12 ms·

A key promise of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to run the “most transparent” government- however the only person to really deliver on that promise was

A key promise of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to run the “most transparent” government- however the only person to really deliver on that promise was a whistleblower. Secret courts, secret domestic spying, and now calls for weakening of the digital equivalent of the safe shows that he either was not honest about transparency, or has radically changed his opinion since becoming POTUS. Maybe it's that he decided to use his political clout to pick healthcare as his signature in American history, not wage war against the NSA, but either way it saddens me to have campaigned for someone who has empowered a surveillance state instead of fight against it. Liberty literally means "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control", and freedom in the information age means the liberty to communicate and store information. Anything to compromise that makes us all more vulnerable to control in all parts of our lives, not just those stored in zeros and ones. I believe America can be "Land of the free, home of the brave", but not without digital liberty.

rubbingalcohol 11y ago
Speaking of transparency, Obama also secretly lobbied to kill FOIA transparency reform: https://freedom.press/blog/2016/03/new-documents-show-obama-admin-aggressively-lobbied-kill-transparency-reform-congress https://freedom.press/blog/2016/03/new-documents-show-obama-...
- SwimAway 11y ago
  Wow.
grandalf 11y ago
I think the following truth has a lot of relevance to your comment: the only way somebody gets elected president of the US is if it's a given that he or she will maintain the status quo on behalf of powerful interests. Obama's campaign promises are as empty as those of any other politician. He's used his presidency to bring a windfall to the Halliburtons of healthcare and escalated the war on whistleblowers and the attack on privacy. His successor will do the same. We can hope that his supporters become appropriately disillusioned, but so much of politics is about loyalty in exchange for spoils, not ideas or accountability, so I'm not optimistic.
- 542458 11y ago
  > maintain the status quo on behalf of powerful interests. I think "maintain" is the best-case scenario under the current system. "Shift dramatically in favour of" is the worst case, and that's primarily what I'm voting based on these days.
api 11y ago
Policy wise Obama is close to a Rockefeller Republican. What people say during elections is entirely disposable.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  I'm giving Bernie Sanders one last chance. But if he is elected and also reneges on his promises, I will probably stop caring about politics permanently. edit: Whoops! Shouldn't have revealed I'm a Bernie supporter. Forgot that HN is a libertarian paradise!
  - pearle 11y ago
    I think people put too much importance on the role of the president with regards to domestic policy. You can't expect the president to effect change if congress opposes the president 100% of the time. Electing Bernie won't make a huge difference if the republicans still control congress.
    - cgriswald 11y ago
      Woodrow Wilson sprang immediately to mind as an example of a president who effected change despite an intransigent congress. He is also a president who fought against entrenched interests. Your idea seems to be more of an observation of recent presidents than a property of the presidency itself. I think there are two things that make it so. First, modern presidents are generally picked from a very narrow pool of candidates which the parties and the media help select and shape, thus making sure a relatively docile candidate is chosen. Second, most modern presidents are very politically oriented and beholden to the groups that donated to them during their campaigns. I think that can be used to describe Hillary, but I think both Sanders and Trump are non-docile and not beholden to outside interests. Sanders, because his funds largely come as a mandate from individuals and he is very clear about who he works for. Trump, because he has nothing at all to lose by doing whatever he wants.
      - Qwertious 11y ago
jordanb 11y ago
I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another. A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard since he became president. His daughters are the only teenagers in America who've never been near Snapchat (the Secret Service will keep it that way). And he's literally surrounded by security officers and spooks everywhere he goes. They manage every interaction he has so you can imagine their worldview is going to affect him. I'm not trying to make excuses for him. He's so completely off the deep end nowadays (between this and TPP) that it's heartbreaking as a long time supporter. I hope he leaves the presidency, leaves Washington and spends a few years thinking about what went wrong before writing his memoirs. It would be an amazing insight into the corrosive influence of Washington on a person's integrity.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  If the president can't speak for online privacy because it's not a part of his world, poor people in the US are just fucked.
  - kough 11y ago
    Nothing new here.
- teddyh 11y ago
  > It would be an amazing insight into the corrosive influence of Washington on a person's integrity. I always liked Václav Havel’s short speech from 1991 where he coined the phrase “power unto death”: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/havel.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/havel.html
  - jonesb6 11y ago
    I have hundreds of bookmarks in chrome. I have so many bookmarks that I've essentially stopped making new ones because the back log is simply too large. That speech I bookmarked. Despite the terrible formatting that speech is a work of art applicable to every human being who holds power, whether it's POTUS or the office manager.
graycat 11y ago
