A Conservative for Obama

[caesu]

A Conservative for Obama
My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead the country.
Leading Off By Wick Allison, Editor In Chief

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.

Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E

that's my biggest problem with McCain.
i think he might escalate or even start new wars without using other tools first - like diplomacy.

[Slogger]

What diplomacy would you have suggested for Rowanda?  Bosnia?
What time limit?

How long will you chit-chat with Russia after Georgia, and before Ukraine?

The Euro-view gets Europe into some difficulties, which could endanger US.  Socialism and Liberalism are very likely to cause problems for US, eventually--or, should I say . . . more problems.

Extreme conservatism works as well as extreme liberalism, both don't work very well and you can't achieve consensus.  Middle-road, choosing modified views of each, could be a more rational way.  Afterall, once each party captures the extremes they drift toward the middle--it's a lie the candidates cannot do without.  Once elected, the office-holder goes back to previous views and declares a mandate for past views.  Afterall, a phoney mandatee can't go too far because of "balance of powers."

If Obama is elected, there will be no balance.  There will be Dem . . . Dem . . . and, Dem.  We will have the Siamese Triplets:  Obama, Pelosi, and Reid--on a high speed spending race.  The current crisis has not stopped Pelosi and Reid, and would not stop Obama. 

McCain is the closest candidate to Middle that we are going to get.  Some of his ideas are very good.  For instance, changing the requirement for Seniors forced to begin withdrawal from 401(k)s during a severely depressed market.  It costs little, to nothing, to provide the protection.  You can tell it was a good idea because Obama adopted the idea. 

If Obama were "on the ball," why didn't he think of it first.

Tackle the housing situation:  Obama's friends were involved and we can't talk about it (shhh, might ruin his run for the Presidency.)  We heard enough of it to know where to shine the spotlight; who drove US down the rocky road.  We know Fannie and Freddie marched to the front of the line for their HANDOUT.  We saw AIG get a hefty "bail out" and go on vacation.

Did you notice that Fannie and Freddie donated to both political parties, as did AIG (millions); but, Lehman Brothers donated far less (a mere $100K over approx. 2 yrs.) and was destroyed.  BTW, after AIG took the glutonous SPA vacation, they took a hunting vacation to Great Britain.  That is our money, you monumental FAILURES--our dimes, our dollars . . . OUR BILLIONS.  Obama's friend Franklin R. is rolling in Fannie/Freddie money--thanks in part to Barney Frank.

There should be a trapdoor in Congress similar to James Bond's ejection seat. 

It's improper unless you are PC; thanks, liberals.  This time:   I WILL VOTE MY COUNTRY, and continue to tighten my belt.  In a time made possible by liberals and Democrats, I will not vote for you . . . I'll VOTE FOR U.S.A.  FIRST! !