Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Heads Up!! "Obama Ready to Defy Base in Order to Advance Trans-Pacific Partnership" [View all]librechik
(30,957 posts)37. Of course he did. Policies don't change from president to president--that's not who we are
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html?event=event25
"Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldnt have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though its a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, National Security and Double Government, he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term double government: Theres the one we elect, and then theres the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy."
"Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldnt have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though its a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, National Security and Double Government, he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term double government: Theres the one we elect, and then theres the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
261 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Heads Up!! "Obama Ready to Defy Base in Order to Advance Trans-Pacific Partnership" [View all]
99th_Monkey
Dec 2014
OP
"Those who oppose these trade deals ironically are accepting a status quo ...
99th_Monkey
Dec 2014
#9
So do you favor the TPP or oppose? Or do you limit your intellectual responses
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#25
Give credit where it is due, he watches out for our reading material so we don't read
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#131
Lol, not much doubt about it, we are being sold out again. 'Good for American businesses, good for
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#132
So what's wrong with Liberal Publications, you didn't say, you just posted that roly poly laughing
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#147
He is a Canadian from oil country and a Harper supporter, it is to be expected
Dragonfli
Dec 2014
#164
I think you're probably right. But what puzzled a whole lot of people here is what is to be gained
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#174
He is not trying to gain anything, he simply enjoys baiting liberals like any other run of the mill
Dragonfli
Dec 2014
#175
Well, that's the Liberal in me, I do like to give people some credit, sometimes it's true, way more
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#176
Commondreams is a longtime reputable LIBERAL publication. What is your problem
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#130
Wash. Post: "Obama says he willing to defy Democrats on his support of Trans-Pacific Partnership"
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2014
#140
In defense of Sid, that's really a dishonest headline, and well worthy of ridicule.
ucrdem
Dec 2014
#221
"Why carry water for wingers?" It's Obama trying to change the votes of the majority of Democrats
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2014
#231
Well who do you think is going to be paying him for his $200,000 appearance
helpmetohelpyou
Dec 2014
#3
Krugman thinks it's not a big deal since tariffs are already very low and we have FTA's with many
pampango
Dec 2014
#11
There will be a "free and open discussion", you will "hear the debate" and the vote
pampango
Dec 2014
#94
So the authority of a president to 'secretly' negotiate trade agreements started under FDR then
pampango
Dec 2014
#201
This piece of crap "trade deal" was drafted in secret by Mega-Corp CEOs & Lobbyists
99th_Monkey
Dec 2014
#16
Pretending east coast globalists like Krugman are on our side is part of the problem...nt
Jesus Malverde
Dec 2014
#84
If your Democratic "tent" does not have room for Paul Krugman, it is a small tent indeed.
pampango
Dec 2014
#101
"No big deal", "hugely overblown", "hype from both sides" and "far from clear it is worth supporting
pampango
Dec 2014
#95
There is more to it than the trade, the ability for corporations to sue us for wanting clean air or
Dragonfli
Dec 2014
#21
Quite the opposite: old-fashioned trade deals are a victim of their own success, few tariffs left...
pampango
Dec 2014
#205
True. He is a liberal, Nobel-prize-winning economist, but he is not a lawyer.
pampango
Dec 2014
#233
Excellent post. Thanks for the links. Very informative, though the info is disturbing.
RiverLover
Dec 2014
#243
If Krugman is not liberal enough for you, I suppose there's a bus with his name on it.
pampango
Dec 2014
#249
I think a lot of DU'ers care about tariffs. "Obama ... isn’t secretly bargaining away democracy."
pampango
Dec 2014
#229
Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government action
eridani
Dec 2014
#238
Fascism comes to America. The dismantling of democracy for corporate power.
woo me with science
Dec 2014
#12
Praise from Orrin Hatch! He can put that in his scrap book! To all of you who still wonder why the
Doctor_J
Dec 2014
#15
That's why we need them now more than ever, in local races and the 2016 primaries.
arcane1
Dec 2014
#63
None of the Pres Obama super supporters will debate this issue. They apparently just "go along".
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#28
We should wait until it's been enacted and the final effects seen before judging it
IDemo
Dec 2014
#32
Not "shortly" but here you go. That damned "uninformed", "yeah-for-our-team" liberal base.
pampango
Dec 2014
#202
Well, OK, I'll bite. After NAFTA passed middle class incomes increased for the only time in 40 yrs
Recursion
Dec 2014
#71
NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO have been disasters or haven't you been paying attention.
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#76
No. They've been pretty good. Median wages went up and unemployment decreased
Recursion
Dec 2014
#78
Nice post. Here are 3 charts showing the rebound in wages and household incomes in the mid-1990's.
pampango
Dec 2014
#119
Your graph shows that manufacturing employment grew during Clinton's administration (and after NAFTA
pampango
Dec 2014
#143
I'm gonna guess you didn't work in manufacturing. Those of us who did know better.
Autumn
Dec 2014
#109
Ok. but why so opaque? If it's really good for everybody why not let the press in?
librechik
Dec 2014
#38
Welcome to DU - looks like this is the start of the attempt to get liberals and
djean111
Dec 2014
#58
It isn't a fucking trade deal! Only 5 of 29 articles have anything to do with trade
eridani
Dec 2014
#225
Of course he did. Policies don't change from president to president--that's not who we are
librechik
Dec 2014
#37
I think it is time for labor unions to cut ties to the Democratic Party.
liberal_at_heart
Dec 2014
#43
where is the transparency Obama promised? He promised to be a transparent president.
liberal_at_heart
Dec 2014
#48
It's almost as if they WANTED repubs to gain Senate seats, in order to provide cover for this.
arcane1
Dec 2014
#61
President Obama's base isn't liberal. President Obama is a Conservative. He pretended to be liberal
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#64
Remember when Obama secretly reassured Canada that his opposition to NAFTA was just a campaign ploy?
Vattel
Dec 2014
#114
I believe he was going to 'renegotiate' it, not repeal it. The TPP under negotiation includes Mexico
pampango
Dec 2014
#116
Thanks. I did not know that the TPP would not supersede NAFTA, as NAFTA had superseded
pampango
Dec 2014
#206
So much for him being "free" to become more liberal in his second term.
senseandsensibility
Dec 2014
#96
It has been on the drawing board, the secret sessions seem to be wrapping up, and
djean111
Dec 2014
#104
What part of it having been on the drawing board, still being written in secret, do you
djean111
Dec 2014
#110
So you did say it wouldn't happen, I thought so. Will it happen? If Obama has anything to say
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#142
Obama wants it to happen, are you calling him a liar or too incompetent to do it?
Dragonfli
Dec 2014
#171
Obama defying his base? Is that supposed to be something new? Airc, he boasted about
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#134
Welp fuck. What the hell is wrong with him getting suckered into this secret bullshit.
lonestarnot
Dec 2014
#246