From Knapp2012.com
Same as the old boss, part 1: Foreign policy
My initial intention following the election was to give president-elect Barack Obama the traditional “honeymoon” period — waiting at least until his inauguration, and possibly even until the usual “first 100 days” agenda had floated or foundered, before starting to slice and dice his approach to the presidency. As it turns out, the transition period is chock full of clues as to what Obama’s presidency will look like, especially with respect to foreign policy, so there’s no reason not to get started.
Summary: Obama’s foreign policy approach will likely come to nothing more or less than a matter of sticking blue helmets and the word “humanitarian” on his immediate predecessor’s way of doing things. Or, to put it a different way, his foreign policy will likely feature the Clinton administration’s trappings and the Bush administration’s … vigor.
This was fairly predictable from the start.
Remember, Obama campaigned for US Senate in 2004 on an anti-war platform, then turned on a dime and voted in the Senate to continue the war every time he was given an opportunity to do so. His presidential campaign once again launched on an anti-war note, but he didn’t even make it through the Democratic primaries before discarding that position again.
Even when nominally condemning the war on Iraq, he’s never taken a non-interventionist line in any case. He’s just promised to to be a better manager of America’s bayonet-point outreach programs, while suggesting that he’ll try to save the failed occupation of Afghanistan, extend that occupation into Pakistan, and maintain or increase the US belligerence quotient versus Iran and Russia.
If you’re surprised to see Obama tap Israel-Firster Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, float Madeline Al … er, Henry Kissi … er, Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, or leak the possibility of keeping Robert Gates on at the Pentagon, you haven’t been paying attention for the last year or so.
As for Iraq, the Busheviks are already in the process of tying Obama’s hands and striking the first major blow of Election 2012 by pushing to conclude their “Status of Forces Agreement” with Baghdad before his inauguration. If they succeed in getting that agreement through Iraq’s parliament, he’s in a no-win situation: The Republicans take credit for anything good that comes of it, Obama takes the blame for anything bad that happens. Personally I think he’ll screw it up SOFA or no SOFA, but I have to give the Republicans credit for a good game of “pin the blame on the Democrat.”
The only possible clean path out of the Iraq quagmire for Obama is bold action — announce an immediate US withdrawal on January 20th, carry out that withdrawal, and hope the civil war in Iraq (inevitable no matter when the US withdraws, but likely worse the longer it stays) plays itself out before his first term ends. It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. His cabinet picks indicate that he’s already preparing to fold his “change” hand on foreign policy, and his campaign statements on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Russia indicate that that hand was a garbage bluff in the first place.
Same as the old boss, part 2: Civil liberties
When speaking with libertarians who supported Barack Obama for president, I’ve generally heard two arguments:
First, that the Republican Party needed to be soundly spanked for its misrule. Check — that certainly got done.
Secondly, that while the GOP and the Democrats have become virtually indistinguishable when it comes to economic policy (the only difference being that the Republicans “borrow and spend” while the Democrats “tax and spend”), Obama is likely to roll back the Republican war on civil liberties. So far, not so good.
Two key leaked/announced/prospective appointments — Eric Holder for Attorney General and Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security — paint an ugly picture of our likely future. Obama seems far more likely to hitch the anti-freedom agenda of the Clinton administration to the rogue wagon of Bush “unitary executive” doctrine than to substantially change the US government’s approach to habeas corpus, detention without trial, torture and illegal wiretaps. And on the “it may get even worse” side of the ledger, scratch in the War on Drugs, immigration and the Second Amendment.
The matter of the War on Drugs is particularly saddening, because the indicators were there for anyone who cared to look. Obama supported bogus “anti-meth” legislation in the US Senate. Among his promises as a presidential candidate was the establishment of a new DEA office in New Orleans. And he picked Joe Biden, author of the noxious RAVE Act, as his running mate. Sure, he made some weak gestures in the direction of easing up on medical marijuana (arresting doctors and patients would “not be one of [his] highest priorities”) … but he didn’t go out on any limbs.
There’s no reason to be surprised, therefore, that he’d pick an advocate of tougher marijuana sentencing and returning to “mandatory minimums” for the AG slot.
As for immigration, well, Napolitano is the Arizona governor who signed legislation requiring all Arizona business owners to work as uncompensated Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. If she takes the DHS post, it’s probably because she wants to get the hell out of the American southwest before her handiwork finishes the job of collapsing its economy.
Holder and Napolitano are both gun-grabbers — Napolitano less so from necessity, given her state, but the tendency is pronounced enough to notice. For example, she vetoed a bill which would have ended prosecution of citizens who displayed (not fired, just displayed) a firearm in self-defense. Holder is more brazen — he even signed an amicus brief in support of the draconian DC gun ban overturned earlier this year in DC v. Heller.
I suspect we’ll see some cosmetic changes in the “war on terror” component of the overall anti-freedom package. Gitmo may be closed … but its abductees will find themselves trapped in some new kangaroo court maze rather than being released or charged in the regular US criminal system with the full panoply of constitutional protections. Torture will be roundly condemned (and the CIA will continue it while moving it deeper into black bag territory). Instead of just asserting the authority to declare anyone an “enemy combatant,” Obama may well seek unconstitutional “preventive detention” authority from Congress.
Real change? Unlikely. As a matter of fact, America versus its government is in a position not unlike that of an animal trapped in the embrace of a boa constrictor. The desire to breathe a sigh of relief after this election is entirely natural … but remember, the snake is going to clamp down tighter when that happens, and the process will repeat until the victim suffocates.
If Knapp is gonna be anything more than a figment of most peoples’ imagination, he’d do well to learn from Bob Barr’s campaign of suck.
I like grid lock in DC. When we have a president from one party and both houses of Congress from the same party, we’re going to have less freedom.