We have three very bad candidates for President. One is an angry, open borders fanatic. One is a black nationalist and smooth-talking charlatan. One is an crude and unaccomplished ladder-climber whose only qualification is her association as putative spouse of an ex-president.
Which of these three losers will best rally conservatives? One argument for either Hillary or Obama is that conservatives will become united, thwarting these presdients’ worst proposals, and rethinking policy and principles based on the damage of the Bush Presidency. But have the horrors and mistakes of the Bush presidency caused a rally of real conservatives?
It seems like his faux populist war talk instead creates a kind of false consciousness, where memories of the anti-war movement counterculture of the Sixties and the pussilanimity of the Democrats during the Cold War made instinctual conservatives mistakenly support all the unthinking talk of war in the Middle East. The distraction of the Iraq War let conservatives forget about all the ways this president is, in fact, advancing the Sixties agenda, i.e., open borders, big government, silence on various culture issues.
A friend writes an interesting point about how the “unity” of a Clinton or Obama presidency may give us false hopes:
As far as the Conservative movement goes, I still choose having someone in office who will appoint decent judges and protect the country even if it means a slightly smaller chance the conservative movement will regenerate, which I am not even sure is the case. Consider that an Obama or Clinton (or Gore) presidency would give anyone to the right of Lenin plenty to complain about, and it might actually serve to paper over significant differences among the right that need to be hashed out. Think about some of the conspiracy theorists that got thrown into the conservative movement during the Clinton presidency. And look who we elected President afterwards. It doesn’t seem like a Democratic presidency was all that helpful to the Conservative movement (I know that Bill was more moderate than these goons, but still).
All of these candidates are so bad, it’s hard to decide who will be worst. We can only think now of who will accomplish the least, be the least bad, or, if bad, do the most to unify conservatives. I think more and more that person is Obama, because our biggest national hang up is confusion about equality, the role of government, and race. He, more than a McCain or Clinton, I believe will be ideological, supporting open borders equally with McCain, but also supporting divisive minority set asides and various symbolic embraces of black barbarism. Can you imagine a President Obama during black riots or a foreign attack on Americans? He’s never faced these kinds of issues, and, to the extent he has, has been an apologist for or associated with the most extreme anti-American leftism.
Becoming accustomed to criticizing this man, seeing his errors, realizing he’s a charlatan (a process already underway), and taking note of his conflicting loyalty to his tribe over the people as a whole will be a cleansing process, albeit a painful one. I think he’ll be less likely to win than McCain or Clinton, but I think his victory would be the best hope for a conservative revival.
Subscribe To This Feed
Ouch!!! But your opinion I must respect. Of course I don’t agree with it. I just think that all of these guys are good in there own way. You stressed conservatism, but the current President is and he should have united you guys, What happened? Anyway, whoever wins I think will be better that what we have now.
“pussilanimity of the Democrats during the Cold War”
You mean like Truman (Korea) and Kennedy/Johnson (Cuba, Vietnam)?
Really, Mr. Roach, sometimes your incisiveness takes my breath away. And then other times you really sound pretty dim. Take off the partisan blinders. Anti-Communism was a bipartisan affair until the shocks of Vietnam hit. And then, the anti-war crowd wasn’t wrong – they were just obnoxious mostly. (With the exception of the Ayers wing, who were and are criminals.)
I have basically thrown in the towel on this election; conservatives are basically left with a Hobson’s choice.
McCain’s reputed fiscal hawkishness is the worst betrayal. I could stomach his misguided foreign policies, intellectual limitations, etc. if he truly lived up to his reputation as a budget hawk.
But it is clear from his reversal on the GWB tax cuts, and his refusal to propose realistic budget cuts, that he is little more than a fiscal panderer, who will shuffle the economic hard questions to the bottom of the pile (to be dealt with by a future president).
Today’s WSJ points out how McCain’s proposed cuts in discretionary spending are basically un-doable, and his Medicare prescription drug changes amount to around $2B in savings.
I’m totally cynical. Give me lower taxes for 4 more years, and hopefully my family will have enough money to retire forever. The house of cards be damned. I just want to grab the cash before the music stops.
JSilverheels, it’s true, before Vietnam, many Democrats were sensible Cold Warriors and patriots, including Kennedy and Johnson. But have you forgotten many Democrats’ opposition to helping the Contras, their opposition to the MX missile, the popular “nuclear freeze” movement of the early 80s, their talk of “meeting in the middle” with the Soviets, and their general opposition to anything unilateral, manly, or forthright with respect to the Soviet Union. These are the people that yanked the rug out from under the South Vietnamese in 1975, a major breach of national honor. When they weren’t doing that, they were ignoring Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan, Niceragua, Africa, and Eastern Europe. The Democratic Party split after Vietnam, and the pacifist, anti-war left swallowed up the remaining patriots. Notice the prominence of the evil, unpatriotic moveon.org.
The pseuo-patriots have emerged in the place of the old moderates, supporting “humanitarian” interventions in Haiti, Kosovo, and elsewhere, but a robust national security voice is absent from the Democratic Party and has been for a long time.
Monkey, you are correct on McCain’s pseudo-budget hawkishness. His heart is not really in it, and he doesn’t believe in or really understand the economic side to the limited government talk of Reagan Republicans. He’s all war, all the time. That’s his passion. That’s where he sees meaning, sacrifice, unity, and purpose. Any domestic cuts will be offset by his strong stances against Iran, China, and Russia, and we risk a major war on his watch. Be forewarned.
If you are sentenced to capital punishment in some western state — Utah, I think — you have the choice of a firing squad or a noose. That’s what this election feels like.
With McCain, we will get George W. Bush without the fiscal restraint, thoughtful international strategy, and eloquence. Plus open borders.
With Obama — I am assuming that Mrs. Clinton will receive the coup de grace today – we will get pure quintessence of left-wing dogma, racial and ethnic agression, smooth talk with no thought to back it up, higher taxes, and Islamophilia. Plus open borders.
The only real question is which will bring about a reaction against the Liberal Establishment most quickly and profoundly.
I think you’ve called it correctly. With Obama installed, the opposition will have no choice but to break the taboos of the past 40 years: if they are to play politics at all, they will have no choice but to criticize and oppose a man who identifies himself as black. It could be a turning point in the fight against political correctness.
“Can you imagine a President Obama during . . . a foreign attack on Americans?”
That’s exactly why your position that he’s the least-bad option — even given your long-run view — is wrong.
I can’t predict the future. Nothing is costless. Without a stable America with an identity rooted in traditional American religious and political concepts, one or another set back or victory won’t matter.
I know we won’t have an America for long if McCain continues with his open-borders fantacism. We won’t be America. I’ll be as concerned with an attack on the US as one on China or Europe or Mexico or anywhere else, because although I’ll live here, the other people living here will be indistinguishable from foreigners in every respect.
Paleo’s that think they have any say in the Republican party are fooling themselves. The necon’s own the party now and they despise paelocons worse than liberals.
Your only chance to gain any say in the party once again is for it to be burnt to the ground, which will require Obama to win (possible, but unsure) and both houses to go strongly democrat (virtual certainty).
Only then will the Republicans see the neocons for the conservative poseurs that they are.
Supporting McCain is just helping to dig your own grave that they are going to bury you in.