13 October 2008

Conservatives for Obama

Recently, two prominant conservative writers have written editorials supporting Obama. The first is Chris Buckley, son of William F. Buckley. The second is Wick Allison, former editor of the National Review. I think Allison's argument is a bit stronger and more appealing. I think his assement of what conservitism and liberalism as ideals is very good and in fact reaffirms my position as a centrist. Namely, I think I have a bit of the liberal idealism for what ought to be done, but I also look back at what has been done to see whether or not it worked. Anyways, both are good reads.

Also, I had trouble expressing this when I was asked about it the other day, but I have to say that I think the wall of seperation between church and state must go both ways. Neither should have undo influence on the other. I hope that makes more sense.


Anonymous said...

First of all, this man Wick Allison is correct about the sorry state of the Republican party. Only a few real conservatives remain wandering the halls of Congress. The rest of the party suffers from being pulled to the left for decades by the media and popular culture. George Bush has decided to take on some very tough issues without being able to tell the truth about what we are actually doing and why we are doing it. He never defends himself and poorly explains himself when called upon to do so.

However, to embrace Obama is not the answer. This man's perception of Obama as a thoughtful pragmatist is a frightening spectacle and to me shows how utterly empty Obama is. He is functioning as a mirror, somehow reflecting the desires and thoughts of way more people than I thought possible.

The device used here is the CHANGE mantra and Obama does not need to make these radical claims himself as these groups just ASSIGN values and positions as they all see fit depending on the changes they want. Just imagine what you want, and Obama fits the bill. He is a master of the wink and the nod, and therefore people do not believe him when he says things that are against what they believe. They think he is “just saying those things” to get elected and that once he is safely in office he will fullfill their secret desires. Even his former church mates, whom he threw under a bus and denounced publically, will all be voting for him and they probably expect that a President Obama will carry out payback for all their greivances against the USA.

And now I see, to at least some conservatives, he is the new Ronald Reagan. If Obama wins and it is looking more and more like he will, there are either going to be legions of disappointed groups out there or Obama is a supernatural being who can change the perception of reality depending who he is talking to. There are simply no policies that will placate all sides of every issue, and Obama is building up huge expectations. I fear his strategy after the election will be the Third-World strategy (Chavez anyone?) of claiming that "enemies" are stopping him from saving the world and that more power will be needed in the executive branch. The end result may be that all the power that people believe that Bush/Cheney have usurped will be freely given under Obama.

People should ask themselves if they are projecting their own desires onto Obama or if there is actually a substantive rational, basis for their selection.

jarthurs said...

Wow, first comment that I've ever actually gotten here. My feeling is this: while we cannot be sure exactly what Obama will do if he reaches office, I think it will be better than what McCain is likely to do. Throughout his campaign, McCain has repeatedly done things that damage his entire "maverick" persona. His selection of Palin as a running mate is a huge part of this. She was either selected rather cynically as an attempt to draw in the Religious Right or she was not properly vetted, or both. She reflects either pandering or poor judgement on McCain depending on which interpretation you go with.

On another note, as I have posted before, Obama's policy towards science and technology seems much better to me. That's a bit of a selfish reason, since I am a scientist, but there you go.

I can only hope that losing this election and losing it hard will drive the Republicans to do some house cleaning. If they start putting forward candidates who stand for minimal government influence, I may vote that way again. As it is, the recent Republican controlled government has greatly increased the size and roll of government and they have reduced civil rights in substantial ways.

While I strongly believe in right to privacy and free speech, I also believe that the government should provide a robust safety net including welfare and healthcare for those in need. Part of this is related to the time I have spent in NZ. Taxes are certainly higher, but having trip to the GP free and perscriptions only costing a few dollars is great.

You say that "This man's perception of Obama as a thoughtful pragmatist is a frightening spectacle and to me shows how utterly empty Obama is." This doesn't really make sense to me, since pragmatist is basically the opposite of idealist. Allison is saying that Obama is a practical person. If we are going to discuss the "wink and nod" routine, I think that Palin's performance at the VP debate deserves a mention.

Bush and the other Republicans who use a culture of fear to sell themselves are dispicable. The whole world is not out to get us. We should not proactively invade every country that sneers at us.

This comment has wandered horribly and is not at all concise or pointed, but its going to have to be that since I have other things to do today.