Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?

botoan · Aug 28, 2011

Great article about Pres. Obama and his policies.

By BRUCE BARTLETT, The Fiscal Times
July 22, 2011

There is no question that Barack Obama is one of our most enigmatic presidents. Despite having published two volumes of memoirs before being elected president, we really don’t know that much about what makes him tick. The ongoing debate over the deficit and the debt limit is clarifying what I think he is: a Democratic Richard Nixon.

To explain what I mean, I first have to tell some history.

Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was a transformative president, partly because of his policies but mainly because he presided over the two most disruptive events of the 20th century: the Great Depression and World War II.

By the time Dwight Eisenhower took office, people craved stability and he was determined to give it to them. This angered his fellow Republicans, who wanted nothing more than to repeal Roosevelt’s New Deal, root and branch. And with control of both the House and Senate in 1953 and 1954, he could have undone a lot of it if he wanted to.

But Eisenhower not only refused to repeal the New Deal, he wouldn’t even let Republicans in Congress cut taxes even though the high World War II and Korean War rates were in effect. He thought a balanced budget should take priority. Eisenhower also helped to destroy right wing hero Joe McCarthy and worked closely with liberals on civil rights.

Eisenhower’s effective liberalism was deeply frustrating to conservatives. Robert Welch of the John Birch Society even accused him of being a communist. But after Republicans lost control of Congress in 1954, he was the only game in town for them.

By 1964, conservatives got control of the GOP’s nominating process and put forward one of their own, Barry Goldwater, to complete the unfinished work of repealing the New Deal that Eisenhower refused to do. But he lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, who quickly capitalized on his victory by doubling down on the New Deal with the Great Society.

Although Johnson was done in by Vietnam, his domestic liberalism was as popular in 1968 as the New Deal had been in 1952. Nevertheless, conservatives deluded themselves that Nixon would repeal the Great Society. But just as Eisenhower cemented the New Deal in place, Nixon accepted the legitimacy of the Great Society. His goal was to make it work efficiently and shave off the rough edges. Nixon even expanded the welfare state by expanding its regulatory reach through the Environmental Protection Agency and other new government agencies.

Conservatives were infuriated by Nixon’s betrayal, but lacking control of Congress they were stuck with him just as they had been with Eisenhower. Not very many were upset when Watergate pushed Nixon out of office.

Conservatives finally got the president they had always hoped for when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. But by then, key New Deal/Great Society programs like Social Security and Medicare were so deeply embedded in government and society that he never lifted a finger to dismantle them. Reagan even raised taxes 11 times to keep them funded.

Liberals initially viewed Bill Clinton the same way conservatives viewed Eisenhower – as a liberator who would reverse the awful policies of his two predecessors. But almost immediately, Clinton decided that deficit reduction would be the first order of business in his administration. His promised middle class tax cut and economic stimulus were abandoned.

By 1995, Clinton was working with Republicans to dismantle welfare. In 1997, he supported a cut in the capital gains tax. As the benefits of his 1993 deficit reduction package took effect, budget deficits disappeared and we had the first significant surpluses in memory. Yet Clinton steadfastly refused to spend any of the flood of revenues coming into the Treasury, hording them like a latter day Midas. In the end, his administration was even more conservative than Eisenhower’s on fiscal policy.

And just as pent-up liberal aspirations exploded in the 1960s with spending for every pet project green lighted, so too the fiscal conservatism of the Clinton years led to an explosion of tax cuts under George W. Bush, who supported every one that came down the pike. The result was the same as it was with Johnson: massive federal deficits and a tanking economy.

Thus Obama took office under roughly the same political and economic circumstances that Nixon did in 1968 except in a mirror opposite way. Instead of being forced to manage a slew of new liberal spending programs, as Nixon did, Obama had to cope with a revenue structure that had been decimated by Republicans.

Liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately liberal.

Here are a few examples of Obama's effective conservatism:

His stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought necessary;
He continued Bush’s war and national security policies without change and even retained Bush’s defense secretary;
He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals;
He caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever;
And in the past few weeks he has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans.
Further evidence can be found in the writings of outspoken liberals such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has condemned Obama’s conservatism ever since he took office.

Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it’s now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, it’s increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.
Click to expand...

andreboba · Aug 28, 2011

Weak comparison to pull eyes to his article.

When most people think of Nixon IMO, they think of Executive power overreach, endemic corruption and impeachment.

This esoteric rhetorical comparison to BHO doesn't wash.:smt017
Yes Obama has governed as a moderate conservative. What's new??

Soulthinker · Aug 29, 2011

True,and those conservatives don't know what they are talking about. Besides,they hate anything Obama stands for including their ideas. Socialist my foot.

TreePixie · Aug 29, 2011

botoan said: ↑

Great article about Pres. Obama and his policies.

Click to expand...

Great article, and makes some good points. Nixon was not nearly as conservative as people think. Frankly, I'd rather have him back than any of the Republicans currently running.

Thanks for posting this!

Tony Soprano · Aug 29, 2011

At this point I could care less what party he may or may not represent, I just wish we had a president who was a true Progressive.

Frederick · Aug 29, 2011

Look at the way the current administration has conducted itself and compare it to the Nixon White House. Obama is to the RIGHT of Nixon.

flaminghetero · Aug 29, 2011

Tony Soprano said: ↑

At this point I could care less what party he may or may not represent, I just wish we had a president who was a true Progressive.
Click to expand...

You gotta' take back your government from the Banks and Corporations first.

TreePixie · Aug 29, 2011

Tony Soprano said: ↑

At this point I could care less what party he may or may not represent, I just wish we had a president who was a true Progressive.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I don't care what party s/he belongs to, and I don't care if s/he is green and pink plaid. I just want a real progressive.

qnet · Aug 29, 2011

I thought it was a good article also.

ArmyRanger · Aug 30, 2011

As much as I love and support Obama, this seems like this was the wrong time to be the first black president. You need co-operation from both parties and both the Senate and the House to get this economy going.

It is very obvious no matter what Obama does, he will NEVER get the support he needs. You need a white man in office that everyone can rally around.

Pres. Bush, in 8 years, took this country to the worst economic times since the depression and he had major support from the American people in doing it.

It would be easier for many people to rally behind a white man psycologicaly speaking.

andreboba · Aug 30, 2011

ArmyRanger said: ↑

As much as I love and support Obama, this seems like this was the wrong time to be the first black president. You need co-operation from both parties and both the Senate and the House to get this economy going.

It is very obvious no matter what Obama does, he will NEVER get the support he needs. You need a white man in office that everyone can rally around.

Pres. Bush, in 8 years, took this country to the worst economic times since the depression and he had major support from the American people in doing it.

It would be easier for many people to rally behind a white man psycologicaly speaking.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there's too much truth in what you just said.

It's one thing to ELECT a BM to be POTUS. It's an entirely different proposition to FOLLOW that BM as the nation's Commander In Chief.

Too many WM in Congress simply do not venerate or respect Obama as President, and Obama doesn't demand that kind of respect from them.

I believe the military term is 'fragging'.

ArmyRanger · Aug 30, 2011

andreboba said: ↑

Unfortunately there's too much truth in what you just said.

It's one thing to ELECT a BM to be POTUS. It's an entirely different proposition to FOLLOW that BM as the nation's Commander In Chief.

Too many WM in Congress simply do not venerate or respect Obama as President, and Obama doesn't demand that kind of respect from them.

I believe the military term is 'fragging'.
Click to expand...

Thank you sir. :smt023

Fragging is when you don't have respect for your commanding officer to lead. You go out on patrol and some how, he ends up dead. Usually the officer is inept at leadership and got his position through politics.

Then you have a situation were the person is well qualified but because of other reasons, they won't except him, i.e. you're a minority or a female. The situation with Obama is like that. There are going to be many who will NEVER accept his leadership and will do anything to undermine it.

Sign In

Register

Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?

botoan Active Member

andreboba Well-Known Member

Soulthinker Well-Known Member

TreePixie New Member

Tony Soprano Moderator

Frederick Well-Known Member

flaminghetero Well-Known Member

TreePixie New Member

qnet New Member

ArmyRanger Member

andreboba Well-Known Member

ArmyRanger Member

Share This Page

White Women Black Men.com