"The Decline and Fall of 'Hope and Change'" (The Atlantic)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thermodynamic, Aug 11, 2016.

  1. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-decline-and-fall-of-hope-and-change/283454/

    Do you agree? Or not? Why?
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  3. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #3
    Obama set out to dismantle America and I think he did a great job at that task.
     
  4. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #4
    Looks like we still have 50 states to me
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    I don't think any president - even Trump - sets out to do that.
     
  6. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #6
     
  7. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    It's a two-year-old article. From an author I respect, and a very reputable periodical. Its also one of those pieces that Conservatives seize upon, without really bothering to read much beyond the headline.

    Anytime I read any serious criticism of Obama, I think back to those months in the fall and winter of 2008. I'm quite convinced many of us have completely forgotten what a dark time that was.

    The economy was losing a half million or more jobs a month. Houses were being foreclosed pretty much everywhere. The stock market was plummeting. Our biggest automakers were at death's door. We were still losing twenty or thirty troops killed each month in Iraq. Our military was perilously close to a breaking point.

    We needed some "Hope & Change." We got "Hope & Change."

    Within a year or so of Obama taking office, the stock market had stabilized. The large auto companies had been rescued. We were getting out of Iraq (although we still had to go through a tragic "surge" in Afghanistan.) A Stimulus Bill to save the economy was starting to make its presence felt. And Congress was grinding its way towards the first serious Healthcare reform in a generation.

    We still had the "Hope & Change" that not only allowed gay and lesbian troops to serve openly in our military; and the "Hope & Change" that gave those same people the freedom to marry the person they loved to come. We still had the "Hope & Change" of a global Agreement to counter Global Warming; the "Hope & Change" of an agreement to end Iran's nuclear weapons; and the "Hope & Change" of a Pacific trade deal to come.

    The "Hope & Change" that Friedersdorf is talking about, the "change" in the culture of Washington DC itself, doing away with lobbying and special interests? That was never going to happen. I'm sorry if Friedersdorf thought it was. I can't really blame the Republicans for that - although I do blame them for a lot of the disappointments of Obama's time in office.
     
  8. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #8
    Your kidding me, right?

    Obama has it out for imperialist Amerca, and Obama dragged America down while valiantly righting America's wrongs. It just so happens that such activity corresponds with communist Marxist doctrine.
     
  9. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #9

    You're funny. You've amused me this weekend. Thanks!
     
  10. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    Read the post above yours. Then read it again. By the 3rd, 4th, and 5th times you've reread that post, you might realize that your reply is a complete crock...

    But I doubt it.

    BL.
     
  11. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #11
    Obama beat Carter as a crap president, except that Carter's abysmal handling was by bumbling, not by malice.
     
  12. s2mikey macrumors 68020

    s2mikey

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    #12
    You mean the UAW and its union thugs were bailed it by taxpayers which is completely absurd and should be illegal. It was all about saving democratic votes and union sloth jobs. Everyone knows this. Just wanted to clear that up.
     
  13. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #13
    The military was absolutely not close to a breaking point. At all. A little overstretched, yeah. The real danger was troops being bored and coming back and buying motorcycles and driving them too fast.
     
  14. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #14
    Let us know when you return from Earth-2
     
  15. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #15
    For all politicians, promises are free before elections and forgotten after elections.
     
  16. Huntn, Aug 14, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #16
    I think Obama faced an unrelenting Republican campaign to be neutered, managed to protect his groin, and got some things accomplished, but not nearly what he would have liked to. Gee should we blame him or the Party of No Way, No How?

    Even so, as we love blaming or praising our Presidents for everything, he took control and although the hull was punctured, manage to steer us off the Economic rocks. I view his predecessor as a little boy borrowing his parents car, or a puppet on the neocon strings.

    [​IMG]



    Delusional or hyperbolic partisan comment? I'm thinking a bit of both. :)
    --- Post Merged, Aug 14, 2016 ---
    Hey, I think The Donald Jr is a nick name that suits you well.
     
