« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The American Conservative Argues FOR an Obama Presidency
Poking about online I stumbled across an article from March in The American Conservative. The title is “The Right Choice: The Conservative Case for Barack Obama”. It’s an interesting narrative about how the neocons are conning conservatives into believing their values are being tended to while in actuality their actions are only self serving. It goes on to point out how a vote for McCain would be bad, on several levels, and how a vote for Obama is a vote to end the war and reverse foreign policy mistakes.
On McCain:
“For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion.”… ….……"Above all, conservatives who think that a McCain presidency would restore a sense of realism and prudence to U.S. foreign policy are setting themselves up for disappointment. On this score, we should take the senator at his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bush’s misadventures is irrevocable.”
On Obama:
“Yet if Obama does become the nation’s 44th president, his election will constitute something approaching a definitive judgment of the Iraq War. As such, his ascent to the presidency will implicitly call into question the habits and expectations that propelled the United States into that war in the first place. Matters hitherto consigned to the political margin will become subject to close examination. Here, rather than in Obama’s age or race, lies the possibility of his being a truly transformative presidency.”
It’s quite an interesting read. The article is at :
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html
Comments (38)
Oh so recommended.
As I've said before, this will come down to the war.
It's going to be "War" vs "Occupation".
"Win this Hopeless, Misbeggoten War Somehow"
vs
"Let's Withdraw From our Occupation Smoothly and Quickly".
Young vs old doesn't hurt, either. Change vs Same, same.
May 14, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sane vs. Same
May 15, 2008 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
THE APOSTATE PRESIDENCY
Obama's father was a Muslim.
According to Shari'a law the son is always considered a Muslim.
Obama studied the Muslim religion (at least) between '67-'71.
Obama's announcement that he is a "Christian" renders him a murtaad (apostate) to all Muslims.
According to Shari'a law no Muslim is to be prevented from assasinating a murtaad nor are they to be prosecuted for doing so.
So the question is. How is Obama expected to arrange unity with a religion that regards him as fair game? Who will protect him when he visits a Muslim country?
Lastly: Is he engaged in "pious fraud"? Similar to that of the 911 hijackers? A practice condoned by Shari'a law in which a Muslim renounces his religion in order to carry out an act of martyrdom?
May 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop trolling.
May 15, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess what.
I'd rather have a president who studied the Muslim religion (its called Islam) than a president who doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite.
Also, in case you haven't really noticed, the vast majority of Muslims don't believe in the medieval philosophy called shari'a law. Those that do aren't going to give pause to what religion the president is a follower of when they try to assassinate him.
And for your last point, what makes you think that Clinton won't just hand the reigns of government back over to Bill? Or that McCain wasn't somehow reeducated as a closet Communist in Vietnam? You can come up with as many bigoted, implausible, and frankly insane scenarios, but you'll just come off as sounding bigoted and insane.
May 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Our foreign policy towards the middle east has shown us to be completely clueless on how to deal effectively with any of the nations that are more extreme and have little direct trade with us (i.e. don't speak our "language"). We need more background and understanding with attention paid to input from experts on the region before we can expect any progress with these nations. A leader with a more global perspective can only help.
May 15, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
asinine.
May 15, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using our real names and/or pictures could help reduce moronic trolling as from this poster.
May 15, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What will really blow your mind is that The American Conservative is published/edited by Pat Buchanan! Yes, THAT Pat Buchanan, of MSNBC.
May 14, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop! everything's spinning......
May 14, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. You're right.
Consider my mind blown.
May 14, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is he (Buchanan) still on it?
I thought it was mostly Scott McConnell and Taki Theodoracopulos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Conservative
May 15, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html
Rec'd!
Ron Paul. Bob Barr. Barack Obama.
The first two are helping by drawing attention to conservative discontent, but I think it's Obama who'll ultimately net the bulk of the conservative protest vote come November.
May 14, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I need to set those hyperlinks up properly. Has Ron Paul said whether he will run as an Independent yet?
May 14, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
re RP, my understanding is he's ruled out a third-party bid. I think the message is: I'm still a Republican, and still not endorsing McCain, so tough cookies, it's my party, too.
As such, I think the idea is to use the convention to bring attention to Paulista conservative dissatisfaction.
btw, I lived in São Paulo state for a few years, so I get a chuckle out of using 'Paulista' in this context (I know, I know ... “Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot” ... Whatever. Bring it on, cruel world ... Obama is my Lula, deal).
May 15, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
who cares what the world thinks
they're a bunch of idiots anyway
May 15, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read this back in early March. It just adds to the feeling of disparate forces aligning on this moment in time.
May 14, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is beautiful! It makes so much sense that many "true" conservatives would see Barack's candidacy as the sensible move. Rule of Law. End the War. I know people in their 80's and 90's ready to stop voting repub and go for Obama. What a beautiful thing it would be! Unity!
May 15, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
End the War.
You mean end the war that Barry's been voting to fund? Really?
May 15, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean end the war that Hillary voted to start?
Really?
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS! FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
May 15, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Voted to start? I missed that vote. How did Barry vote or was he still in Pony League? Oh wait! Now I remember. You're talking about the vote that he stated in 2004 that he wasn't sure how he would have voted if he had actually been a decision maker back then. And he's consistently voted the money to keep it going.