Ah, come ON: It was plenty clear just what the heck Obama was well before and during the election. E.g., Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and his other buddies. Then, during the campaign where he was campaigning and on a stage with Hillary and Bill Richardson and the US National Anthem was playing, Hillery and Bill had their hands over their hearts and Obama had his hands together and below his belt. Then there was his "my Muslim faith". Then on his apology tour where he bowed down to the heads of China, France, Saudi Arabia, and Japan. What did you expect?
- coldtea 11y ago
  Actually all of these sound like excellent gestures. Not playing to BS patriotism and phony sentiment by having his hands "together and below his belt"? Daring to say "my muslim faith" (haven't heard of that, so I kinda doubt it, but still). Bowing in respect to heads of other nations, instead of playing the "greatest nation on earth"? All of these all excellent. It's all the OTHER stuff that's bad about what he did.
  - graycat 11y ago
    Nearly universally in the US, hand over heart during the playing of the US National Anthem is a biggie. A lot of highly patriotic US citizens could get all wound up about that. Each of Hillary and Richardson put their hand over their heart. It's a free country, so you are welcome to your opinion, but what Obama did would be telling to a huge fraction of US citizens and, thus, some telling background for someone asking the question I was responding to. Or, whatever you think about hand over heart, what Obama did correlates with some other things he did that were equally shocking to a lot of people, and that is, net, my point, independent of my opinion. For the bowing, the Chinese example is at http://arabiangazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obama-Bows-Hu-Jintao.jpg http://arabiangazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obama-B... and I have links and personal copies of the other three. Just now I'm not going to the trouble to check if the other three URLs are current. To a huge fraction of US citizens, bowing to a foreign leader is a biggie and part of why it was commonly said that Obama went on an "apology tour". Some people will conclude that he deliberately insulted the US in a way disloyal to the US. Playing "greatest nation on earth" is irrelevant: No significant nation expects leaders of other nations to bow. Bowing is wildly inappropriate. "My Muslim faith": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M Some people will look at that clip and conclude that Obama just misspoke or was repeating something McCain didn't say but might have, etc. Take it as you wish. Some people are disappointed in Obama, and some of what I wrote is some of why they had what should have been for such people good advanced information and warning. There was plenty of warning -- we knew who he was. Judging people is not an exact science, but it is very much a necessary activity, especially in selecting a POTUS. Again, the US is a free country, so you are free to disagree. Still, there was a lot of definitely unusual information, commonly offensive to a lot of people, before Obama was elected.
spoiledtechie 11y ago
I'm soo very surprised after all this, you still hold him such high esteem. When he was and is exactly like every other politician.
rdl 11y ago
I'm not sure if anyone could really stand up to the rest of Washington for 8 years, without going in as such a zealot in some way that you might not really want them as President. Ted Cruz/Paul Ryan/Ron Paul might be the closest thing to that. Bernie Sanders, maybe, although I'd have a hard time seeing him maintain an 8 year long fight. Everyone else is basically establishment to some degree (Trump doesn't strike me as ideological as much as opportunist++, although certainly different in style than the others.) (And maybe you want someone reasonable/rational/etc. but not ideological as President.)
- rapind 11y ago
  I think Sanders could maintain. I could be wrong, but he has a pretty long record of doing the right thing (from my perspective) and I'm not sure what else you're supposed to vote for if not his / her record? Charisma? Promises? Anger?
  - rdl 11y ago
    I think Sanders is more ideological than most credible candidates in history (which is a lot of the appeal); same as Ted Cruz. (just polar opposites on ideology) They're both pretty exceptional as top-2 candidates for their party nomination for that reason, compared to historical trends.
    - rapind 11y ago
      Agreed on Sanders. I probably would have picked Rand Paul as the opposite though.
ap22213 11y ago
Disclosure: I liked Obama as candidate, and I've liked him as president. I haven't always been happy with some of his decisions and policies. But, my guess is that he's constantly being whispered the worst case scenarios. A president probably feels responsibility for the well being of hundreds of millions of people. And, all that it takes are a few highly polished ex-lobbiest communicators whispering, 'if you won't strengthen this program, Mr. President, then a terrorist will unleash a dirty bomb on the east coast and injure tens of millions.' Who would want to be responsible for that? 'Oh, just wiretap citizens? I guess that doesn't seem too bad if it's an either-or-decision.' Unfortunately, I don't see a way out of this mess. Bin Laden won when he turned the US into a 24-7 terror watch. Now, we live by fear and over-protection against an enemy that we can't see.
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
This is actually why I'm so hesitant on Bernie Sanders. I'm seeing the same campaign promises, the same basic ideas, the same wild support base. And I can't help but think we're about to face the exact same result. I voted for Obama twice. I regret both.
- rapind 11y ago
  Voting for promises is IMO meaningless. Same shit, different day. Instead, look at a candidate's history and base your vote on that. Unfortunately that takes more effort than most are willing to spend, but I can't think of a better way to estimate what they will do in the future. Could you imagine what that would do to politics if everyone voted based solely on a candidate's record instead of promises and charisma?
chadzawistowski 11y ago
> Liberty literally means "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control" According to who? The definition of liberty is still a matter of philosophical debate, as far as I understand it.