  17. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #17
    I think you are forgetting what the situation was inside the US military in 2006-2007.

    Numerous active-duty and retired General officers were publicly warning about the damage the extended presence in Iraq and Afghanistan was doing to our military. You are forgetting about stop-loss orders. About the lowered recruitment standards. About the extension of Reserve and National Guard call-up periods. Our people; our equipment; and our system were wearing out.

    The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan effectively broke the social contract we have with our all-volunteer force: That Reserve and National Guard service meant "one weekend" a month. Some National Guard units were being called up two to three times in as many years. Rest and refit times were being cut from 12 months to nine. Junior commissioned officers and experienced NCOs were leaving at dangerously high rates.

    This is not to take anything away from the dedication, professionalism, and patriotism of the U.S. military. But our all-volunteer force is simply not structured to maintain the level of combat operations that we were conducting as part of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations indefinitely. By 2008 we'd been at it for five years.

    To his credit, George W. Bush listened to his Generals and ordered the U.S. military to withdraw from Iraq. To his credit, and at a considerable political cost, Barack Obama continued that policy. But make no mistake: If Obama had reversed course on that withdrawal, and (contrary to the wishes of the Iraqi Government) kept 150,000 troops in Iraq - today the U.S. military would be broken.

    We would have lost a generation of experienced NCOs and junior officers. Our ability to respond to threats in Europe, in the Pacific, and elsewhere in the Middle East would be considerably reduced. One may argue how effective a continued US presence in Iraq would have been at countering the spread of ISIL in Syria and Iraq itself. But one thing is certain; our country today would be considerably less secure if we'd kept up the Iraq occupation for an additional eight years.
     
  18. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #18
    Post approved ;), other than after sticking the knife in, Dubya gets credit for being talked into pulling it out. Give the man responsible for starting a sham war and several hundred thousand deaths some credit! :rolleyes:

    Which reminds me of Mr. Trust's comment the military is broken, a mess. Gee that tends to happen when you run the machine ragged, then don't have enough funds to replace the tires, change the oil, and magically produce new fresh soldiers who have not yet had their souls sucked from them after a decade long war. :mad:
     
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    The generals recommended keeping 30-35k troops, so while Bush listened to his generals, Obama did not and imposed a withdraw date that caused ISIS. Why a community organizer thought he was qualified to override generals is beyond me, no experience in military at all.
     
  20. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #20
    You don't want me to bring up my wife and her story again.

    Besides, Obama's approval ratings prove you wrong.

    You really make me wonder if you're trying to BE Trump; especially in trying to match him, gaffe for gaffe. If you are, you're doing a good job, as you're damn close.

    BL.
     
  21. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #21
    You left out the fact that the recession was already over before Obama's polices took effect.

    Just like the New Deal of the Great Depression, Obama's New New Deal, made things worse. Before the New Deal of the Great Depression, unemployment was single digits, after the New Deal, it was double digits and didn't go down until WWII.

    Obama used the same failed game plan that was use in the Great Depression and got the same results, a very, very slow recovery.

    Obama was given more than any president ever, yet never produced 3% growth.

    Don't forget, the recession was already over before Obama's policies took effect.

    Oh, yea, one last note: the recession was already over before Obama's policies took effect.
     
  22. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #22
    I was in the military at that time, but I also won't pretend that just because I was that what I'm saying is absolutely authoritative. With that being said, I have an issue with a few points here and will state my opinion.

    To start with the equipment. What was actually the case was that when we got into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our equipment for the most part was very outdated (excluding high-priority investment areas like an M1 Abrams or something). Soldiers were using rucksacks and M16s from Vietnam. By the time I got out we had all-new ergonomic packs, new M-4s, etc.... I'd argue that we were just dusting the cobwebs off. In regard to stop-loss and lowered recruitment standards. Yes stop-loss sucked and it did drain people. The lower recruitment standards kind of depends. The standards were set for a peacetime force, where we could afford to be picky. In war time that obviously changes, especially for jobs with a high degree of risk. The only real draining factor is that the war, like Vietnam and Korea, were wars fought where basically everybody says "who gives a **** about this country in the middle of nowhere". If you look at high rates of depression, PTSD, etc... it stems from a couple of things. One being the wars were perceived as pointless, and the other is related to the society that soldiers came back to.

