4 ms·

I'm sorry, but any theory that has "I think the American people are deluded" as an important point should have a lot of other evidence to it. This article is l

by chton 12y ago

I'm sorry, but any theory that has "I think the American people are deluded" as an important point should have a lot of other evidence to it. This article is lacking that. One thing the theory seems to gloss over is that it assumes dishonesty of current and past presidents. If the president wielded no real power, wouldn't at least one of them have said something about it? Out of 44 men elected for their vision and mentality, not one was brave enough to break the cycle of lies? And why would some, like Teddy Roosevelt, stand up for a second term after a hiatus if they didn't have any real power to change policy? There are better explanations for the continuity in policy and the differences between candidate-Obama and elect-Obama. One is that they base their viewpoints on different information. As president, Obama has to base policy on classified information, secret dealings made by predecessors and staff, corporate interests, and in general "the big picture". As a campaigner, he wasn't burdened by any of those and could provide an idealistic view. At least we have evidence that all of these exist.

puzzlingcaptcha 12y ago
The article reads a bit like "buy my book to learn more!", but as someone pointed out below, that seems to be the bulk of the source material: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Fin...
- chton 12y ago
  I'll have to save that paper for later and see if he has some decent sources. If he does have proper evidence, maybe the theory has merit. On the other hand, if there was a 'smoking gun', it would be mentioned on the first page and in every article about it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
A1kmm 12y ago
Or less charitably, candidate-Obama said things he didn't believe in that would get him elected, and elect-Obama acted based on his beliefs. I agree that the head of the executive and the legislature could change things if they wanted to - the problem is lack of will by the leaders. Even irrational tough on crime / terrorism / communism / the-latest-bogieman rhetoric wins more votes than civil rights rhetoric, at least until the majority feel adversely affected by the lack of rights. In addition, supporting large government transfers to private sectors like defence and national security brings in more campaign funds than supporting rights for natural people.
- chton 12y ago
  That also requires serious dishonesty on Obama's part, something which doesn't seem supported by people's accounts before his campaign. Unless you believe he kept up the pretense even years before holding a public office, the evidence is more in line with his viewpoints having changed than with constant dishonesty.
  - zo1 12y ago
    So if I make a promise, and then "change my viewpoint" on it, then I'm allowed to break said promise? Am I understanding your argument there, or is there more to it? Or, we could go back to the author's point about the public being deluded. Which is supported by them voting the guy in a second time, even after they say him with his "changed viewpoint", and lack of promise-keeping.
    - chton 12y ago
      You're allowed to break your promise if it turns out it would do more harm than good. If you're unwilling to change your views based on new information, you would be a zealot and unfit for government. I don't know what information Obama does base his policy on, but you bet there's a million factors we (and he in his campaign) don't consider that he now must. He has enacted positive policy changes too. He did pull troops out of Iraq, he did bring gay marriage equality forward by decades. Whatever you think of the man, saying he broke all his promises and essentially acted like a tyrant is unfair. The same can be said of Bush and others before them. On a related note, getting reelected isn't a measure of delusion. It depends on a lot of things, such as quality of the opponent, general approval, party approval, desire for stability, etc. People also reelected Bush, who had some of the same policies as Obama, and whose approval rating was even worse.
      - zo1 12y ago
        We never said anything about the promises being "harmful". It's also not his place to decide what is/isn't harmful, he was elected based on certain premises and promises of certain actions. Of course, he get's to interpret stuff/meaning, but directly not doing the things he promised without a valid reason to explain is quite immoral. Now if you want to argue that "he has a good reason, we just don't know it" then you're pretty much conceding that your people aren't really running the country a la democracy. It means that they're picking a president on completely imperfect information, and have nothing but promises and character to go by. Heck, they can't even rely on the candidates keeping/breaking their promises. Positive policy changes - good. No one is saying that he did only bad things or anything, that's not being discussed at all, and neither is his character or how good of a person he is. That's like saying: "Yeah, sure, my husband beats me... But yesterday he said he loved me, and he bought me flowers. I'm sure he beats me for a reason, and I don't know what information he bases my beatings on." The example is ridiculous, but it shows the irrelevancy of good deeds outweighing the bad, through extreme points.
msabalau 12y ago
Perhaps if a president like Eisenhower, who came up through the military, warned about a "military industrial complex", that would be some evidence that the power of elected politicians is limited in some real way. And perhaps "limited in ways that the public doesn't understand" is a better synthesis of the author's point rather than "wields no real power"
- chton 12y ago
  That is a very good point, but I don't think corporate influences like the MIC are necessarily limiting the president's power. It's an influence, and a very strong one at that, but they can go against it. It's just one of the many datapoints that a president has to manage. "Limited in ways that the public doesn't understand" is undoubtedly correct, but I disagree more on the extent. The author seems to think the president has no real control over the policies he sets, at least in some areas. I believe he does have real control, but he is limited by reality being far more complex than in an ideal world.

