Talking Barack
The Cunning Realist, one of our go-to guys for smart, non-ideological economic analysis—check out his TAC stuff under the pseudonym “Wilson Burman”—is the latest conservative to endorse Obama. If we followed the lead of our friendly competition and began purging heretics, our stable would be a lonely place. (Supporting McCain is actually the deviant move in these parts.)
CR calls this a “risqué fling,” but true to form, he is a cautious convert, primed for buyer’s remorse. He’s too wily to be won by hope talk—expectations hung on empty promises are almost certain to be dashed. But therein he spies an opening for a regenerated conservatism:
[A] broad swath of this country has been turned off to conservatism and the Republican Party, perhaps permanently. If Obama wins and four years from now the economy hasn’t improved and his approval rating is at 30%, where will those people turn—politically, socially, and culturally?
I dispute his notion that Democratic one-party rule would “reverse and repudiate the current administration’s most disastrous policies.” More than half of the Democratic senators voted to invade Iraq, and Pelosi and Reid won’t be using their ironclad majority to defund No Child Left Behind or roll back the prescription drug entitlement. Expect them to pile on programs that a spread-the-wealth president will be all too eager to sign. After a couple of Supreme Court picks, a handful of humanitarian interventions, universal healthcare, and the first trillion-dollar deficit, we’ll talk.
In the meantime, far from being shows of disloyalty, these high-level defections are a manifestation of health. Those who continue to assume that conservatism is whatever the Republican Party decides on any given day have lost all hold on reality.
UPDATE: An astute commenter points out that I misinterpreted a key point. In the CR narrative, Republicans’ wilderness years will not reform them, and when the Obama administration fails to sprinkle the world in pixie dust as promised, the public may indeed swing back–to an unrepentant, “opportunist” Right. I apologize for my audacious hope. The night grows darker still.
What’s interesting to me about all of these defections is what they seem to indicate about the sort of conservatives who aren’t interested in mindlessly following whatever the Republican Party decides on any given day – a group in which I would include myself, by the way.
Obama may manifest stronger leadership characteristics, a more level hand, a more sensible approach to Iraq, etc., than McCain, which is all well and good. But he’s a literal monster when it comes to abortion, his spending and tax plans are entirely unrealistic, and he’s brought out an unsavory element on the left which makes the fringe Paulites look like centrists.
An inability to support McCain is one thing; a willingness to support a candidate who is entirely incompatible with conservative principles (except when he stumbles on them by accident, and for the wrong reasons) is quite another.
As a young conservative, I see more hope for the future of the “movement” (I abhor the word) in these pages than almost anywhere else. But I’m beginning to wonder what the underlying principles of the emerging new strain of paleoconservatism are. I would have thought at the very least that the fundamental life issues would take priority over these others that follow – war, economy, taxes, spending, immigration, etc. Otherwise, we might as well be non-interventionist libertarians.
“Except when he stumbles on them by accident, and for the wrong reasons?” Isn’t this the circumstance when politicians of any strip do something right? Pres. Clinton didn’t sign the Defense of Marriage act because he was enthusiastic about it, same with welfare reform.
War without reason or end, zero interest or understanding of economics, and a willingness and preference to work with the warmongering center left – how does any of that describe a conservative? It is an indisputable brief on McCain.
I too am pro-life, but during this presidential election abortion policy is a non factor. A McCain administration would bring on more O’Connors and Kennedys than Alitos. Plus he wouldn’t be dumb enough to inflame the base by picking a Miers (he learned his lesson after losing Lieberman for the VP spot).
Plus I don’t think it is possible to be “sensible” on foreign policy and immovable on a bad domestic economic policy. If we send stingers to Georgia, most Americans wouldn’t care until Russian planes bomb Sarah Palin’s house. If the House passes a bad tax bill, the Dow would drop the next day. Bill Clinton was a master politician, and even his tax hike cost his party the congress for 12 years.
The best thing about Barack is that you can look at his policies and laugh, thinking they would be a tough sell for him as President. With McCain, you can rest assured that the bombs will fall.
I’m a Ron Paul conservative living in California who’s voting for Bob Barr. Can someone reassure me that the Fairness Doctrine, the Freedom of Choice Act, and Universal Healthcare won’t happen under an Obama Administration. Of, if they do happen, that somehow it doesn’t matter?
Also, are the conservatives voting for Obama only doing so to teach the GOP a lesson and to force the GOP to revert back to true conservative principles?
By the way, maybe you guys can set up a way of registration so that comments don’t have to be moderated every time. That way, we’ll have a quicker, more lively discussion.
In the meantime, far from being shows of disloyalty, these high-level defections are a manifestation of health.
Not when they support Obama.
I myself am voting for Chuck Baldwin.
I see that John McWorter came out for Obama on NPR yesterday. The reasons he gave were so facile as to make me laugh out loud. He is obviously in pursuit of a job. The same applies to Kenneth Adelman. Neo-cons have a long track record of drifting from party to party. Let’s not make a virtue of this.
“But therein he spies an opening for a regenerated conservatism:”
If you read the piece more carefully, it seems CR does not see a completely failed Obama presidency as an opening for “regenerated conservatism” rather he sees it as an opening for something sinister….
Hankest is right. Correction made. Thanks for the catch.
To give a few brief replies to George’s questions: for the moment we’re sticking with the approval process, but at some point down the line we might do something to expedite comment-posting.
Obama says he woudn’t re-impose the Fairness Doctrine, but you can’t take his word for it, of course. Does it matter? I know of at least one scorched-earth paleo who thinks the Fairness Doctrine would be the best thing that could happen to the Right, because for the most part the radio hosts who would be affected are neocon or GOP shills. On principle, I can’t go along with that, but it does seem to me that the Fairness Doctrine is far from the biggest thing we have to worry about.
The Democrats will be terrible on health care and abortion and many other issues besides. But several factors will limit what they can do. First, the Republicans, if they have any sense at all, will once again become oppositional, as they were before the ’94 election, and should try to impede Democratic initiatives. Second, even if the Democrats are close to 60 votes in the Senate, they will not necessarily have a filibuster-proof majority since filibusters are usually about particular issues and there is variation among the Democrats (and among the GOP) on particulars. Philosophical complexion matters more than party label — the exact composure of the Senate, with moderate Democrats and liberal Republicans — is hard to guess. It won’t be pretty, but then government never is.
The last time the Democrats had as much control of Washington as they’re likely to have under Obama was during the early Carter years. Yet the Carter years were marked by less expansion of government than the LBJ and Nixon years — and the G.W. Bush years. No doubt Obama will push the limits as far as he can, but I suspect he’ll fail and generate an anti-Washington backlash that will benefit the GOP in years to come. The question is, will the GOP have learned any lessons from the disastrous leadership of Gingrich, Lott, Bush, and co.?
Thank you for the reply, Mr. McCarthy. I hope our brand of traditional conservatism can return to popularity once again someday.
While I doubt that I’ll vote for Obama (“a literal monster when it comes to abortion,” as Steve Skojec says above), I was struck recently by the realization that even a President Obama-inspired Freedom of Choice Act might be a blessing in disguise. That kind of congressional legislation would virtually beg to be struck down by the Federalism Five at the Supreme Court. Such a decision by the Court’s federalists would have some pretty fascinating implications, not at all good for hubristic liberals. Compared to most liberal intellectuals, Obama’s a paragon of Socratic humility, so I see the point of the conservative warmth towards Obama. But liberalism itself is defective and untrustworthy, and that’s the rub.