like as a president, I think he is off to a very good start. On the domestic policy, he is taking action necessary to kick start the economy and he has some of the best advisors here. The only concern here is the big spending will lead to a larger deficit and while this is necessary to help lift the United States out of the recession, it could be harmful in the long-run if not dealt with once the economy begins to recover. Since Obama did promise to cut all wasteful spending and so far he has been good at keeping his word, I trust he will take action to curb the deficit once the economy turns around. After all, the last the the budget was balanced was under Bill Clinton. Obama has several of his advisors, so I believe he is far more in line with Bill Clinton than Jimmy Carter when it comes to his economic policies. On the environmental front he is finally starting to take action, something that was woefully lacking under the Bush administration. Despite the fact those on the right hate his policies with a passion, he is very popular with approval ratings over 60%. While I doubt his approval ratings will stay this high throughout his term, it does show that many Americans are open to ideas that stray from the right wing ideology we have been so use to over the past 20 years.
On foreign policy, we have seen a dramatic shift and so far I have been very pleased with what I have seen. He promises to close down Guantanamo bay, re-engage the Middle East including countries such as Iran, ease the embargo act against Cuba, and draw down the troops in Iraq. This is the type of foreign policy many outside the US have wanted to see from an American leader and are now seeing. He may not go as far as some want, but at least he is moving in the right direction. I am a realist and realize that if he goes too far just as the Republicans did, although in the other direction, it will backfire and he will be a one-term president.
The other big news on the eve of his 100th day in office was Arlen Specter's defection from the Republicans to the Democrats. This puts the Democrats 1 seat shy of a filibuster proof majority and assuming Al Franken wins the recount in Minnesota, they will get their filibuster proof majority. For those claiming this will pull the US too far to the left, I say nonsense. Trying to pull the US as much to the left as Canada is won't happen even with a filibuster proof majority and considering how successful we have been as a country, I fail to see how moving to the left in the case of the US would be that bad. Maybe in some countries in Europe or even Canada to a lesser extent, it might be a bad idea, but not the with the US. Also, unlike Canada, party discipline is very weak so having 60 Democrats doesn't mean an automatic filibuster proof majority as many are Blue Dog Democrats who would likely join the Republicans in a filibuster if the Democrats bring in some legislation that is too controversial. Considering how diverse the US is in its views, having a 60 seat majority is more of a sign which party is a big tent party and which one is a narrow tent.
In the case of Arlen Specter, political opportunism may have played a role, but the reality is that as the Republicans moved further and further to the right they become less electable in Pennsylvania and also further from the views he held when he joined. He didn't leave his party, his party left him. There are many other moderate Republicans such as Lincoln Chaffee, Wayne Gilchrist, and Jim Leach who supported Obama last presidential election so he is not the only moderate Republican to leave his party as they became more and more ideological. Besides most Republicans on the West Coast and Northeast were usually moderate ones as you need to be moderate to win there. The hardcore conservative ones are largely in the South which is where the Republican's strength is increasinly becoming concentrated. If the Republicans wish to start winning again, they might consider being more moderate or at least not trying to push out every moderate. Reagan was no moderate in the party, but he at least understood the party needed both Conservatives and moderates if it were to be successful. People such as Rush Limbaugh appeal to a narrow base mainly of rural, Southern, older white men. Trying to push out anyway who isn't as right wing as them is the main reason their party is losing in many traditional strongholds. In the case of Pennsylvania, over 200,000 voters switched their registeration from Republican to Democrat between 2004 and 2008 and today, the number of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans is at an all time low. In some ways, Specter's defection is not unlike Scott Brison, Belinda Stronach, and Garth Turner's defections to the Liberals as all were former PCs (who are much like the moderates in the Republicans) as opposed to the Reform/Alliance (who are more in line with the conservative elements in the Republicans). They left since they felt the party swung too far to the right. I fully support his decision to defect, but I do believe any democracy requires a healthy alternative and I also believe the Republicans need a strong moderate element in it so I hope the few moderates left fight hard within the party to pull it back to the centre-right from the hard right. This should also be a warning to any Conservatives here in Canada that think going further to the right is their ticket to victory as support for hard right conservatism is even less north of the border. After all, Pennsylvania is still more conservative than most parts of Canada.
On foreign policy, we have seen a dramatic shift and so far I have been very pleased with what I have seen. He promises to close down Guantanamo bay, re-engage the Middle East including countries such as Iran, ease the embargo act against Cuba, and draw down the troops in Iraq. This is the type of foreign policy many outside the US have wanted to see from an American leader and are now seeing. He may not go as far as some want, but at least he is moving in the right direction. I am a realist and realize that if he goes too far just as the Republicans did, although in the other direction, it will backfire and he will be a one-term president.
The other big news on the eve of his 100th day in office was Arlen Specter's defection from the Republicans to the Democrats. This puts the Democrats 1 seat shy of a filibuster proof majority and assuming Al Franken wins the recount in Minnesota, they will get their filibuster proof majority. For those claiming this will pull the US too far to the left, I say nonsense. Trying to pull the US as much to the left as Canada is won't happen even with a filibuster proof majority and considering how successful we have been as a country, I fail to see how moving to the left in the case of the US would be that bad. Maybe in some countries in Europe or even Canada to a lesser extent, it might be a bad idea, but not the with the US. Also, unlike Canada, party discipline is very weak so having 60 Democrats doesn't mean an automatic filibuster proof majority as many are Blue Dog Democrats who would likely join the Republicans in a filibuster if the Democrats bring in some legislation that is too controversial. Considering how diverse the US is in its views, having a 60 seat majority is more of a sign which party is a big tent party and which one is a narrow tent.
In the case of Arlen Specter, political opportunism may have played a role, but the reality is that as the Republicans moved further and further to the right they become less electable in Pennsylvania and also further from the views he held when he joined. He didn't leave his party, his party left him. There are many other moderate Republicans such as Lincoln Chaffee, Wayne Gilchrist, and Jim Leach who supported Obama last presidential election so he is not the only moderate Republican to leave his party as they became more and more ideological. Besides most Republicans on the West Coast and Northeast were usually moderate ones as you need to be moderate to win there. The hardcore conservative ones are largely in the South which is where the Republican's strength is increasinly becoming concentrated. If the Republicans wish to start winning again, they might consider being more moderate or at least not trying to push out every moderate. Reagan was no moderate in the party, but he at least understood the party needed both Conservatives and moderates if it were to be successful. People such as Rush Limbaugh appeal to a narrow base mainly of rural, Southern, older white men. Trying to push out anyway who isn't as right wing as them is the main reason their party is losing in many traditional strongholds. In the case of Pennsylvania, over 200,000 voters switched their registeration from Republican to Democrat between 2004 and 2008 and today, the number of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans is at an all time low. In some ways, Specter's defection is not unlike Scott Brison, Belinda Stronach, and Garth Turner's defections to the Liberals as all were former PCs (who are much like the moderates in the Republicans) as opposed to the Reform/Alliance (who are more in line with the conservative elements in the Republicans). They left since they felt the party swung too far to the right. I fully support his decision to defect, but I do believe any democracy requires a healthy alternative and I also believe the Republicans need a strong moderate element in it so I hope the few moderates left fight hard within the party to pull it back to the centre-right from the hard right. This should also be a warning to any Conservatives here in Canada that think going further to the right is their ticket to victory as support for hard right conservatism is even less north of the border. After all, Pennsylvania is still more conservative than most parts of Canada.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 6:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home