Comments on: The Foreign-Policy Advantages of Obama as Bush III

By: tdaxp » Blog Archive » Why Obama wants to bail out the banks

tdaxp » Blog Archive » Why Obama wants to bail out the banks — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:29:35 +0000

[...] As I said wrote in June 2008… [...]

By: tdaxp » Blog Archive » Obama, captive of his court

tdaxp » Blog Archive » Obama, captive of his court — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:41:28 +0000

[...] own beliefs and statements are dangerous enough to make me root for an Obama of the Establishment. It looks like, if he’s elected, that’s what we are going to [...]

By: tdaxp » Blog Archive » Barack Obama, the Candidate of the Establishment (on the Surge, as with everything else)

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:07:10 +0000

[...] Barack Obama is the candidate of the Establishment, “Dr. No-Change,” who will flip and flop with the views of the Establishment of the government and the Democratic Party. This might be a good thing. Having a smart, intelligent, and ambitiousness President would lead to changes, some of which may be harmful. As it is, Obama’s plan to coast on our greatness isn’t half bad. [...]

By: Seerov

Seerov — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:38:56 +0000

I think you may be on to something here. I would like to see smart, dedicated people working within the actual bureaucracy though, especially in the military and intelligence. But I assume you’re talking about the politicians, and not the career government folks?

By: tdaxp » Blog Archive » A Clinton Kind of Strength

tdaxp » Blog Archive » A Clinton Kind of Strength — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:45:40 +0000

[...] The Foreign-Policy Advantages of Obama as Bush III [...]

By: gmgDesign » Good intro

gmgDesign » Good intro — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:58:22 +0000

[...] gotta love intros like this: Coming Anarchy, Phatic Communion, Soob, Tom Barnett, Weekly Standard, and zenpundit have [...]

By: Dan tdaxp

Dan tdaxp — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:16:25 +0000

Purpleslog,

Excellent point.

I want people who want to make a name for themselves opening enterprises, guiding innovation, and creating jobs and wealth.

In a functioning environment, politics largely takes care of itself. It needs leadership in times of crises, but true crises are pretty rare.

Curtis,

Obama’s Afghanistan plan is substantively identical to Bush’s and McCain’s. Obama’s lack of ambiguity is troubling to some, but Bush made similar statements early in his presidency wrt Taiwan.

It was the Democrats (and perhaps McCain, behind the scenes) grumbling about “Bush II”’s pledge to attack China in the event of war in the Taiwan Straits. And now it is the Republicans (including McCain, quite publicly) grumbling about “Bush III’s” pledge to attack Pakistan.

I was happy back in the Day over Bush II’s openness, and if Obama becomes Bush’s third time, that would help me reconcile with him.

By: purpleslog

purpleslog — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:42:52 +0000

“The most ambitious should be in the business of creating wealth, not redistributing it.”

TDAXP: I have heard you make this argument before. Whenever I get down on the political class I remember it. In America, we want are best and brightest as entrepreneurs and business leaders, not as civil servants and perm politicians.

By: Curtis Gale Weeks

Curtis Gale Weeks — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:58:35 +0000

Dan,

How would you characterize Obama as “Bush III” on foreign policy, given the Obama difference on Afghanistan/Pakistan? [1]

[1] http://soobdujour.blogspot.com/2008/06/robert-kaplan-on-obamas-iraq-war.html?showComment=1213929660000#c1876705252347966778

By: Stephen Pampinella

Stephen Pampinella — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:34:06 +0000

“As it relates to Obama, many commentators are now raising the hope that Obama will be bureaucratically captured in the same way that Petreaues and Gates were. Even better for us, Obama will have little operational control over what actually happens.”

But were they really ‘capured’, or is it more of a two-way street where Gates and Petraeus work within established institutions to change them? This is real leadership – getting people to buy into your vision – rather than forcing it down people’s throats. This way a leader doesn’t need operational control, as subordinates are already signed on and willingly implement policy.

I doubt McCain nor Obama will force feed anything to the gov’t, and this alone marks a substantial departure from the Bush administration. But I also think Obama policies (at least militarily) will derive more support from the institutional powers-that-be than McCain’s (given that he surrounds himself with advisors like Sarah Sewall and Samantha Power). If this is what you mean by going with the flow (institutionally), then I agree.