Obamacons And the Myth of McCain
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
It’s a not bad read, though his arguments seem to boil down to hating Sarah Palin, not believing John McCain will balance the federal budget, and enjoying Obama’s books. ~Jim Antle
That’s not entirely fair to Buckley, who simply expressed profound embarrassment and perplexity concerning Palin, but it makes for a pretty good short description of the Obamacon argument: the Republicans are ridiculous, and at least Obama is intelligent, so that’s something. Indeed, that might be the Obamacon bumper sticker slogan: “I’m voting for the intelligent one for a change.” There is basically no positive case for Obama, because I don’t think a conservative can actually make one, except to say that he might do slightly less damage than another Republican.
Buckley’s remarks on McCain are interesting in what they tell us about the pervasive nature of the McCain myth: McCain used to be authentic, you see, but now he is not (not true–he has always been the same person!); he showed tremendous bravery in backing the “surge” (not true–it was enormously popular among GOP regulars and primary voters!); McCain has changed (see the first point). This is the sort of whinging justification Obama supporters on the right often have to make to save face, which further reinforces the old McCain myth: if only McCain had remained true to himself, I would have supported him, but now he has sacrificed his integrity! What few seem willing to accept is that McCain has always been like this, and his past admirers have blinded themselves to his flaws because they found him useful or were swayed by his biography, and until very recently most have had no problem with McCain’s flaws. Indeed, they seem incapable of admitting that McCain has any flaws of his own, but are insistent that whatever is wrong with him is the function of the pressures of the campaign.
They have been wrong about him for a very long time and don’t want to admit that, so they make the less insulting choice of endorsing his opponent. It is much more generous to McCain to pretend that the presidential campaign has somehow forced him to become someone he isn’t. It is a compliment to say that one is endorsing Obama only because McCain has betrayed his true self. None of this is true, and it reflects a remarkable deference to McCain even at this late stage of the game that so many people are saying it. Of course, this myth also helps to excuse their support for McCain for so many years.
Filed under: politics
12 Responses to “Obamacons And the Myth of McCain”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m not sure exactly why you consider voting for the better, more intelligent man, a pretty thin reason to support Obama? Is ideology really everything to you?
Well, an Obamacon and a McCain supporter are generally the same thing. It’s a not very conservative person who was for one reason or another on the Republican side of things at some point, back when being so was not utterly egregious in their social circles. Being for McCain was itself a socially acceptable way of being on the Republican side, but it’s now defunct since McCain is now the obstacle of the most socially acceptable candidate in history, so the McCain supporter must become an Obamacon.
If Buckley were serious about his libertarianism he would decline to vote for McCain, but reject Obama as well. Instead he votes for the smart one and makes the argument that he’s too smart to be too socialist. Now, it’s one of the elementary facts of politics that brilliant people are often devout statists, that there’s no such thing as being too smart to follow a bad political ideology. Conservatives especially are supposed to know this. So really he’s voting for Obama because it’s the correct thing to do socially, as being a McCain sort of Republican used to be.
Buckley’s description of Obama’s books as first rate (both of them!) reminds me of how he gave Ana Marie Cox’s Dog Days a good review.
The WFB pullquote in Buckley’s piece is just perfect, btw. Dismissing some of those kooks is what led conservatism to where it is now. Thanks, Pup!
First of all, I don’t think of this in terms of ideology. What you keep insisting on calling an ideological view is an assessment of what the candidates propose to do. There is virtually nothing that Obama proposes to do that I think should be done. We have very, very few common objectives. With that in mind, his intelligence is a *problem*, because it suggests that he might succeed in advancing an agenda that I find unacceptable. With Obama there is a real risk that interventionism may be seen once again as a reasonable and responsible approach to foreign policy, which is quite the opposite of what some early Obamacons have hoped will happen.
You could argue that there is no real difference between being an anti-McCain conservative, as I am, and endorsing Obama, but I think there is a crucial difference. Virtually everything that would trouble conservatives about McCain is even more true about Obama. There is no rational way to get from opposing McCain from the right to backing Obama, except as a purely punitive measure based in hostility to McCain and what he represents. I went the punitive route in 2006, and it was useless–the GOP learned nothing, the Dems demonstrated their impotence and things became worse. McCain’s victory would be horrible, but his defeat won’t meaningfully change things and things may become still worse.
You’ll notice that Buckley can’t or won’t even make a real anti-McCain argument, and his reasons for dropping McCain and backing Obama seem to be largely based on the candidates’ personalities and attributes. And, yes, to address kranza’s point, I think there is a certain faddish quality to conservative endorsements of Obama in October now that the election is essentially over. Whatever my disagreements about his arguments, at least Prof. Bacevich made his case for Obama (or, really, against McCain) when the matter was still in doubt.
Likewise, by his own admission, what Buckley wants to see done in government Obama is not going to do. So, yes, I think the consolation that “at least he’s intelligent” is pretty thin when the candidate in question proposes to do the exact opposite of everything that the endorser thinks should be done. For my part, I take candidates’ policy proposals seriously, perhaps too seriously, but it seems more important to me to judge candidates by what they think or claim to think than by the rather low standard of whether or not they can think.