rubbingalcohol 11y ago

Speaking of transparency, Obama also secretly lobbied to kill FOIA transparency reform: https://freedom.press/blog/2016/03/new-documents-show-obama-admin-aggressively-lobbied-kill-transparency-reform-congress https://freedom.press/blog/2016/03/new-documents-show-obama-...

SwimAway 11y ago
Wow.

grandalf 11y ago

I think the following truth has a lot of relevance to your comment: the only way somebody gets elected president of the US is if it's a given that he or she will maintain the status quo on behalf of powerful interests. Obama's campaign promises are as empty as those of any other politician. He's used his presidency to bring a windfall to the Halliburtons of healthcare and escalated the war on whistleblowers and the attack on privacy. His successor will do the same. We can hope that his supporters become appropriately disillusioned, but so much of politics is about loyalty in exchange for spoils, not ideas or accountability, so I'm not optimistic.

542458 11y ago
> maintain the status quo on behalf of powerful interests. I think "maintain" is the best-case scenario under the current system. "Shift dramatically in favour of" is the worst case, and that's primarily what I'm voting based on these days.

api 11y ago

Policy wise Obama is close to a Rockefeller Republican. What people say during elections is entirely disposable.

enraged_camel 11y ago
I'm giving Bernie Sanders one last chance. But if he is elected and also reneges on his promises, I will probably stop caring about politics permanently. edit: Whoops! Shouldn't have revealed I'm a Bernie supporter. Forgot that HN is a libertarian paradise!
- pearle 11y ago
  I think people put too much importance on the role of the president with regards to domestic policy. You can't expect the president to effect change if congress opposes the president 100% of the time. Electing Bernie won't make a huge difference if the republicans still control congress.
  - cgriswald 11y ago
    Woodrow Wilson sprang immediately to mind as an example of a president who effected change despite an intransigent congress. He is also a president who fought against entrenched interests. Your idea seems to be more of an observation of recent presidents than a property of the presidency itself. I think there are two things that make it so. First, modern presidents are generally picked from a very narrow pool of candidates which the parties and the media help select and shape, thus making sure a relatively docile candidate is chosen. Second, most modern presidents are very politically oriented and beholden to the groups that donated to them during their campaigns. I think that can be used to describe Hillary, but I think both Sanders and Trump are non-docile and not beholden to outside interests. Sanders, because his funds largely come as a mandate from individuals and he is very clear about who he works for. Trump, because he has nothing at all to lose by doing whatever he wants.
    - Qwertious 11y ago

jordanb 11y ago

I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another. A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard since he became president. His daughters are the only teenagers in America who've never been near Snapchat (the Secret Service will keep it that way). And he's literally surrounded by security officers and spooks everywhere he goes. They manage every interaction he has so you can imagine their worldview is going to affect him. I'm not trying to make excuses for him. He's so completely off the deep end nowadays (between this and TPP) that it's heartbreaking as a long time supporter. I hope he leaves the presidency, leaves Washington and spends a few years thinking about what went wrong before writing his memoirs. It would be an amazing insight into the corrosive influence of Washington on a person's integrity.

StavrosK 11y ago
If the president can't speak for online privacy because it's not a part of his world, poor people in the US are just fucked.
- kough 11y ago
  Nothing new here.
teddyh 11y ago
> It would be an amazing insight into the corrosive influence of Washington on a person's integrity. I always liked Václav Havel’s short speech from 1991 where he coined the phrase “power unto death”: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/havel.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/havel.html
- jonesb6 11y ago
  I have hundreds of bookmarks in chrome. I have so many bookmarks that I've essentially stopped making new ones because the back log is simply too large. That speech I bookmarked. Despite the terrible formatting that speech is a work of art applicable to every human being who holds power, whether it's POTUS or the office manager.

graycat 11y ago

Ah, come ON: It was plenty clear just what the heck Obama was well before and during the election. E.g., Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and his other buddies. Then, during the campaign where he was campaigning and on a stage with Hillary and Bill Richardson and the US National Anthem was playing, Hillery and Bill had their hands over their hearts and Obama had his hands together and below his belt. Then there was his "my Muslim faith". Then on his apology tour where he bowed down to the heads of China, France, Saudi Arabia, and Japan. What did you expect?

coldtea 11y ago
Actually all of these sound like excellent gestures. Not playing to BS patriotism and phony sentiment by having his hands "together and below his belt"? Daring to say "my muslim faith" (haven't heard of that, so I kinda doubt it, but still). Bowing in respect to heads of other nations, instead of playing the "greatest nation on earth"? All of these all excellent. It's all the OTHER stuff that's bad about what he did.
- graycat 11y ago
  Nearly universally in the US, hand over heart during the playing of the US National Anthem is a biggie. A lot of highly patriotic US citizens could get all wound up about that. Each of Hillary and Richardson put their hand over their heart. It's a free country, so you are welcome to your opinion, but what Obama did would be telling to a huge fraction of US citizens and, thus, some telling background for someone asking the question I was responding to. Or, whatever you think about hand over heart, what Obama did correlates with some other things he did that were equally shocking to a lot of people, and that is, net, my point, independent of my opinion. For the bowing, the Chinese example is at http://arabiangazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obama-Bows-Hu-Jintao.jpg http://arabiangazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obama-B... and I have links and personal copies of the other three. Just now I'm not going to the trouble to check if the other three URLs are current. To a huge fraction of US citizens, bowing to a foreign leader is a biggie and part of why it was commonly said that Obama went on an "apology tour". Some people will conclude that he deliberately insulted the US in a way disloyal to the US. Playing "greatest nation on earth" is irrelevant: No significant nation expects leaders of other nations to bow. Bowing is wildly inappropriate. "My Muslim faith": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M Some people will look at that clip and conclude that Obama just misspoke or was repeating something McCain didn't say but might have, etc. Take it as you wish. Some people are disappointed in Obama, and some of what I wrote is some of why they had what should have been for such people good advanced information and warning. There was plenty of warning -- we knew who he was. Judging people is not an exact science, but it is very much a necessary activity, especially in selecting a POTUS. Again, the US is a free country, so you are free to disagree. Still, there was a lot of definitely unusual information, commonly offensive to a lot of people, before Obama was elected.

spoiledtechie 11y ago

I'm soo very surprised after all this, you still hold him such high esteem. When he was and is exactly like every other politician.

rdl 11y ago

I'm not sure if anyone could really stand up to the rest of Washington for 8 years, without going in as such a zealot in some way that you might not really want them as President. Ted Cruz/Paul Ryan/Ron Paul might be the closest thing to that. Bernie Sanders, maybe, although I'd have a hard time seeing him maintain an 8 year long fight. Everyone else is basically establishment to some degree (Trump doesn't strike me as ideological as much as opportunist++, although certainly different in style than the others.) (And maybe you want someone reasonable/rational/etc. but not ideological as President.)

rapind 11y ago
I think Sanders could maintain. I could be wrong, but he has a pretty long record of doing the right thing (from my perspective) and I'm not sure what else you're supposed to vote for if not his / her record? Charisma? Promises? Anger?
- rdl 11y ago
  I think Sanders is more ideological than most credible candidates in history (which is a lot of the appeal); same as Ted Cruz. (just polar opposites on ideology) They're both pretty exceptional as top-2 candidates for their party nomination for that reason, compared to historical trends.
  - rapind 11y ago
    Agreed on Sanders. I probably would have picked Rand Paul as the opposite though.

ap22213 11y ago

Disclosure: I liked Obama as candidate, and I've liked him as president. I haven't always been happy with some of his decisions and policies. But, my guess is that he's constantly being whispered the worst case scenarios. A president probably feels responsibility for the well being of hundreds of millions of people. And, all that it takes are a few highly polished ex-lobbiest communicators whispering, 'if you won't strengthen this program, Mr. President, then a terrorist will unleash a dirty bomb on the east coast and injure tens of millions.' Who would want to be responsible for that? 'Oh, just wiretap citizens? I guess that doesn't seem too bad if it's an either-or-decision.' Unfortunately, I don't see a way out of this mess. Bin Laden won when he turned the US into a 24-7 terror watch. Now, we live by fear and over-protection against an enemy that we can't see.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

This is actually why I'm so hesitant on Bernie Sanders. I'm seeing the same campaign promises, the same basic ideas, the same wild support base. And I can't help but think we're about to face the exact same result. I voted for Obama twice. I regret both.

rapind 11y ago
Voting for promises is IMO meaningless. Same shit, different day. Instead, look at a candidate's history and base your vote on that. Unfortunately that takes more effort than most are willing to spend, but I can't think of a better way to estimate what they will do in the future. Could you imagine what that would do to politics if everyone voted based solely on a candidate's record instead of promises and charisma?

chadzawistowski 11y ago

> Liberty literally means "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control" According to who? The definition of liberty is still a matter of philosophical debate, as far as I understand it.