I can’t say enough about this video of the students at Ron Clark Academy in Atlanta, who put together an honest-to-goodness non-partisan rap for the election season.
I haven’t read Clark’s book, though I’ve heard about it. I think I’m going to pick it up this weekend.
There’ll be big changes to my life on Wednesday, November 5th… and it has nothing to do with who will win the election.
I’ve decided that the day after Election Day is going to be my day to quit smoking (again). I’ve also decided it’s going to be the day I become a civilized man (more on that as the date gets closer).
Jim: I think I know what Cam is talking about, and my reaction to what I suspect he is about to attempt stirs a combination of envy, trepidation, and head-shaking “better you than me, pal.” It’s the sort of thing that, if he goes through with it and carries it through to the end, makes for a great book proposal.
Remember when the IRA was setting off bombs all over London? Not that old? How about guerilla warfare in South America or fringe terrorism in the Middle East. When Americans look at these, we often see chaos in a far away place. And usually, we’re not wrong.
It was interesting talking to people in the UK today — and I was mostly outside of London on business today — I was amazed at how many people had read or heard about the skinhead plot to assassinate Senator Obama and kill a hundred others. Now, having read a bit about the plot, I had concluded that it was a couple of whackos who were probably too stupid to actually pull anything off. And stupid or not, I quickly concluded that wanting to kill a leading candidate for President is not a mainstream point of view in the my homeland.
The folks that I spoke to today saw it as something much more serious and sinister. And it’s amazing how many and for how long folks in the UK have been openly discussing the possibility that Obama would be assassinated shortly before or shortly after the election. “They won’t let him be President,” one London cabbie told me recently. And these discussions aren’t just for folks on the street. I’ve had them with the more professional types as well.
I haven’t put the question to anyone in quite this way, but I wonder if folks here increasingly view the U.S. as a bit unstable, where violence might befall a leading figure at any time. I wonder further what the implications of that might be for America’s standing on the world stage. I don’t have an answer. But it’s certainly an interesting aside in the final week before Election Day.
In response to my earlier post about a so-called conservative civil war, Marshall got right to the heart of the matter.
But part of me wonders how we balance your point with the reality that technology (especially the Internet) is driving a broad democratization. We’re seeing that democratization impact governments, businesses, and all institutions to varying degrees, and the impact will only increase over time. So if all communications, government and business is becoming more democratized, how do we also ensure that decisions of all sorts are imbued with the best thinking? Do we assume that in the marketplace of ideas, the market will manage to select the best ones?
And that’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? I’ve been pondering this for a while now, and the only thing I’ve come up with so far is that a problem as large as that isn’t going to be solved easily, nor will be be solved with just one fix. The fixes that are offered are going to have to be bold as well, which will certainly inhibit most people from offering ideas. Bold ideas are easily ridiculed. Even bold ideas should have some basis in reality though. It’s a fine line to walk, and I’m not sure I’ve managed it, but what the hell. I’ll offer myself up for ridicule. Here are some pie-in-the-sky ideas that I think could help.
First of all, you can’t stop technology. What you can do is to restore some semblance of reason to our debates. So, my first idea is a universal liberal arts education, or at least the start of one. It’s true that not every Founder was a college graduate, or even attended college. Yet it is also true that every founding father understood political philosophy. They understood critical thinking, and debate, and reason. Frankly, they expected that by now, we would too. Require that every school district that receives a dollar of federal funding have a four year required course on political philosophy. Every voter now has the responsibility that a state representative had at the start of this country. That means we should think at the level of a state legislator (and frankly, I’m sure state legislators could use these courses too).
In order to help ensure that we elect knowledgeable representatives, all candidates for federal office must pass a U.S. citizenship test, and the results of your test must be made publically available to voters. I’m not perfectly pleased with this idea, but pragmatically I think voters would be more inclined to add a burden to the office holder, rather than add a burden onto themselves.
Thirdly, I’d use technology to our advantage. World of Warcraft, for instance, has millions of users. Is Second Life still popular? I’d love to see a MMORG that could serve as a testing ground for ideas. Has any online community-based game ever revolved around politics? It seems to me like it could be a natural fit.
I’m not married to any of these ideas, by the way. Ultimately, I don’t know what would work. Therefore, I’m willing to listen to any possible solution.
So what are your ideas?