by chton 12y ago

puzzlingcaptcha 12y ago

The article reads a bit like "buy my book to learn more!", but as someone pointed out below, that seems to be the bulk of the source material: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Fin...

chton 12y ago
I'll have to save that paper for later and see if he has some decent sources. If he does have proper evidence, maybe the theory has merit. On the other hand, if there was a 'smoking gun', it would be mentioned on the first page and in every article about it.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

A1kmm 12y ago

Or less charitably, candidate-Obama said things he didn't believe in that would get him elected, and elect-Obama acted based on his beliefs. I agree that the head of the executive and the legislature could change things if they wanted to - the problem is lack of will by the leaders. Even irrational tough on crime / terrorism / communism / the-latest-bogieman rhetoric wins more votes than civil rights rhetoric, at least until the majority feel adversely affected by the lack of rights. In addition, supporting large government transfers to private sectors like defence and national security brings in more campaign funds than supporting rights for natural people.

chton 12y ago
That also requires serious dishonesty on Obama's part, something which doesn't seem supported by people's accounts before his campaign. Unless you believe he kept up the pretense even years before holding a public office, the evidence is more in line with his viewpoints having changed than with constant dishonesty.
- zo1 12y ago
  So if I make a promise, and then "change my viewpoint" on it, then I'm allowed to break said promise? Am I understanding your argument there, or is there more to it? Or, we could go back to the author's point about the public being deluded. Which is supported by them voting the guy in a second time, even after they say him with his "changed viewpoint", and lack of promise-keeping.
  - chton 12y ago
    You're allowed to break your promise if it turns out it would do more harm than good. If you're unwilling to change your views based on new information, you would be a zealot and unfit for government. I don't know what information Obama does base his policy on, but you bet there's a million factors we (and he in his campaign) don't consider that he now must. He has enacted positive policy changes too. He did pull troops out of Iraq, he did bring gay marriage equality forward by decades. Whatever you think of the man, saying he broke all his promises and essentially acted like a tyrant is unfair. The same can be said of Bush and others before them. On a related note, getting reelected isn't a measure of delusion. It depends on a lot of things, such as quality of the opponent, general approval, party approval, desire for stability, etc. People also reelected Bush, who had some of the same policies as Obama, and whose approval rating was even worse.
    - zo1 12y ago
      We never said anything about the promises being "harmful". It's also not his place to decide what is/isn't harmful, he was elected based on certain premises and promises of certain actions. Of course, he get's to interpret stuff/meaning, but directly not doing the things he promised without a valid reason to explain is quite immoral. Now if you want to argue that "he has a good reason, we just don't know it" then you're pretty much conceding that your people aren't really running the country a la democracy. It means that they're picking a president on completely imperfect information, and have nothing but promises and character to go by. Heck, they can't even rely on the candidates keeping/breaking their promises. Positive policy changes - good. No one is saying that he did only bad things or anything, that's not being discussed at all, and neither is his character or how good of a person he is. That's like saying: "Yeah, sure, my husband beats me... But yesterday he said he loved me, and he bought me flowers. I'm sure he beats me for a reason, and I don't know what information he bases my beatings on." The example is ridiculous, but it shows the irrelevancy of good deeds outweighing the bad, through extreme points.

msabalau 12y ago

Perhaps if a president like Eisenhower, who came up through the military, warned about a "military industrial complex", that would be some evidence that the power of elected politicians is limited in some real way. And perhaps "limited in ways that the public doesn't understand" is a better synthesis of the author's point rather than "wields no real power"

chton 12y ago
That is a very good point, but I don't think corporate influences like the MIC are necessarily limiting the president's power. It's an influence, and a very strong one at that, but they can go against it. It's just one of the many datapoints that a president has to manage. "Limited in ways that the public doesn't understand" is undoubtedly correct, but I disagree more on the extent. The author seems to think the president has no real control over the policies he sets, at least in some areas. I believe he does have real control, but he is limited by reality being far more complex than in an ideal world.