I Get It, But It Doesn’t Make Sense
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Dan writes:
What Goldberg really doesn’t get, though, is that the Obamacons are not simply voting for a liberal because they don’t like the “conservative” — in supporting Obama, they seem themselves as supporting the more conservative candidate, who may be liberal on economic matters and a whole host of other issues besides, but who will at least conserve our liberties and keep the peace rather than starting unprovoked wars.
This is where I think my opposition to Obamacons comes from. To the extent that anyone on the right genuinely believes that Obama “will at least conserve our liberties and keep the peace rather than starting unprovoked wars,” they are simply wrong. Obama’s position on the PATRIOT Act and the 2006 Lebanon war are two obvious examples of why they are wrong, and we could argue about how many more examples there are, but as I’ve said before it really requires a tremendous act of imagination for a conservative to expect anything better (i.e., more conservative) from Obama (except maybe on Iraq). The strongest argument the Obamacons have is that their candidate is not McCain. This is the argument they need to keep repeating, rather than straining credulity with frankly wishful thinking that Obama will “conserve our liberties and keep the peace.” It’s true that Goldberg misses this aspect of the Obamacon argument, but then I’m not sure it’s an aspect Obamacons should really want other people to notice.
Update: Right on cue, Obama signs off on the new FISA bill to the disappointment of at least some of his supporters. Meanwhile, the rather weak defense of the Democrats as a whole isn’t terribly impressive either, since it was also true of the Iraq war authorisation that more Democrats in the House voted no than voted yes. However, pretty much the entire leadership was lined up on the wrong side of the issue, as Yglesias never fails to mention now, but I’m pretty sure if you used the “more Democrats opposed it than supported it, and don’t pay attention to what the leadership did” argument about Iraq these days Yglesias would laugh in your face. On one of the more controversial pieces of legislation related to antiterrorism, the Democrats and their presidential nominee opted for the Kerry-Daschle path of least resistance. Fortunately, I hear that Obama may eventually challenge the status quo on something. We just have yet to see any meaningful examples of this.
Second Update: Regarding the FISA bill, I see via Greenwald that New Mexico’s Tom Udall was one of the nays–good for him. Once he is in the Senate, there will be another Democratic member in that chamber to resist executive power grabs (assuming, of course, that he remains willing to resist power grabs by a Democratic administration in the event that we have one).
P.S. Jim asked in the post linked earlier how civil libertarian Obamacons would react to their champion’s rather less-than-heroic stand on a civil liberties issue–one of those issues that is supposed to mark Obama as the “more conservative” or preferable alternative–and we have one answer. Of course, telecom immunity is not the only questionable thing in the bill. That just happens to be the added bonus for the administration. As usual when it comes to these matters, Russ Feingold makes sense:
And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.
Meanwhile, Obama’s aversion to confronting power appears yet again.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
10 Responses to “I Get It, But It Doesn’t Make Sense”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s hard to tease out what his underlying attitudes really are.
I suppose I shall have to read the man’s book (the first one, not the campaign potboiler).
I understand your point, Daniel, but I just have to say I think you’re misreading the man. If it turns out you’re right, well, that’s brilliant of you, but it’s not just Obamacons who think Obama is less likely to get us involved in military conflicts, it’s most everyone else too. Sorry, I just don’t see Obama as a Wilsonian liberal, and the examples you give don’t make the case either. Now, certainly he’s not a total paleocon, that’s granted. That doesn’t make him the opposite. Clearly the Republican party has signed on to the entire Neocon foreign policy. Ron Paul never caught on except among a small but fervent fringe of the party. No one can say exactly what Obama will do or won’t do, but there’s far more reason to see restraint in his foreign policy than there is unbridled aggression.
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.
“The strongest argument the Obamacons have is that their candidate is not McCain.”
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.
I suggest people pick up and read Shelby Steele’s book on Obama “A Bound Man”. It convincingly lays out a case that Obama, whatever his true beliefs may be (and they may be quite decent) is exceptionally good at manipulation and being a projection screen for people’s own biases. He may be privately substantial, but his political gift is a lack of substance that merely appears substantial–making him difficult to pin down and more of a vessel for one’s hopes of what kind of man one wishes him to be, or conversely, a repository for a whole amalgam of suspicions and prejudices. Wheras most politicians are decidedly saccharine, his is a new brand of artificial sweetner that is *almost* indiscernable from sugar. It makes a drink that tastes just like you thought it would.
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.
“except maybe on Iraq”
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.
That lesson and the incentives for future politicians really hinges on Obama actually getting us out of Iraq. It isn’t much of a repudiation of the blunder if an Obama administration ends up managing several more years of the same war rather than bringing it to an end. This is why his unwillingness so far to confront entrenched interests is worrisome, because it suggests that he will get pulled along by the establishment’s default position of continuing foreign deployments and interventions indefinitely whenever and wherever they can.
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.
Im not an Obamacon, or even an Obama supporter. But I am in the camp of those who think he’d be preferable to McCain. And my only reason is the one you describe. He’s not McCain and appears to be a bit better on Iraq (but certainly not Iran).
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.
I’m not sure what failure to confront entrenched interests leads you to think that Obama will not pull us out of Iraq. He’s been pretty explicit about not wanting to keep fighting, about wanting to turn the country and the battle over to the Iraqi government, and not to have any extensive military base there (though some small contingent perhaps for continuity’s sake).Obviously what we do has to be consistent with basically sane choices in a future situation we can’t entirely predict at the present, but it’s pretty obvious what he intends to do – end our involvement in the war.
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.
“The strongest argument the Obamacons have is that their candidate is not McCain.â€
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.
Reason to ellect Obama by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=639#more-639