The Myth of the Obamacons
Now that Obama’s ascendance is officially official (read Mrs. Clinton is willing to admit it) our attention should be turned to a troubling trend among some self-styled conservatives, namely their paradoxical support for the O-boy himself. The narrative generally goes something like this: typical Reagan conservative, fed up after 8 years of Bush II and tired of being bashed as a Republican, takes up with Obama; usually citing his calls for hope, collective action, and “new politics” as reasons for their defection. Here’s the problem.
Obama’s “new politics” as the informed observer knows, isn’t new at all. In fact, it’s older than John McCain. This idea of collective support for state-driven solutions has been around since the 19th Century at least. Now, I’m not calling the Barackster a commie, he’s far too bourgeois, I’m simply saying that his idea of rallying the country behind a great, government-driven social reconstruction reminds this writer of a time not so long ago when a disgruntled, jaded German sat down and wrote a little book that radically altered history, and not for the better.
However, Obama’s new politics has been enough for some conservatives, even ones like former Reagan Justice Department official Douglas Kmiec, a strong abortion opponent who seems to have forgotten that Obama is strongly pro-abortion. To be fair, most of these Obamacons aren’t Conservatives per se, but Libertarians who go to church and aren’t on drugs, yet still suffer from that lovely, twittering anti-everything neurosis that causes them to view Bob Barr as a respectable choice for President. These folks are angry over Iraq mainly, and not because Bush botched it or because of their Backwoods Buddhist views on conflict, but simply because the US government did something besides going away and leaving them alone.
Are Conservatives like Kmeic in this latter camp, probably not, but when Obama gets votes from registered Republicans, that’s where most of them will be from. Now here’s where the Obamacons get really weird; by voting for Obama rather than McCain, these folks will be attempting to usher in one of the most liberal, state-centered, command-economy administrations in history. Obama is the most liberal Senator we have, and his record shows that, contrary to his new politics, he has been either unwilling or unable to break from the party line of the far-left Democratic leadership.
So, if you know anyone who is thinking about becoming or has already become an Obamacon, please stop them. Tie them up, have them committed, trick them into thinking they’ve won a vacation to Tahiti in early November, anything. You can even try reasoning with them, sit them down, go over Obama’s positions and his record. Explain that McCain’s cap-and-trade idea may be bad, but that carbon taxes and socialized medicine are even worse. Also, mention that unless they have an electric car and their own wind generator, they still need oil, so plunging the Middle East into a chaotic bloodbath would be a bad idea. Lastly, explain to them that an Obama administration would bring with it Obama’s supporters, the squirrely enviro-nuts, wild-eyed, racist Liberation pastors, Code Pink zealots, and unwashed hippies. Who would McCain bring with him, grizzled war vets, old Reagan economic advisers, Kissinger, and people who thought a 60 year old Mormon version of Beaver Cleaver was a bad idea. I know where my vote’s going.
This post was written by Archimedes on June 3rd, 2008.
Comments: 19
Comments
Comment from Dale Goski
Time: June 8, 2008, 2:38 am
Young Man,
I am not old but I have been aroung the the block. You have it right. The problem is that you focus on the wrong things.
You focus on politics. Numbers, percentages, things like that don’t matter with regular preople. (I think that I can do this on a college blog.)
This stuff doesn’t mean shit and won’t change anything! Regular people don’t know a bpou from a hole in the ground! To talk to people about statistics and groups like code pink, and veterans against war, pastors for peace, etc. won’t do any good.
What needs to be done is to promote things, like familiy values, the American Legion, the VFW, Old Glory, Church, Marrage, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, Good Professors (likely few), the military (especially the Marine Corps) and charity.
It is easy to do good work on the internet, but to go outside and talk to people is what changes thinking. Joining a group that puts flags on servicemembers graves, going to church, helping new Americans learn English, becoming a Big Brother or Big Sister does much more. Just practice what you love about Our Great Nation. It will spread faster than arguing with pinkos on the internet or the idiots that are spread throughout college campuses.
Semper Fi,
Comment from Brian R Gentry
Time: June 8, 2008, 5:06 pm
Perhaps a number of these conservatives aren’t actually voting “for” Obama, but instead are voting against John McCain.
Perhaps a number of these conservatives are fed up with the Republican Party establishment embracing big-government socialism year after year, so they want the Republicans to lose this year in order to hopefully teach them a lesson.
As for me, I’m not sure who I’m voting for yet. But I can assure you one thing: It sure as hell want be that gun grabbing, baby killing John McCain.
The days of big-government Republicanism are coming to an end….
Comment from Archimedes
Time: June 9, 2008, 3:40 pm
Ok, but as I pointed out in the article, by “punishing” the GOP, you’re simply rewarding the Democrats. The choice is between McCain and Obama, that’s it. Alan Keyes and Ron Paul don’t have a chance, so voting for them accomplishes nothing; it doesn’t send a message or punish anyone, other than youselves, because it will usher in an ultra-liberal Obama administration. Remember, Obama is the candidate that the wingnuts over at DailyKos picked over Hillary, Edwards, even Kucinich.
Here’s the reality: the poor national numbers for the GOP have created a large number of independent voters, who will be up for grabs in November. These are moderate voters, they’re not from the far-right. This means that a rightward shift isn’t going to bring the GOP victory in November b/c, in short, the “base” is too small. Therefore, the party must pursue this larger independent bloc in order to win. If we lose, it won’t be because we weren’t conservative enough, but rather b/c we didn’t do enough to capture the “new independents”.
Comment from Brian R Gentry
Time: June 11, 2008, 3:50 pm
Wow. You really do have no principles. To you its all about the “R” beating the “D.”
I honestly don’t see much of a difference between McCain and Obama. They both share the same end goal, bigger government; they just have different means to achieve that end.
Either way, we’re going to get bigger government. After all, it is Republicans who have increased the size of the government by more than any administration since Johnson.
It’s the Goldwater years all over again. I’m a Goldwater Republican and you’re a big-government, Rockefeller Republican.
Comment from Archimedes
Time: June 15, 2008, 8:19 pm
At the expense of letting this degenerate into a chicken-or-egg argument, let me just say that you equating my understanding of electoral reality with a lack of principles is insulting to say the least. I most certainly do have my principles, however, I am also forced to live in reality. This means that I must accept that the R’s and D’s are the only two choices in American politics. It also means that, since my principles fall more in line with the R’s than the D’s, it is in my interest to vote and work for the R’s. It also means, as I posted in my comment earlier, along with other posts on this blog, that McCain is the best candidate the R’s have this time around. Therefore, it is entirely principled to work on his behalf, rather than take the all-or-nothing approach that you have. With McCain, I will at least have something, rather than sitting out and pouting b/c I couldn’t have everything.
Comment from Bulldog
Time: June 16, 2008, 8:15 pm
So the problem isn’t that you’ve been a die-hard McCain-and-big-government supporter from the start? Silly me - I thought you might be biased. Allow me to apologize for doubting you.
Maybe the hard-line conservatives (blog’s author not included, sorry) are really freaking sick of voting for who we hate less. Maybe they get that big government is big government whether it’s coming from a red guy or a blue guy.
Not that I’m justifying their poor reasoning, but I see where it’s coming from. I’m sure you know I’m disgusted by old Juan, as I am by all lying politicians who step to the right just to get my vote. I’d love for once to vote for an honest man.
I tell people I’d vote for Obama just to see the McCain supporters flip out. But that’s just me, and my nickname IS bulldog…
Comment from Archimedes
Time: June 16, 2008, 9:48 pm
Big gov’t is big gov’t whether it comes from a red guy or a blue guy? Really? What red guy is going to give u socialized medicine, besides Romney I mean? What blue guy is going to increase the size of our armed forces, which are part of gov’t? What red guy is going to regulate and tax our economy half to death? What blue guy isn’t going to pass gun control?
The fact is that not all gov’t programs are created equal. Some are good, if they fulfill essential functions of gov’t, like defense. Some are bad, if tey expand the scope of gov’t control or influence, like the Education Dept. That’s the difference. Is McCain some sort of conservative paragon? Of course not. He doesn’t claim to be. And as for swinging to the right, that’s not lying, that’s politics. He isn’t telling you he’s a true-blue conservative, he’s saying he’s willing to adopt/listen to some of your views and ideas in exchange for your vote. It isn’t a lie, it’s a bargain. That’s why the all-or-nothing approach taken by Mr. Gentry makes no sense, b/c he will always end up with nothing.
Comment from Bulldog
Time: June 19, 2008, 7:27 am
Yes, big government is big government. McCain’s got a pretty good plan for taxing and regulating the economy, so why don’t you take a look at his ideas.
So it’s not dishonest to say something to get a vote and then not do it once elected? Work that out for me. Sounds like a democrat to me.
And since when does small government get involved in the school system? McCain says he’ll “hold schools accountable.” Oh really? How’s that working out for President Bush? And since when is the government supposed to regulate GHG emissions? That’s none of the government’s business. And seems like he moved to the right pretty quick on illegal immigration, doesn’t it? So tell me, if he won’t be consistent before election, how can I trust him to be consistent AFTER election?
