hip hop bunny hop

Well, I, like many people who prefer the Old Right, found Obama preferable to McCain as The O gave lipservice to the notion of a non-interventionist/pragmatic foreign policy. This distinction was key to me as once the market bottomed out the differences in economic policy became negligible to me.

However, The O has been ineffective & damaging in terms of foreign policy. My biggest gripes in this area would be the efforts at nation building in afghanistan, the involvement in Libya's civil war, support for the populist movements in the "arab spring", his inability to reign in Bibi's government in Israel, support for Syrian rebels, etc. It's been a sad continuation of Bush era ideology.

This time around, I don't see much difference in foreign policy between the two. The tones in regards to Iran are much different, but the practical difference seems to be negligible. If The O is unable to restrain Bibi from launching an Israeli strike, the practical consequences would be much the same as the US participating in the attack itself. Further, both seem to be enthralled by the NeoCon notion of universal rights/democracy.

Further, I do not like the pandering The O is attempting with this little faux amnesty for illegal immigrants. When facing massive unemployment, I do not see why he would not put american citizens first.... it's not controversial to point out that labor is treated as a commodity in this economy, & consequently increasing the supply by millions would have a detrimental effect on employment figures. Further, considering these immigrants tend to have minimal skill sets, & the worse effects of the economic depression are felt by the low skill set citizenry, this will just make things worse. I understand the political calculus of it, but I've yet to hear how this will benefit working class citizens.

Lastly, The O's biggest themes are (1) we could be worse off, which - even if true - isn't a reason to continue to support him, & (2) it's the darn congressional Republicans fault things aren't better, which is an admission that he has been ineffective in dealing with the opposition. Since this opposition will, in all likelihood, continue to exist in sufficient quantity that it will still be able to continue to cockblock legislation, there's no reason to expect this will change if he gets four more years. Will economic legislation fundamentally be different? I doubt it.... we'll likely see some variation of the simpson-bowles plan implemented, but the longer it's put off the more damage will be done, & doing it will be massivelly unpopular with most of the public & with many key constituencies. Meaning, doing it will require massive amounts of political skill in dealing with the opposition which The O has shown to lack. Hell, he's unable to get his own party in line within Congress....

Considering that neither party will likely have control of both houses of congress & the presidency, compromise legislation will result, & Romney has shown himself to be more effective at such compromise legislation than Obama.

If you're curious, my ideal candidate would have the following positions:

-oppose mass immigration & amnesty for illegals
-oppose free trade agreements
-have a strictly non-interventionist foreign policy, including abstaining from UN "Peacekeeping" missions & preventing the UN from being used as a tool of imperial policy
-promote secularism on the federal level & allow individual states to decide these pseudo-religious/cultural litmus test questions (abortion, weed, gay marriage, etc.)

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.