- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,732
- Reaction score
- 28,557
It's been several years, of course, but I do not recall his candidacy being that of a "moderate technocrat" at all. That sounds like Clinton's 2016 campaign. Obama's Hope and Change campaign was not that.
Like I said, I think you're confusing "inspiring" for "populist." Obama has never been a populist and didn't run as one.
I do agree that he was fairly centrist, but I am also of the opinion that he detrimentally relied on the (increasingly nonexistent) returns of his conscious centrism.
Sure, that's all fine. I agree. But it kind of makes my point, doesn't it? Obama has always had a belief in centrism for its own sake and in trying to find common ground with the other side. That predated his presidency and continued into it.
If you've seen my posts on this subject, you likely know that I blame Hillary Clinton much, much more than Obama for some missteps in this sphere (I think Kerry was for the most part fairly good). But he certainly continued the American legacy of "democracy spreading" while consciously backing and supporting autocratic regimes that benefit the United States against populist insurrection and, in the case of places like Venezuela and Honduras, consciously undermining democracy to further US economic interests.
I don't think it's possible even in theory for U.S. foreign policy to be satisfactory to the far left, and I think too many people make the mistake of thinking: I dislike X; I dislike Y; therefore X=Y.