Cam updates: Speaking of ideas, here’s a great column about White House 2.0. It has some fantastic offerings on how to empower the people to make better decisions by using technology.
1. In our continuing debate, I have probably been imprecise in my terms at various points. Colin Powell is a Republican, but I don’t know that he has ever described himself as a conservative, nor is he widely seen as one. My objection is with conservatives who are endorsing Obama; you didn’t see me or many others all that bothered by pro-Obama Republicans who are clearly not conservatives — Jim Leach, William Weld, Lincoln Chafee, etc.
2. Like Cam said, I see a great deal of difference between a conservative not voting for McCain and a conservative voting for Obama. For the former, I have little beef (and like Cam, I’m not saying that just because that was your choice). For the latter, the logic and reasoning escape me and I feel that they have given great assistance to an effort to move the country significantly to the left. All will not be forgiven for quite some time.
One irony in this discussion is that I’m being interpreted as the one beating the drum for party loyalty, when I’ve voted for Democrats in the past and probably will again sometime (perhaps even this year). I do this when I deem the Democrat conservative for their party and an improvement over their Republican opponent. But I will not vote for a liberal Democrat and add to the public mandate for an agenda I oppose. Enough people spite this face daily for me to offer an assist with my own nose-cutting.
3. Cam touched on this a bit, but we do not have a duty to vote. A few years back, after nearly deciding to vote for a Board of Education candidate because I recognized a name from a sign in the neighborhood, I pulled back and decided to only vote for (or against) candidates I know something about. I leave some spaces blank on my ballot. If I don’t know the candidates and why they would be better, why should my random vote for a name I recognize from a sign in my neighborhood dilute the vote of someone who has made a well-informed and well-reasoned choice? How many votes are cast based on no thought at all?
4. I presume my comment “is it too much for party loyalty to ask that conservatives stop bitching about the more conservative of the two candidates in the final two weeks of the election?” is what triggered the “for us or against us” characterization from Marshall. I would note that I want a biannual fortnight hiatus in which the more conservative candidate stops taking fire from the rear as well as the front. Reagan’s 11th Commandment was “thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican” and it was in season all year long, every year. Which perspective is really an all-or-nothing, “for us or against us” mentality?
5. Marshall asserts that a careful search would indicate there is “nothing” that is conservative about John McCain. Over the years, Marshall has persuaded me of the folly of campaign finance reform, but I don’t think he will ever persuade me that there is no difference between a candidate with a lifetime ACU rating of 82.3 (McCain) and one with a lifetime rating of 9 (Obama).
Marshal, you write, “No facts you can offer in this regard will convince me.” Yes, that’s abundantly clear, and suggests what is driving this perspective is not facts but something else.
6. Marshall points to a K-Lo post and a Bainbridge post criticizing Fried, and laments the tone of our discussion.
Fine. But let’s recall what got the Palin-defenders so riled in the first place. Ken Adelman sniffed that he wouldn’t hire Sarah Palin “for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency.” Of course not, she’s never worked in that policy area. But neither has Obama, beyond one oft-touted bill that passed by unanimous consent. (Would Adelman hire Palin for a job at the Department of Energy?)
David Brooks declared Palin “a fatal cancer to the Republican Party.” I’ve gone into Kathleen Parker’s inspid theory that Palin seduced her way onto the ticket. Christopher Buckley sneered that she was “an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that.”
(Fried seems gentlemanly by comparison, but he simply stated that “the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis” was what spurred his vote for Obama. Apparently she is sufficiently repugnant to spur him to take a flyer on the hope that Barack Obama is not who his record, his rhetoric, his campaign promises, his allies and his behavior suggests he will be.)
The pro-Obama Republicans/”conservatives” have dished up their own share of bile, and to quote Merle Haggard, that’s walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me. Marshall, you’ve kept emphasizing that how “thoughtful” the pro-Obama Republicans/conservatives are, when a good chunk of them are anything but. I’d ask you to reexamine which side really is behaving as if “perfect thinking has leapt from your mind as if from Zeus himself.”
Now that Cam has weighed in, it seems we’re coming in for a landing.
If I might be so bold as to try to sum up: Cam believes that a conservative with discomfort with McCain should sit the election out, and articulates a compelling case. Jim believes that such a conservative should swallow his or her distaste and vote for McCain anyway, and lists a number of strong reasons why. I have argued that a conservative’s decision to choose Obama over McCain is at least understandable and should not be condemned.
