http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=639#more-639

More likely, it’s that Obama isn’t Bush. McCain really doesn’t enter into it except in so far as they see him as Bush’s third term, and Bush as a foreign policy radical.

Under other circumstances, some of these people might have considered McCain their candidate — a kind of latter-day Eisenhower, a “modern Republican.” Most of them are probably pretty much Democrats by now.

As with Peter Viereck’s endorsement of Stevenson in 1956, tone and style have a lot to do with it. They view Obama as cerebral, nuanced and inclusive. That’s probably not him, but it’s a good picture of an “anti-Bush” or “un-Bush” as Stevenson was the “anti-McCarthy” or “un-McCarthy” par excellence.

Also, the idea that Obama as a politician doesn’t stress policy positions is true, but that only goes to show that he’s a good, smart politician who knows that people don’t follow policy debates very much. They vote on general ideas, themes, and people. I agree with HBraunstein that he’s an intelligent, reflective and decent man, which is more than we’ve had in the white house in a very long time. Whether he can resist the institutional prejudices of Washington is hard to say. He’s not a radical, so I don’t see any tearing down of institutions. But I do see a desire to redirect them in a more positive direction, which is all we can reasonably hope for, given the current state of the country.

I’ve heard to much insanity come from John McCain. Where as I think Barack is a liberal and an establishment candidate (and therefore a war monger by default), I think that McCain is a loose cannon on foreign policy. Barack Obama appears to me to be a more reasonable man, and for that reason alone I would rather see him win in November.

Whether Obama is personally inclined towards peace or war, to return to a question on another post, the institutional biases and self-interest of many institutions in Washington run towards new wars and continued meddling abroad. If he is not able to resist interest groups and institutional pressures, and so far he has shown little willingness to do so during the campaign, he will find himself being dragged towards positions that he may not have initially supported or supported only halfway.

Is that not a big exception? And if we are inclined not to put our faith in princes, shouldn’t we be more concerned with what the election means for future politician incentives?

If Obama wins, then supporting Iraq will come, in retrospect, to be seen as a politically unwise thing to do. This has already happened to some extent because of the primary. Iraq happened in part because previous experience had solidified a conventional wisdom that opposing such wars was a politically unwise thing to do. Changing that perception will mean, ceteis paribus, fewer such wars.

However, apart from the fact that he is not McCain, a neocon or a Republican (all good reasons to vote for him, as a practical matter) his autobiographical entries paint a picture of an intelligent, reflective and decent man. Assuming he’s not a total swindler, these qualities in a president of any political bent would be a gift, in light of what he’d be replacing. Like it or not, the American President has become a veritable Fuhrer, and It’s not absurd to think that Obama could be a nationalist symbol that intelligent, educated Americans could be proud of.

And that is the beginning and the end of the arguement. In a nutshell, the “conservative” vote in this election should be one that makes sure the GOP gets what it deserves, and gets it good and hard. That is an arguement that has no small appeal to me. If the Obamacans would make that arguement, they would have fewer people on their bandwagon but be more honest about their intentions. A lot of conservatives have tied themselves in knots trying to make a substantively pro-Obama case from a conservative perspective.

The substantive arguement for Obama is “he’s marginally less likely than McCain to get involved in rash, unprovoked wars” (he certainly doesn’t oppose such wars as a matter of course) That is a fair statement, and whether that’s enough to hang your vote on is a matter of personal preference.

The second part, about his alleged willingness to conserve our liberties strikes me as sheer ignorant wishful thinking; no one who even rhetorically supported the monstrosity that is the Patriot Act can claim to hold such a position and not be laughed out of the room.

“The general impression most everyone gets that Obama is inclined towards peace rather than war is probably the right one, and yours is probably the wrong one.”

Obama generates a lot of general impressions, a great many of which evaporate upon closer inspection.

Anyway, the point is that your criticism of Obamacons just doesn’t seem reasonable. When they make the argument that Obama seems more conservative on these kinds of issues than McCain or the Republican party, I think they have solid ground to make those claims. Your criticisms are not entirely invalid, but they don’t seem to be terribly reasonable in context. The general impression most everyone gets that Obama is inclined towards peace rather than war is probably the right one, and yours is probably the wrong one. TIme will tell, of course. But I don’t think you make a very good case for your impression. It seems inflamed by even the slightest sign that Obama isn’t a pure paleocon, which of course he isn’t.

I suppose I shall have to read the man’s book (the first one, not the campaign potboiler).