There is an old axiom in politics and leadership in general that says, either you define yourself, or someone else will do it for you, most likely in a way that you don't like. When historians look back at the first 13 months of Barack Obama's Presidency, they will mention how everyone seemed to be defining him except for Obama and his administration. I am not saying that is the total of the administration's issues. They have made a few other genuine mistakes like not prosecuting a more vigorous change oriented agenda. I've covered those concepts in prior articles. This is more basic than disagreeing with policies and agenda choices. You have to define and defend who you are and your choices.
Republicans were determined to hang the Socialist label on Barack Obama. This started before the election and continued unabated into his Presidency. Nothing President Obama has done resembles the definition of Socialism. It's really not even close. I've covered this topic thoroughly several times in articles before this one. Suffice to say if you talk to a Socialist, one finds that they are offended to have their belief system compared with the actions of the administration.
Conversely, you have a portion of the activist wing of the Progressives in and outside of the Democratic Party who have been busy labeling the President as a right winger who hasn't changed policies appreciably from the Bush administration.
Dick Cheney has been going around saying that Obama is soft on terrorism and too pacifist in general and this is putting the country in danger.
The aforementioned Progressives say that Obama is a Rambo-esque warmonger and that the two current wars are now Obama's wars. This is interesting since Vietnam never became Nixon's war despite that the Vietnam War continued through Nixon's entire first term. Nixon even escalated the war in Vietnam late in his first term through operations Linebacker one and two. No one blames Nixon for Vietnam, but a significant number of Progressives are saying that Obama should be blamed for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The tea party, or teabaggers as I affectionately refer to them (this is my subtle use of irony), have been saying that Obama is a big government guy because of the stimulus and health care reform. There are several problems with those assertions. The first problem is that a stimulus is by nature a singular and temporary act. It's not strongly indicative one way or the other whether someone is for more government or against. A big government person would enact permanent measures that grow the government. As far as health care reform is concerned, the path that Democrats in congress, with President Obama's tacit approval, have taken health care reform is several dozen degrees of separation away from the bigger government possibilities. The top big government path for health care reform is single payer nationalized health care ala Canada or Great Britain. For better or for worse (I am not going to go into my opinion on that since that isn't the point here), this never received serious consideration by Democrats. There are also several types of single payer healthcare that do not involve complete or substantive nationalization. Those are also not on the table. The idea of a government public option was also summarily tossed aside. In the face of those facts, it is dishonest to say that Democrats or the President are pursuing a big government approach to healthcare reform. In fact, they seem to be running away from substantive government involvement in Health Care as fast as they can.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).