Chris,
Although I’m no expert on either FDR or Clinton, you’re right—I did have particular events in mind when I suggested that Obama might fall in line with their kind of politics.
When FDR first campaigned against Herbert Hoover in 1932, his campaign pledges looked something like this:
“immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures,” “abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating bureaus and eliminating extravagances, reductions in bureaucracy,” and … a “sound currency to be maintained at all hazards.” (from Wikipedia)
Yet, as we all know, FDR ended up doing the exact opposite. He increased public expenditures (including $3.3 million spent through the Public Works Administration) and added more offices and bureaucracies to government (including the invention of Social Security). Obviously, I’m not a big fan of what he did, but that’s beside the point: his campaign simply didn’t match his actions.
Moving on to Clinton: I don’t know if you can leave aside his lying (particularly when you said you find him a “likable and reasonable guy” – can you really trust those impressions when you know they’re of a pathological liar?), but that wasn’t what I had in mind when I wrote my initial post.
That event (and unfortunately, I don’t have specific dates or footnotes) was mid-to-late during his second term, when Clinton shuffled some bombs into Iraq for a few days to give the press something to talk about other than his sexual misconduct.
Both presidents were primarily interested in keeping hold of their power (especially Clinton, since in America, popularity is power). They could say one thing, but what they did was something far different. And it strikes me that Obama has so far (according the voting record and conduct that Freddoso lays out) done much the same. Let’s talk about emotional things like hope and change, but God forbid that we should actually try and tackle the hard issues. Let’s leave things the way they are. Yeah, that’s hope and change alright. Give me four years of that.
@F – When I said Bill Clinton “seemed” like a reasonable and likable guy, it was carefully calculated. The similarities I see between Obama and Clinton accommodate my measured distrust of both men.
As a very cynical aside, the campaign promises that you quoted sound much more like republican talking points over the last decade or so than they do democratic ones. Bush, 9-11, Iraq and the War on Terror could all sit snugly alongside your criticism of Clinton; our most recent and supposedly conservative administration has outspent FDR beyond what he could have ever imagined. American Politics rely on celebrity, and the art of distraction has been a staple of campaign methodology for quite some time now.
The fact that our politicians almost universally over promise and under deliver isn’t so much a black mark against them as it is a sober reminder that the American People are the noodle-headed amnesiacs that persist in electing them.
Fair points all, except that I am no Republican. Never have been, never will be. If I am arguing for any coherent thesis, it’s that politicians should be universally distrusted. How’s that for cynicism?
@F – So what should be our attitude toward the nation-state, do you think?
I try to think about that as little as possible.