4 ms·

It's not a big surprise. Modern neo-left politicians have a long track record of this kind of policy inversion when they get into power. The same thing happened

It's not a big surprise. Modern neo-left politicians have a long track record of this kind of policy inversion when they get into power. The same thing happened with the Lib Dems in the UK. They only really had two policies going into coalition with the Conservatives: a referendum on proportional representation, which got modified into something slightly different and then they lost, and eliminating student fees, a pledge which they immediately abandoned once they were in power and realized how expensive it would be. Then it happened again with Brexit: a whole lot of MPs promised to respect the vote and implement the referendum, then once they got into power immediately and publicly reversed this position, in some cases even crossing the floor to join different parties that had 180 degree different policies (this doesn't automatically trigger a by-election in the UK, though really it should). The issue is not really communication breakdown. The problem is that politicians often don't really research their positions going in. Then once they are in government they get access to lots of briefings, 'secret' information, they have to start thinking about budgets and so on. Suddenly they realize their policies weren't quite as obvious as they thought they were. Getting rid of nuclear was flagged for many years as an obviously stupid move but the Greens could blow off such criticism as "right wing" and thus (to their supporters) not even worthy of consideration; suddenly they're in the hotseat and can't do it so easily anymore.

mcv 5y ago
How about Obama promising to close Guantanamo and protect whistleblowers? I was really hoping he'd have all the torturers prosecuted. That will probably never happen.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > How about Obama promising to close Guantanamo The US isn't and executive dictatorship and Congress refused to allow the use of funds for that purpose. As in most modern democracies, the main policy-setting body of government in the US is the legislative, not executive branch.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    Maybe I am mistaken, but as the commander in chief he is allowed to send troops to a different base if he wanted?
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Maybe I am mistaken, but as the commander in chief he is allowed to send troops to a different base if he wanted? He is not allowed to do anything that costs money if Congress has prohibited spending money for that purpose, as it did for closing the detention facility at Guatanamo (which, not Guatanamo itself, is what Obama had campaigned on closing.) It also prohibited transferring detainees to US bases. The President could have reassigned the US troops assigned to the detention facility without closing it or transferring the detainees, but I can't imagine that would be regarded as a good thing.
      - mcv 5y ago
        Couldn't he just have released the detainees? There wasn't any legal basis for keeping them there, as far as I understand, and if there was, he can pardon.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Couldn't he just have released the detainees? Well, for the most part foreign countries weren't willing to take them and bringing them into the US (whether for release or prosecution or detention) was prohibited (whether for release, imprisonment, or trial) was prohibited by Congress, so, no.
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        I wasn't suggesting closing the base. It seems like he could have attempted to do a run around congress. Instead of closing the base or detention center or whatever he could have transferred the troops to different bases. Several of the prisoners released (re)joined terrorist organizations when they got back to the Middle East. I am of course not suggesting he should have released more prisoners. I was thinking more of transferring prisoners to a Middle East base. I think doing questionable things to enemy combatants in a war zone is generally considered more acceptable? I am not sure if he could have done that or not. I assume if he transferred the base personnel to a Middle Eastern base they could have taken the prisoners without extra cost. (There of course would be an extra cost, but no additional money would need to be spent) If there is one thing politicians are known for it is wiggling their way out of stuff with slick maneuvers. I am sure Obama could have figured out a way.

mcv 5y ago

How about Obama promising to close Guantanamo and protect whistleblowers? I was really hoping he'd have all the torturers prosecuted. That will probably never happen.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> How about Obama promising to close Guantanamo The US isn't and executive dictatorship and Congress refused to allow the use of funds for that purpose. As in most modern democracies, the main policy-setting body of government in the US is the legislative, not executive branch.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Maybe I am mistaken, but as the commander in chief he is allowed to send troops to a different base if he wanted?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Maybe I am mistaken, but as the commander in chief he is allowed to send troops to a different base if he wanted? He is not allowed to do anything that costs money if Congress has prohibited spending money for that purpose, as it did for closing the detention facility at Guatanamo (which, not Guatanamo itself, is what Obama had campaigned on closing.) It also prohibited transferring detainees to US bases. The President could have reassigned the US troops assigned to the detention facility without closing it or transferring the detainees, but I can't imagine that would be regarded as a good thing.
    - mcv 5y ago
      Couldn't he just have released the detainees? There wasn't any legal basis for keeping them there, as far as I understand, and if there was, he can pardon.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Couldn't he just have released the detainees? Well, for the most part foreign countries weren't willing to take them and bringing them into the US (whether for release or prosecution or detention) was prohibited (whether for release, imprisonment, or trial) was prohibited by Congress, so, no.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      I wasn't suggesting closing the base. It seems like he could have attempted to do a run around congress. Instead of closing the base or detention center or whatever he could have transferred the troops to different bases. Several of the prisoners released (re)joined terrorist organizations when they got back to the Middle East. I am of course not suggesting he should have released more prisoners. I was thinking more of transferring prisoners to a Middle East base. I think doing questionable things to enemy combatants in a war zone is generally considered more acceptable? I am not sure if he could have done that or not. I assume if he transferred the base personnel to a Middle Eastern base they could have taken the prisoners without extra cost. (There of course would be an extra cost, but no additional money would need to be spent) If there is one thing politicians are known for it is wiggling their way out of stuff with slick maneuvers. I am sure Obama could have figured out a way.