Let me offer another way to look at this: For my own part, I’ve made it clear that I do not care for Senator McCain, nor do I care for Senator Obama. As a voter, what are my choices?
I could hold my nose and vote for McCain. That’s effectively what Jim urges.
I could decide to sit out the election. That’s what Cam suggests.
I could vote for Obama. That’s what Colin Powell, Charles Fried and Ken Adelman have decided to do.
Or I could vote for a third-party candidate. Some commenters have raised that as a possibility.
It’s important to recognize one further factor: Some people, including Mssrs. Powell, Fried and Adelman consider it their duty to vote. (Personally, I agree with this point of view. There is no scenario under which I would simply sit out.) In Mr. Fried’s case, he has said that he is not prepared to vote for a third party candidate, because that would be equivalent to not voting at all. So Cam’s solution is a reasonable one, but will not serve for everyone thusly afflicted.
Those are the choices, and none is a particularly happy one.
Because I live outside of the U.S. at the moment, I have already cast my ballot. Indeed, I did so several weeks ago. I can say unequivocally that I did not vote for Senator Obama. Nor did I vote for Senator McCain.
Some will say that my decision to cast my vote for a third party candidate, especially in a closely contested state like Virginia, is as good as backing Obama. I don’t see it that way. But I suspect that for many of our conservative commenters, that won’t matter.
Whether or not you agree with my point of view, I consider myself a conservative and a Republican. I support smaller government, individual rights, lower taxes, a strong, capable military, and I oppose over-active government regulation, redistributive taxation, and anything goes government. (And I don’t intend this to be the absence of anything in particular should not be interpreted as a statement about my view on it, one way or the other.) I gave many years of my career, trying to help elect Republicans across the U.S. and trying to confirm President Bush’s nominees to the federal bench. When this election is over, I will continue to do whatever I can to support the conservative cause.
But John McCain is no conservative. He’s barely a Republican. I seriously question his commitment to the individual liberties articulated in the Bill of Rights. And putting Governor Palin on the ballot didn’t address any of those problems. In short, John McCain hasn’t earned my vote, and that’s why he didn’t get it.
I agonized over my decision for many months — ever since it was clear Senator McCain would be the Republican nominee. And I realize that by putting my decision in the public domain, I risk difficulties as some point down the road.
But it’s worth noting that both candidates are running on a platform with changing Washington as a central tenant. Nothing is going to change in Washington until more of our elected officials are willing to be open minded, to think carefully about the consequences of what they do, to use their judgement and, from time to time, to change their mind. Dogmatic adherence to one point of view or another does not yield good government. It yields gridlock.
As Jim says, there are times to draw the line. I’ve got a list of lines that I’ve already drawn (starting with free speech and saving my 401(k), for example). But in the abstract, our political dialogue must improve. There must be more tolerance for varying points of view. The instant instinct to attack the motives of someone with whom we disagree must change.
Cam sites Federalist 1, and alludes to demagoguery. But Obama isn’t the first demagogue to come to Washington. He’s just the latest. McCain beat him there by quite a few years. So did countless others. Demagogues whip up popular angst without respect to fact or contrary opinion. That’s standard operating procedure these days in our capital. And without greater respect for each other, it will only continue and, indeed, worsen.
Frankly, I don’t have very much hope that it will change anytime soon.
So there it is. What do you think? How will you vote, and why?
I should conclude with one hopeful thought: While the decision I’ve made is not a happy one in any respect, I have very much enjoyed this dialogue, both amongst the three of us and our commenters. I hope it will continue.
Cam says: On your last point, I think both Jim and I would whole-heartedly agree. When we set up OnTap, we did so knowing that we wouldn’t always agree on issues, but that we could have a productive dialogue and debate. The last few days may be the best example of that to date.
I would like to clarify one thing. I don’t actually believe that the only choice for a conservative who disagrees with John McCain is to sit out the election, though I do think that is an option. I should have articulated that, rather than just leaving it at “they should sit this one out”. My only excuse is that I was typing up my thoughts this morning while trying to deal with three kids, and I was not as meticulous as I could and should have been.
There’s another caveat that goes along with sitting out an election, and that is this: I believe that we do have a duty to be actively involved in our self-government. But I also believe that if you have carefully weighed both major party candidates and truly find both of them to be equally unacceptable, it’s okay to not vote in that particular race. I also think if you have no idea about a particular race (take, for instance, an obscure local position), it’s perfectly acceptable to not vote in that race. If we have a duty to vote, we have an obligation to take that duty seriously. If you’re not going to do that, please step away from the ballot box.
