[BodyWizard]

A Conservative for Obama

My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead the country.

Leading Off
By Wick Allison,
EDITOR IN CHIEF

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.

Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

[RobInKuwait]

This guy is just like everyone else. He thinks to himself....what do I want an Obama to be, and convinces himself that BHO is that man.

[Rugger]

I like how he uses conservatives expanding government as an excuse to vote for Obama; like Obama wont expand government LOL. This guy seriously has some international relations and history to catch up on. He thinks Russia will be an ally for the US? PAH. The last thing Russia needs is some slack. Missile shield? Ossetia? Yeah, let's back down from Russia. I'm sure Putin and Medvedev are actually sweetie pies.

[BodyWizard]

I figured "you guys" would blank right over this, so let me put it before you again:

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.

Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

"You guys" should really try absorbing opinions & points of view "you" don't already know "you" agree with, once in a while, try thinking outside the single-point-of-view echo chamber you're trapped in.

'Course, "you" could just continue to post fact-free screeds from Prager, Malkin & their catastrophic ilk...but that would add nothing to the conversation, either inside your heads, or in the world around you.

Or "you" could actually, y'know, *think* about why people who've always been in the conservative camp have been jumping ship after many decades - I mean, aren't "you" even curious? Do you even *remember* that Arianna Huffington first gained attention as a voice for the Reagan Democrats? Or that she bailed early in the Bush '43 administration? Or that in doing so she followed in the footsteps of long-time Republican strategist & Nixon / Reagan staffer Kevin Phillps (who bailed on Pappy for related reasons)? (I'd suggest you read Huffington's "Pigs at the Trough", and pretty much anything by Phillips ("American Theocracy," "The Arrogance of Capital") but it's become pretty clear that "you guys" don't trust anyone or anything from outside "your" echo-chamber).

Did y'all notice that Bill Buckley - father of the modern conservative movement in American politics - was thrown under the bus by the neo-cons after they started coming into power (seeming comparatively "liberal" in contrast, after the relentless march to the "Right" driven by Pearl, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Podhoretz, et al)?

Or is it all just team-sports to "you"? "You" support "your team", and anything goes, fair or foul, 'second-place is for losers'? Honesty, facts, reason, logic, persuasion are for weak-kneed chumps, not REAL AMERICANS? Real men don't "DO" nuance?

The reason "you" & other such are in quotes is because my remarks are specific to the responses - not to the individual bros who replied. Much the same comments could have been made by any of a dozen different guys, and my follow-up comments would have been much the same, as well. None of this is personal: I got a ton o' respect for you, Rob - and you've earned it; Rugger, I don't know you so well, but I have no reason to antagonize you, and my history on the board is of not p!ssing people off for no reason. Fair enough?

[RobInKuwait]

I understand your point of view and the guy in your article's point of view. I definitely think this guy's logic is off base. Just because the quasi conservative president in place expanded government doesn't mean that a super liberal if elected will not. As far as blaming this economic situtation on Bush, I think he is way off base.

McCain is not on my team, Obama is on the team I hate.

Obama's policies are the antithesis of everything I see as right in the world. Compound his policies with a democratic congress who will pass everything without a second thought and it is truly a recipe for disaster.

[LakeMountD]

I can understand where he is coming from but what I can't figure out is how he thinks BHO is going to make his situation any better lol.

[DAdams91982]

OH what is this... DEMOCRATS FOR MCCAIN? Oh the humanity.

http://www.democratsformccain.com/

Adams

[LakeMountD]

Originally Posted by DAdams91982

OH what is this... DEMOCRATS FOR MCCAIN? Oh the humanity.

http://www.democratsformccain.com/

Adams

LoL is it opposite day AGAIN?!

[BodyWizard]

Naw, that's just another flavor of "Obama-Haters Against America"

[RobInKuwait]

Originally Posted by BodyWizard

Naw, that's just another flavor of "Obama-Haters Against America"

Didn't Obama go to a church who's pastor of 20 years said during a sermon,

"Not God Bless America, God Damn America!"

......and now somehow people that hate Obama are against America?

[scotty2]

http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

Another lovely piece on what a delightful human being he is..........not sure how anyone who calls himself conservative would even speak his name. This guy is plain old dangerous, god bless us all.

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by scotty2

Eyeblast.tv - A Video Portrait Of Barack Hussein Obama

Another lovely piece on what a delightful human being he is..........not sure how anyone who calls himself conservative would even speak his name. This guy is plain old dangerous, god bless us all.

I believe this piece lost its objectivity and seriousness when it said: "Do we want to elect a president with not one, but three Islamic names?". I had not realized that names were the new criterion for judging the potential viability of a candidate, lol!

I also appreciate the attempt at implicit racial syllogisms:

Muslims are bad.
If one attends a Muslim School, they are a Muslim.
Barack attended a Muslim School.
Barack is a Muslim.
Barack is bad.

Simply pitiful and ridiculous; I attempt to remain objective in these discussions, but videos like this do nothing for the progress of representative democracy. I truly hope you do not take this tripe to heart.

[scotty2]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

I believe this piece lost its objectivity and seriousness when it said: "Do we want to elect a president with not one, but three Islamic names?". I had not realized that names were the new criterion for judging the potential viability of a candidate, lol!

I also appreciate the attempt at implicit racial syllogisms:

Muslims are bad.
If one attends a Muslim School, they are a Muslim.
Barack attended a Muslim School.
Barack is a Muslim.
Barack is bad.

Simply pitiful and ridiculous; I attempt to remain objective in these discussions, but videos like this do nothing for the progress of representative democracy. I truly hope you do not take this tripe to heart.

I pray you are right, because if you are wrong, we are all pretty ****ed. Enjoy the ride, sir.