To be radical something needs to be different, very strange, very, very "out there" in some way or other. I cannot imagine any other standard. If past administrations did the same thing, albeit not routinely, I don't see how all of a sudden they get to be radical.
I'm not saying it happened, but as an example, if FDR did somethings 70 years ago that were "radical" then Obama comes along and does similar things, they can still be "radical". To be radical, something need not be "sudden", "original", or "new".
We're seeing things in a semantically different way here, so, it may be useful to review the relevant definition (from Websters):
marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
The focal points here, it seems to me, are extreme change from the existing or traditional or usual conditions. I don't see anything about originality, newness, suddenness, etc.
Put another way, were we to see the evolution of another Hitler today, would you consider him a radical?
You don't like the guy or his approach, ergo he must be all variety of bad things like a liar and a radical.
Actually, I like Obama personally -- I just think he is incompetent as a president. But I do think he is a liar and a radical.
Maybe we're too stuck on the term "radical". I've been clear here that I believe he is the most extreme president, all things considered, the country has seen -- at least in modern times. People have made fine arguments about FDR, and I believe he was certainly radical (or extreme, whatever you want to call it) as well.
Nationalization is more radical than a distorted bankruptcy.
I agree, but there is a fine line between what Obama did and nationalization. And it is a much smaller step from where we are now than it was from where we were before.
Obama's radicalism isn't about one item like the bankruptcy. It is a plethora of items. Including health care, cap-and-trade, and numerous other policy concepts.
Consider the large number of people concerned about the direction of the country when Bush invaded Iraq. Does that make Bush a radical? One could argue that he is based on your criteria. Perhaps even by mine. After all, invading a foreign country that isn't a threat to us, particularly one bigger than Granada, while done in the past, is pretty far out there.
I think many DO think GWB was a radical, particularly WRT the Iraq decision. It isn't my view because I do think the Iraq War made a lot of sense, I supported it then, and I continue to support the decision today.
Every administration tries to manipulate the press corps and most are at war with some part of it in one way or another. Whether you go after the NYT or Fox is a function of your party.
The war on Fox is much more than this -- which is the reason it has become a big issue. We've had the president himself publicly attacking Fox, his communications director has declared Fox to be the "opposition", and the WH has effectively blackballed Fox. It is a really, really stupid move on the part of the WH, but they have done it nevertheless. I doubt any president in history has attacked any element of the news media on this level. While they are allowing liberal mouthpiece bloggers full access, they are denying access to the most important news organization in the country today simply because they don't like the coverage.
Can you imagine GWB saying, "The NYT is not a news organization and as such they will not be allowed any questions at news conferences going forward"? |