    Well, this I definitely disagree with. Joining the reserves and national guard mean you drill 1 weekend per month during peace time. That's the risk you take, the oath you swear. It's just most people don't get caught with their pants down having joined the military with no intention of going to war.

    Not if they're stop-lossed. This is contradicting what you're saying.

    I don't really understand why you're saying that the military would be broken. That doesn't make any sense. How would the US military be broken? How are you defining broken? If the United States had wanted to open another front in Iran (just an example I hate the anti-Iran stuff), we could have handled that invasion as well without much of an issue. Stress for sure, but i think you're confusing stress with being broken.

    If anything, I think the war, including the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and still continuing to some level even in 2016 shows the opposite of what you're saying. Clearly the US military can handle those situations, and we didn't even need to institute a draft.

    Even if the entire US Army and Marines just up and quit, the US would still be able to respond to threats in all of those theaters. I think people forget just how gigantic and powerful the US military is. Just look at aircraft carriers. Ok so let's say we had 5 in the Middle East for the entire duration of the war. Where were the other 6 and their battle groups? Those 6, pound for pound, would crush the rest of the world's navy combined and that's just aircraft carriers. The navy itself has more planes than I believe every air force on the planet save maybe two or three (including the US).

    And we could start talking about the air force too if you wanted.

    Now if you wanted to say that perhaps the United States Army and marine corp were stressed by a decade+ long occupation. Yeah that's a fair point. But to say that the US military was almost broken, I think, is completely inaccurate.

    I don't think that's certain. I don't think you can make a prediction either way. Militarily we're in a much better position. Right now we're the most combat ready and battle hardened force there is. Nobody else has just went through the, shaking off the cobwebs if you will, that the US military has.
     
  23. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #23
    I think people expected a more progressive agenda and Obama has been largely center slightly left, but largely status quo.

    Fact is America is a mostly progressive nation at this point in history, and they demand progressive policies. Hiding behind low hanging fruit social issues is no longer starting to work on millennials who are the most academically educated and tech savvy generation of all time. They are capable of getting information incredibly fast, hence Bernie rising to fame super quick.
     
  24. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #24
    Ignore comments from people who comment on guns and the military like this without having served. @smallcoffee added some grande size reality to the matter though. Obamafail is a joke of a President. It will come down at some point in the history books as such too, I have no doubt.
     
  25. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #25
    Yeah I think people just don't realize how incredibly large and powerful the US military is. Now,I am a big "let's stop being enemies with China" advocate, so this is only an example, but the US military, while occupying Iraq and Afghanistan could have went to war with China at the same time and still operate without completely breaking down. Invade China no, of course, but destroy their military absolutely. I think this would require a draft, though. Even then we would probably have some excess capacity. We just have too much equipment and firepower. Our pilots are too well trained. Navy too large.

    The army is kept small because we don't anticipate ever really invading a large country WW2 style. Conventional war (between serious military powers) will be fought by air, sea, and using special operations exclusively, at least if the U.S. Is involved.

    Also a lot of people forget about the secret sauce that makes the US military so scary: logistics. Nobody else has even close to the same infrastructure and ability to move things. Even if you look at a total war effort, involving civilian aircraft, well we have FedEx and UPS and the USPS. Think they can't deliver goods? The US telecom industry, GPS, there are so many little things that you don't think of. Infrastructure and supply chain wins war. You can't fight a serious war if you can't even attack your enemy.

    But if you don't believe me go look and just compare navies and air forces. Nobody comes close. This is aside from any discussion in whether we should reduce the size of those forces.
     

Share This Page