Yeah. We know where Barry stands. Both Ways Barry.
May 15, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might remember that in 2004 Obama was working hard to get someone elected who had voted FOR the war, but was then running as someone AGAINST the war.
A little context does wonders...
May 15, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
With your bi-sexual implication about Obama, I know that I can dismiss you as a sorry-assed inconsequential thumb sucking Clintonista of the worst order who probably hangs out at Hillaryis44 and/or NoQuarter. You are not a Democrat, you are ten pounds of crap in a five pound bag. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You are the enemy.
Go vote for Yawn McCain, as I bet you will. You aren't fooling anyone that has half a brain.
May 15, 2008 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is not a Hillary supporter. He is a contrarian troll. If he posts on Hillaryis44 he does so as the most obnoxious kind of Obamabot. As soon as the election is over he will go back to posting as a young earth creatonist on evolution boards and as a rationalist on fundamentalist boards. This sort of behavior is the finest argument against allowing anonymous comment.
May 15, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe you are still falling for that nonsense.
Again he didn't drive the bus into the ditch, but once it was there, they had to vote to sustain our troops until we could get them out. But I guess that logic is lost on you.
As far as that "I don't know how I would have voted" thing. Yet another twisted line. If you would like to actually see what he was talking about in 2004 check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXQElOq-j0
May 15, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Voting to start a war and voting to fund it are two very different things. Voting to start war indicates an intent to violently force another country into submission. The votes on funding were related to the large amounts of casualties due to insufficient equipment - like armored light vehicles. Once we've put our troops in harms way we'd better well protect them. To vote against funding for them would not end the war, but it would end more lives than a no vote.
May 15, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Despite Buchanan's involvement, American Conservative is usually an excellent, balanced read. It carries on the more Burkeian/Libertarian tradition of conservativism, which has often provided a healthy counterbalance to the occasional excesses of left-wing thought.
To its great credit, the mag was against the Iraq invasion from the very beginning, with articles chronicling Douglas Feith's purging of intelligence officers from the Pentagon who opposed the Administration's storyline.
In the least it's a good way to remind oneself that not all Republicans are friggin' loonies.
May 15, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. It's only the most recent incarnation of the party that is wacky. I am sure many conservatives are nostalgic for a Jefferson or Lincoln or Roosevelt republican to get rid of the stench from the last 40 years.
May 15, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't all that surprising. The Bush presidency has been one of the most radical in recent history. The Bushies are anything but conservative.
May 15, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I swear more Ron Paul supporters than Hillary supporters will vote for Obama this Fall!
Obama needs to talk to Paul NOW.
May 15, 2008 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very thoughtful piece. A few notes for those here who may not be familiar with the author.
Andrew Bacevich is a professor of military history at Boston University. He was formerly an officer in the army, and IIRC he served in Vietnam during that conflict. If you've read Tom Ricks' excellent book _Fiasco_, you'll be familiar with Bacevich's name, as he is frequently cited by Ricks. Bacevich recently lost one of his sons, who was killed while serving in Iraq.
He is the author of a very interesting work entitled _The New American Militarism_, which traces the increasing willingness of post-Cold War presidential administrations to utilize military force as a central component of foreign policy, as well as the increasing willingness of the American public to support such actions (note that the book came out in early 2005--meaning the manuscript was completed in 2004--before public support for the occupation of Iraq really cratered). It's a very good read, and well worth your time if you're interested in contemporary U.S. foreign and military policy.
May 15, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second the vote for the book! I purchased it in honor of his son's death and the father who spoke so eloquently. It is a very fine book.
May 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing you need concern yourself with, lizard breath, is getting used to saying:
"President Barack Hussein Obama".
Repeat that fully (don't forget to say his middle name too) and aloud at least three time a day. Your racist forbears must be ready to spin out of their graves!
How sweet it is.
May 15, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Qwerty-
Bingo!
May 15, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article starting this thread is certainly thoughtful and worth the read, and not only because it makes a argument for conservatives supporting Obama. It is worth it because that argument is couched in a critique of the Republican Party in terms of a kind of conservative that almost no one in the party follows. In fact, if I read between the lines correctly, that kind of conservatism the author defines is dead, if not on life support. Further, he makes that kind of conservatism sound attractive when pitted against neo-conservatism, which in one sense is easy as almost anything sounds better than the neocons. But I found at least one of his conservative principles to be at the heart of what I don't like about conservatism, ie, a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements. I read that and I think of all the social institutions, from slavery to sexism, that conservatives have been "reluctant" to tamper with. It runs counter to the deepest values of a progressive point of view.
May 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should not blow anybody's mind... they are in part paleocon isolationists and against neocon interventionist everywhere. They also tend anti-Israel with antisemitic undertones, though some of the neocons do give ammo. on that one. So on FP some of them are okay with Obama.
The problem is they are also racists, anti-immigration, anti-tax, anti-government....
Be careful who you get into bed with... you may wake up with fleas.
May 15, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOP racists find Obama more appealing, interesting. Gives hope for other conservatives questioning the neocon rabbithole. Does not mean any reliance or bed sharing, as a note. Good point to remember though, I need to find some conservatives- who dont have fleas- that I would want in my tent.
May 15, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment