Posted on 01/02/2015 5:01:07 AM PST by Rummyfan
As the calendar turns toward the final two years of the Obama Presidency, this is a moment to consider the world it has produced. There is no formal Obama Doctrine that serves as the 44th President’s blueprint for America’s engagement with the world. But it is fair to say that Barack Obama brought into office a set of ideas associated with the progressive, or left-leaning, wing of the Democratic foreign-policy establishment.
“Leading from behind” was the phrase coined in 2011 by an Obama foreign-policy adviser to describe the President’s approach to the insurrection in Libya against Moammar Gaddafi. That phrase may have since entered the lexicon of derision, but it was intended as a succinct description of the progressive approach to U.S. foreign policy. ***
The Democratic left believes that for decades the U.S. national-security presence in the world—simply, the American military—has been too large. Instead, when trouble emerges in the world, the U.S. should act only after it has engaged its enemies in attempts at detente, and only if it first wins the support and participation of allies and global institutions, such as NATO, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and so on.
In an interview this week with National Public Radio, Mr. Obama offered an apt description of the progressive foreign-policy vision. “When it comes to ISIL, us devoting another trillion dollars after having been involved in big occupations of countries that didn’t turn out all that well” is something he is hesitant to do.
Instead, he said, “We need to spend a trillion dollars rebuilding our schools, our roads, our basic science and research here in the United States; that is going to be a recipe for our long-term security and success.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
I don’t think Obama can say multiple sentences without injecting “schools” or “teachers” into the conversation; the Democratic Party is the political arm of the teachers’ unions, and it is becoming clearer every day.
And roads, bridges, and infrastructure.
True, trying to maintain the illusion that he is creating jobs (while ignoring the fact that they aren’t private sector jobs, but rather taxpayer-funded transfers of wealth). Any time a Democrat says “infrastructure”, an image pops into my head immediately of the women waving the traffic flags at construction sites - the affirmative action requirements for those contracts are burdensome.
Truth be told, if it wasn't for a growing faith in God, I'd be pooping little green apples scared these days.
Too much wrong is forming ranks against US and the only formal opposition surrendered long ago.
“the Democratic Party is the political arm of the teachers’ unions, and it is becoming clearer every day.”
That is why we must crush them and stomp them into dust at the local level. Beat the commie bastards into submission until they agree to dump the unions. Scott Walkers has the play-book on how that is done.
One of the best WSJ editorials ever...
It’s hiding behind a pay-wall, never to be seen by the masses.
Chris Christie has done a good job here in NJ as well; by limiting how much the teachers’ unions can extort from us through property tax caps, he has earned their undying enmity.
Frankly, I'd not have been really happy with spending that kind of $$$ on bridges, etc .... but at least we'd have something to show for it afterwards.
I'll go out on a limb and guess that the (well-laundered) stimulus bill likely financed much of BO's 2012 campaign. But that's just my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.