Having said all that, if Fried or Adelman had come out and said, “Look, as a conservative, I disagree with McCain’s decision to pick Palin, and I can’t vote for the guy. I also can’t vote for Obama, because a principled conservative for Obama is as oxymoronic as a prostitute for abstinence. So I’m going to vote third party”, I don’t think you’d see Jim or I go after them quite as hard (and not just because that’s your position, Marshall).
Man, I could spend hours on a response to your post, but I think I’ll let this stand. I may write something else in a new post about demagogues, and I’d also like to respond to your fear that nothing will change (for the better anyway) anytime soon.
Responding to Marshall who was responding to Jim who was… oh, you get the idea.
Charles Fried may well be a thoughtful guy. Colin Powell may be a thoughtful guy. But that doesn’t mean that their thoughtful decision to back Barack Obama is well thought out.
I agree mostly with Marshall when he says: says:
Instead of attacking Fried’s motives, or his conservatism, or his intelligence, or his sophistication or anything else — which are all unimpeachable — we would do well to reflect. If we disagree, we can do so cordially and with understanding. Just because someone holds a different view does not make them the enemy. The terrorists who are trying to kill us are the enemy. It simply makes them the opposition. Or, as they say here in England: “The honorable opposition.”
Here’s where I disagree. I believe Fried’s vote for Obama, along with Powell’s, Adelman’s, etc. is an abandonment of conservatism, and should be seen as such. Conservatives don’t vote for the guy who says he wants to “spread the wealth around”. Conservatives don’t vote for the guy who wants to initiate the Global Poverty Act. Conservatives don’t vote for the guy who wants to replace justice with “fairness”. Conservatives don’t vote for the guy who agrees with Justice Breyer’s view of interpreting the Constitution as a “living document”. Conservatives don’t vote for the man with these ideas, because they’re in direct contradiction to conservative principles.
If Fried, Powell, Adelman, and the rest were principled, and truly felt like they couldn’t vote for McCain, they’d sit this one out. Instead, they are choosing to place their trust in a man who has proudly declared himself to be a liberal… and it really boils down to they don’t like the pick of Sarah Palin.
So I’m wondering… is John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin really worse to these folks than Obama’s choice to sit in Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years? Is it really worse than Obama’s choice to associate himself with William Ayers? Is it really worse than Obama’s choice to have friends like Tony Rezko and Alexi Giannoulias? Is it really worse than Obama’s choice to defend ACORN? I could go on, but you get my drift.
Having already articulated my support for the Palin pick, I don’t feel the need to repeat myself. But I honestly don’t see how a principled conservative could agree that the pick of Palin indicates judgment worse than what Obama’s demonsrated throughout his lifetime. So what would make a principled conservative step away from McCain this election season? I’m left with a couple of options.
1) They’re not really principled conservatives. It’s a fact that people change. Still, it would seem odd that all these long-time conservatives would have the same change of heart within the span of a few months.
2) They place a higher priority on principles that have nothing to do with conservatism. Fried said that one reason he decided to vote for Obama was the “choice of Sarah Palin in a time of deep national crisis”. I find it beyond belief that an intelligent, thoughtful, and wise individual could ever come to the conclusion that because of inexperience in the Number Two slot, the answer is to vote against your conservative principles in favor of a ticket with inexperience in the top slot.
Therefore, I’ve come to the conclusion that Fried’s decision, along with Adelman’s (and to a lesser extent Powell’s) is based not on conservative principles, but on a misplaced fear that the Republican Party is getting “dumber”. I believe Fried is dispaying solidarity, but not with conservatives. Rather, Fried is displaying solidarity with “intellectuals”, or at least he thinks he is. I do not think that is an intelligent, thoughtful, or wise position to take.
If a conservative really believes that the Republican Party is getting dumbed down, and the Democrats are going to be the party of intellectuals, the answer isn’t to become a Democrat. It’s to fight for intellectualism in the GOP. To walk away is an act of cowardice; an admission that you’re not up to the fight.
