Consider this a Robin Hanson-style post.

Obama ran on transparency, civil liberties, press freedom, and a less militaristic foreign policy. However, his record is poor. His presidency has been more like a third Bush II term. How should we interpret that?

1. Obama was never sincere.
2. Obama was sincere, but power corrupts.
3. Obama was sincere, but he doesn’t have sufficient power to do what he said he wanted to do. He couldn’t close Guantanamo even if he wanted to. He can’t help but treat Bradley Manning like that.
4. Obama was sincere, but he now knows things that we don’t know, and changed his mind. In fact, the world is a lot scarier and more dangerous than civil libertarians realize, but he cannot share with us the information that would make us accept his seemingly bad policies. If Obama knew years ago what he knows now, he would have supported Bush II more.
5. Add 2 and 4 together: 4, except Obama and the insiders are mistaken in what they think they know, because power corrupts.

Like Glenn Greenwald, I’m inclined to go with 5. But given that Obama has had such a turnaround from his posturing as a candidate, shouldn’t I increase my degree of credence in 4?