Intelligence is desirable, but on its own it is not necessarily enough of a recommendation. Nixon was a very sharp guy, and had I been around then I certainly wouldn’t have backed him in ‘72 and probably not even in ‘68. No one doubts that Romney is very intelligent, but he seems to have no scruples and seems entirely opportunistic. I find the way that these men use their intelligence to be strikes against them. Clinton was probably the brightest in terms of raw intelligence of the last four Presidents, but I would never have wanted him wielding that kind of power. Carter was probably the most highly educated and intelligent President we have had in the last sixty years, and his administration was more or less a disaster with a few accomplishments that most people don’t remember, in part because Carter tried to be too involved in the details of everything that went on in his administration.
This is certainly not an argument in favor of the visceral, reactive personality of a McCain or Bush, but it is worth keeping in mind when the main thing that his critics and his conservative endorsers can say in Obama’s favor is that he is intelligent. Intelligence is necessary, but it is not enough to merit an endorsement of someone whose agenda is almost entirely not your own.
Daniel, I’m not trying to get you to switch your vote, but to acknowledge that “voting fo the best man, regardless of ideology or policy” can be a very sound rationale for voting. If one narrowly defines “best man” by intelligence, you have a point, because intelligence is just one factor in judging a man. I just think there’s a valid argument to be made, which is what Buckley seems to be making, that regardless of ideology or even policy approaches, it’s best for the country to have a superior individual in office rather than someone, like McCain, who seems dangerously deficient in personal qualities. I don’t think Obama is actually that much more intelligent than McCain. McCain is a pretty bright guy in purely intellectual ability, it’s just that his intelligence is rather lazy and self-indulgent and undisciplined, and governed more by his visceral emotions than the other way around. Obama shows the ability to let his intelligence lead and rule his emotions, which makes him a bit “cool”, but also a superior type to serve in the White House. My own view is somewhat similar to Buckley’s, in that I have voted for people I thought were the best candidates, even when they went against my own ideology or party or policies, simply because I thought they were far better as individuals and would actually be better for the country. Such as voting for Reagan over Carter, or Pete Wilson over Kathleen Brown. The issue isn’t even whether you would yourself ever vote this way, the issue is whether you can respect someone who does, which you seem not to. I wonder if you can respect Buckley for taking this position, that in this particular case, voting for Obama over McCain can make sense even for a conservative, given the serious personal difference in the two major candidates’ personal abilities, qualities, and approach to governance and simple functioning. In other words, putting country first by voting for Obama instead of McCain (and leaving out the option of third party protest vote you have decided upon).
The only way one as a conservative could really support Obama is if you believe he will end the war faster and make better use of our allies so that we can rebuild our economy faster. McCain’s quest of endless war will be a drain on our resources that sacrifices our economic power as well as our personal power, our standing with our allies. He likes to throw around the word “victory” but that is not forthcoming and he is deluded if he thinks that we will achieve anything like it in that region.
How about this: the story in which McCain as corrupted and destroyed by his staff and advisors is simply more compelling than that in which they merely rip off the “Maverick” mask and reveal the true self? There’s something more tragic about, and it’s simply not nearly as depressing as the “present” McCain being the “true” McCain. (Or maybe I’ve just spent too much time today reading the Pomocons and anti-Pomocons going back and forth…)
But I do think a lot of this has to do with how we decide to “read†individual candidates. I’ve been going back and forth with a friend about this election for the last year (back before our respective slides rightward, and when the break was Hillary-Obama rather than McCain-Obama). For both of us, the deciding factor is foreign policy, but by looking at the same information, he’s decided that Obama is the geopolitical love-child of Jimmy Carter and Neville Chamberlain, and I’ve decided that Obama is more hawkish than he appears at first glance—but that it is his relative prudence (at least in comparison to the alternative and the last eight years) which leads to the accusations of dovishness. We don’t argue much over the data points. We argue over how they should be read.
But going back to views of McCain: for me, as something of an Obamacon, either option—that McCain has become a “different†McCain, or that McCain’s true self has been revealed—is disturbing and would make me less likely to vote for him. How I read it makes no difference; though, being a Kentuckian, I’m able to cop out and take my (relatively) worthless vote and ship it third-party-ward.
I think the emerging McCain narrative is of Golum craving his “precious”.
And Buckley pays the price for his dissent…maybe TAC can pick him up now?
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=12387
I can’t speak for the editors, but I think that would be great if he would write for us. It is remarkable that NR would drop his column. I suppose if your magazine spent the better part of the last year vilifying a certain candidate it would create problems for you if one of your columnists endorsed him. Any moment now we should be seeing another paean to the free-wheeling, open debate that is the mainstream conservative movement.
Speechless… but not really surprised. The Republican Cult has just taken another step toward the wilderness. They better hope it’s not a 40-year outing.