All of this aside, McCain is the lesser of the two evils. That said, I’m pretty sick of looking at the lesser of the two evils. I’m not jumping on the McCain bandwagon just because the opposition is worse. I’ll be dragged kicking and screaming down the path of big government Republicanism, and if a more conservative candidate comes along, I’ll be ALL over that.
Comment from Archimedes
Time: June 21, 2008, 3:01 pm
Ok, first off, McCain hasn’t been elected yet, so he hasn’t been dishonest; at least not by your standard of saying something during a campaign and then not fulfilling said campaign promise.
Second, what taxing of the economy? McCain plans to cut corporate taxes, not raise them. He’s been saying since the primaries that he’s going to cut capital gains taxes, thereby making investment more profitable, not less.
Third, NCLB probably would have worked very well, had the NEA and other groups not succeeded in scuttling its funding. The fact is that quite a few states are failing to educate their kids, which has a national impact, especially on economic competetiveness and crime, since these morons don’t always stay home and do drugs and be bums. If the problem only existed in one state, then a federal solution would be illegitimate, but it isn’t confined to one state, it’s spread across many, making it a federal issue.
As for ghg emissions, who is supposed to regulate them? The states? What if one state wants to regulate and a neighboring states doesn’t? Who solves that problem? You can’t fence off air after all. The legitimacy of federal regulation isn’t up for debate, as the Constitution clearly gives the federal government primacy in interstate matters, and environmental issues are nearly always interstate issues. The question is how to regulate, not whether to regulate.
Besides being good political strategy, regulating atmospheric pollution is a necessity. A cap-and-trade scheme isn’t going to be alot of fun, but it is far better than a carbon tax or a federal consumption tax on gasoline and energy, which has been called for by liberals for years and will certainly be up for debate in an Obama Admin. The cap-and-trade system Congress established for acid rain gases didn’t kill the economy, and this one won’t either.
Comment from Bulldog
Time: June 24, 2008, 7:27 am
oh, but he’s “always been prolife” on his website, but then there’s that comment back in ‘99 where he said “…in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade.” Hmm…so this obviously being an issue very important to me, I can’t trust him at all to do what I want. And this is just one of his self-contradictions.
The GHG question is absolutely WHETHER to federally regulate. Read the tenth amendment skippy. And who says it’s an interstate issue? Why shouldn’t it be a state matter?
So should we allow anything as long as it doesn’t kill the economy? Really?
Comment from Archimedes
Time: June 25, 2008, 2:30 pm
Ok, the first part of that quote has him saying “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary.” If you’re going to use quotes, don’t truncate them. He also sponsored the effort to overturn Clinton’s veto of a partial-birth abortion ban, and then voted for the one passed in 2003. He voted to keep the ban on military base abortions. McCain also voted against using federal money in abortion clinics and to provide contraceptives to minors in schools and health clinics. His pro-life record is crystal clear. C’mon, I know you can do your homework.
I have read the 10th Amendment, and all it says is that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. It simply prohibits the federal gov’t from expanding on its own, not from being enlarged by the sates or the public. Also, the question is whether ghg emissions are or aren’t an interstate issue, not whether they should or shouldn’t be one. In that respect, it is abundantly clear that something pumped into the air can’t be a state issue if its effects aren’t limited to that state it originated from. This is absolutely the case with ghg emissions, all you have to do is take a trip in to the Shenandoah to see for yourself. Therefore, regulatory action must be federal, if for no other reason than to keep the states from going after each other’s economies.
Comment from Jack D
Time: June 26, 2008, 7:46 pm
What is so bad about America ? that we could elect the O man, come on this guy could not carry John McCain’s brief case. I do not agree with all of John McCain’s view etc: but I do know he refused to leave a living hell one second before any of the other POW’s that arrived before him could leave even though he was given the chance! thats the kind of cloth he is cut from. I seriously think we could not say the same about the O man or many of his party for that fact. John McCain will make decisions I disagree with and thats OK because in the big picture of the USA he has a lot more info and data to evaluate than we do, especially if you are getting your info from the internet and TV. I have confidence that we will get the goverment we deserve weather we like it or not. I will also say to my democratic friends boy Bill Clinton really fixed all the wrongs in the USA and thats why we have a republican president now so think again. I remember being in England and the average person in England saying that Tony Blair if I could get my hands on him he’s an idiot? then I’m in the UK when he retires and you would have thought it was someone else, he was so great blah blah blah anyway my point is we are like abunch of kids when we should be adults, have a little faith and common sense, we do not know everything, our goverment has to do dirty things that we would not want to be involved in, Barrack Obama will say anything to be president which is probably the saddest thing for me because I think it would be a good thing to have a black president just maybe black people could move on and quit drowning in thier self pity and finally understand that all they really need to do is get after it and good things will happen. Give me Condelezza Rice for President
Comment from KAckermann
Time: June 26, 2008, 8:52 pm
McCain is already infested with neocons. He has Holy Joe Lieberman crawling in and out of his rear end and whispering State Department in his ear.
