I get this argument frequently from libertarians, who claim that Obama is the same as Bush, and decry as Obama as indefensible. This is my response.
It’s relatively easy to defend Obama, especially for Democrats. We are concerned about minorities and the poor (especially during recessions). We support higher taxes on the rich. We want the government to reform student loans and support higher education. We want women’s rights protected and appreciate Roe V. Wade, we like things like the Civil Rights Act and the American Disabilities Act, we want health care reform, we want Wall Street reforms, and banking restrictions, we want to fight Citizen’s United, we want policy to combat pollution, and alternative energy supported, we think gay rights should be federally protected (not left up to the states).
Now these are things that Democrats support, that most libertarians probably do not. That’s fine, we disagree. But with that in mind, why would Dems think he’s worse than Bush or consider libertarians when they’re both against most of these things? Yes, there are things Obama has done that I disagree with…like amping up unmanned drones and cracking down on whistle blowers, but in general I agree with 85% of the direction Obama has gone on issues. As opposed to agreeing with 15% of what Ron Paul would do.
Again, I’m not arguing every specific argument individually. Just that Democrats don’t agree with Republican nor Libertarian philosophies, so why should you pretend Democrats should be angry at Obama? Democrats like Obama because he agrees with them on policies, they disagree with Bush and libertarians because they disagree with their policies as retrograde and damaging. You can think they’re wrong, but don’t pretend that we should somehow agree with libertarians. We don’t. They represent some existence that was abandoned with the Articles of Confederation and the horrible conditions that existed when the country first existed.