The Huffington Post
recently ran a photograph of the merged faces of Presidents Obama and
Bush with the caption “George W. Obama.” That’s pretty strong stuff for a
supposedly liberal publication. Considering the recent news reports
about government surveillance, is it fair to say that Obama has become
as bad as Bush?
Reasonable people can
debate whether surveillance helps keep us safe or is a needless
intrusion, but anybody who thinks Obama invented surveillance has a very
short memory. Bush’s surveillance was widely reported in 2006 and dates
back even further. And anyone who claims Obama is as bad as Bush or the
Republican Party is ignoring many basic facts.
The Obama
administration’s surveillance is primarily “data mining” to discover
possible crime or terrorism. Michael Hayden, Bush’s director of the
National Security Agency, has noted that Obama is “more transparent”
about surveillance than Bush was.
Also, despite media
distortions, there is no evidence that the Obama administration has
engaged in far more invasive wiretapping. Bush definitely wiretapped,
and did so with, at best, questionable legal authority.
In other aspects of
foreign policy and national security, Obama has proven to be far more
effective and in line with liberal American values than Bush was.
Obama didn’t allow the
worst terrorist attack in American history--Bush did. Obama didn’t
start two “Bush Doctrine” pre-emptive wars for bad reasons--Bush did.
Obama didn’t mismanage those wars--Bush did. Obama ended one war and is
winding down the other. Obama got Osama bin Laden--Bush couldn’t.
Obama saved lives and helped oust a dictator in Libya while avoiding the
full-scale war that Bush probably would have started. Obama didn’t
start wars with Iran or North Korea, among other places. Bush (or McCain
or Romney) probably would have.
Bush and Congressional
Republicans created the Patriot Act in 2001 and spearheaded its renewal
in 2006 and 2011. Obama didn’t dream it up and mainly signed the renewal
in 2011 because Republicans (along with too many go-along Democrats)
would have overridden a veto for the sake of looking tough on terrorism.
Obama immediately banned
torture and ordered the closing of the Guantanamo prison (which is
being blocked by Congress). Bush, by contrast, approved torture and
founded Guantanamo, sending hundreds of detainees there. Obama hasn’t
sent anyone new to Guantanamo and has been extraditing prisoners there
back to their home countries.
Obama has increased the
use of drone strikes begun by Bush, and those strikes are definitely not
perfect. But Obama is moving the program from the CIA to the Defense
Department for better oversight. Most important, targeted and limited
drone strikes are far less destructive and costly than Bush’s full-out
wars.
Obama didn’t cut taxes
during wartime, which Bush did. Bush had terrible “Neocon” foreign
policy advisors (Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney) while Obama seeks
sensible counsel (Hillary Clinton and John Kerry). Bush persecuted
military members under Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell. Obama oversaw the DADT
repeal.
My fellow liberals may
call me an “Obamabot,” but that’s OK. Along with being factually wrong,
equating Bush and Obama is bad politics for liberals. This view feeds
the false-equivalency argument that all politicians are bad, causing
many Americans, especially independents and liberals, to disengage from
politics and stop voting.
When turnout is low,
Republicans almost always do better. Too many independents and liberals
skipped the 2010 “Tea Party” elections, and the 2014 midterms could have
the same sad outcome. Criticizing Obama from the left hurts all
Democrats at the ballot box. Nothing improves with Republicans
controlling Congress--or, worse yet, with a Republican president in
2016.
Of course, we liberals
want Obama to move leftward. But “George W. Obama” attacks are
ineffective and counterproductive. We’re still learning the basics about
the surveillance program. As more facts emerge, the differences between
Obama and Bush will become clearer, just as emerging facts about the
fake IRS scandal show that Obama is nobody’s Nixon. Moving forward,
we’re better off tempering our criticism, focusing on facts over
exaggerations, and voicing our objections in reasoned tones rather than
snarled attacks.
Elected leaders don’t
pay much attention to mobs carrying pitchforks and torches, but they
welcome friends with candles to light the way.
###
Originally published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. No anonymous comments, swearing, bullying, or other types of ignorance please. (This isn't FoxNation.com, after all.)