I would rather die at the hands of a gay abortion-loving immigrant terrorist than have Lieberman in ANY cabinet position.
Plus, McCain really isn’t the sharpest pencil in the box.
Comment from Kman
Time: June 26, 2008, 9:53 pm
This thread is a riot. McCain is Bush 3 and EVERYONE knows it. Haven’t you heard of a protest vote?? Thats what Obamaconism is all about. If you vote McGAIN in we will usher in the defeatest policies that we should hate. Get off your asses whimps ! Why do u think Huck was so strong at the end. SOMEONE MUST STAND UP & SAY THIS IS ALRIGHT ANYMORE!
Comment from Paul
Time: June 26, 2008, 10:17 pm
What I’m worried about isn’t Bush 3: it’s World War 3 when McCain invades Iran to get more oil.
How can one of the Keating 5 who also cheated on his wife win when he’s trying to focus the campaign on character anyway…
Here’s whats going to happen:
1) Obama will win
2) Dems will control Congress and presidency
3) The trainwreck of a economy will be at full steam and Dems will take the blame
4) The balance will shift and Rep will start to win seats again. They will win the House in 2012-2014
PS comparing Obama to Hitler by only the second paragraph. Wow. Really?
Comment from Kris
Time: June 26, 2008, 11:48 pm
I have to comment on the quote: “NCLB probably would have worked very well, had the NEA and other groups not succeeded in scuttling its funding.”
You have this exactly backwards. The NEA and other teacher groups pleaded for the funding that would pay for all the testing, certifications, regulations and additional paperwork that was required by NCLB. One of the main reasons it hasn’t worked is that the government decreed high standards but dropped the ball in funding them. The NEA has begged for smaller classes, evaluation of students on more than just the test scores for math, reading and science as well as enabling more ‘highly qualified’ teachers to be in the classroom. Unfortunately there is a $70 billion gap between what was promised and what was delivered.
The songwriter Tom Chapin has written a little ode to the NCLB reading in part:
The School Board is faced with no child left behind
With rules but no funding, they’re caught in a bind.
So music and art and the things you love best
Are not in your school ‘cause they’re not on the test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXwwmQcTmSQ&eurl=http://www.educatednation.com/category/nclb/
NEA’s position:
http://www.nea.org/esea/policy.html
The NCLB had a goal that was conceptually honorable but actually unachievable in present form and funding. The last thing we want to do in this economy is produce a core of workers who only know how to take a test with little development of their creativity. It’s the ‘out of the box’ thinking that we really need to find the answers to our present problems.
Comment from Archimedes
Time: June 28, 2008, 3:09 pm
Paul,
It wasn’t Hitler I was comparing him to, it was Marx.
Kris,
The NEA wanted funding for tests etc true, but undermined any efforts to hold teachers accountable for poor student performances through vouchers etc. They agreed that standards should be raised, but protested the ideas that parents should be able to send their kids to schools who could meet them and that schools who couldn’t should be re-organized. This kind of double-talk is precisely what undermines their argument and the NCLB effort.
Comment from Mike Meagher
Time: July 1, 2008, 2:16 pm
Arch,
A couple of suggestions for both your blog pieces and reactionary commentary to trolls like the ones who’ve enjoyed your work so much.
Firstly, I like the pieces that I’ve read so far but I think they’re a bit vague. Why not make it explicitly clear to people like Bulldog just how different we “R”’s are from the “D”’s; perhaps focusing on certain social issues (ie PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, etc.).
Secondly, I commend you for wasting your valuable time (it is summer, I mean most kids our age are out swimming or drinking) but don’t waste too much time reacting to these morons’ comments. You seem to have great acuity so keep the dignity too by not letting these guys occupy your mind for too long!
Remember there’re others out there at school who amazingly still share a similar moral fiber based on strong conservative values!
Keep up the good work buddy.
Comment from Bulldog
Time: July 1, 2008, 5:17 pm
First of all, I’m not a guy, thank you very much. Second of all, I’m not a moron for questioning inconsistency. Those who ignore it are. Furthermore, my moral fiber is not based on conservative values, it’s based on Jesus Christ. And partial-birth abortion is no worse than any other kind of abortion. It’s all homicide. That is all.
Write a comment