In fact, we need principled conservatives who are willing to stand and fight for their beliefs in their party. The Democrats have selected a man far to the left of any candidate in recent memory (I remember telling Jim months ago that the American people could elect the equivalent of a Berkeley City Councilman), and if he wins, he could have little opposition in Congress. That means public opposition would be even more important, and we would need smart men to articulate conservative principles and solutions.
In Federalist 1, Alexander Hamilton seemed almost Nostradamus-like in seeing the effects of the bitter partisan divide we’ve faced over the past 40 years.
To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that htey will mutally hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives… An overscrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the poeple, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretence and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
Webster’s defines demagogue as, “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.” Men like Fried are siding with such a man, rather than standing up to him. Marshall’s right… we do need intellectuals in the conservative movement. We need disagreements and discussion, but never, never do we need capitulation.
Charles Fried served as Solicitor General for nearly all of President Reagan’s second term. During his service, he was accused by liberals of over-politicizing the office to support the administration’s conservative point of view. No one can credibly claim that Fried is not a conservative.
Over the last forty years, between stints of serving his country or his Commonwealth, Fried has also become one of the most respected law professors in America as well as one of the most effective and distinguished appellate lawyers. My wife had the chance to work closely over some time with Mr. Fried on a complex appeal before the 2nd Circuit. She confirms that he is thoughtful, careful, serious about his commitment to his country, and does not rush to conclusions, especially about political matters.
During this campaign, Mr. Fried served as an advisor to the McCain campaign on a number of issues, including the question of judicial appointments.
But on Friday, it emerged that Mr. Fried has asked that his name be removed from the campaign website because he had decided to cast his vote for Senator Obama. A couple of elements of this are interesting: First, Fried did so quietly. He simply sent a letter to the campaign requesting that his name be removed. It’s interesting that the news has made very few waves: There’s been no traditional media coverage except from Fried’s hometown paper, the Boston Globe, and only a few bloggers have bothered to mention it.
So, why do I bring it up?
In my on-going debate with Jim, I’ve argued that conservatives who conclude that they cannot support McCain should not be ostracized. Indeed, quite the opposite — If we want to really improve the discourse in Washington, that we need to stop attacking thoughtful people with whom we disagree. I mentioned Colin Polin and Ken Adelman as examples.
Charles Fried is the best example yet. He concluded that McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin demonstrated such poor judgement that Fried could no longer support him. He did not come to that conclusion on a whim. He did so after a great deal of thought and contemplation. And he took the action that his mind and his conscience directed would be best for his country.
Instead of attacking Fried’s motives, or his conservatism, or his intelligence, or his sophistication or anything else — which are all unimpeachable — we would do well to reflect. If we disagree, we can do so cordially and with understanding. Just because someone holds a different view does not make them the enemy. The terrorists who are trying to kill us are the enemy. It simply makes them the opposition. Or, as they say here in England: “The honorable opposition.”
All of this raises a final point: There is an inherent arrogance in believing that your point of view is unassailable, that perfect thinking has leapt from your mind as if from Zeus himself. We can learn from men like Charles Fried, with all of their experience and intelligence. We might ultimately conclude that we disagree with their perspective, but it’s folly to simply ignore that they have to say and attack their motives for saying it. There’s been too much of that in our political dialogue over the last few years, and it doesn’t lead to anything but cynicism.
Marshall,
1. I had to chuckle when you suggested Palin undermined the very “essence of who McCain is.” To quote the software programmers, this is not a bug, it’s a feature.
I’m going to break my own rule about not trashing the Republican nominee within two weeks of Election Day. What struck me from that New York Times article that started this discussion wasn’t the Palin selection process, but the way that Steve Schmidt suggested, and McCain embraced, the decision to suspend the campaign, call for postponement of the first debate, and return to Washington to jump deep into the mess that was the financial bailout bill. It was an issue McCain had limited familiarity with, and even more limited ability to influence the outcome. McCain seemed to naively think that Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Chuck Schumer would be eager to assist him in getting into a position to take credit for crafting a bipartisan compromise, and that the American people would hail a process that committed billions in taxpayer dollars to help out horrifically mismanaged financial institutions.
And then, of course, within two days of the unprecedented and surprising decision, McCain changed his mind, un-suspended his campaign, and appeared at the first debate.
In the weeks leading up to that decision, Obama surrogates and liberal bloggers had been describing McCain as “confused” and “erratic” with such synchronized frequency it suggested obsessive-compulsive disorder. And then, at the first real economic “3 a.m. call” of this election cycle, McCain behaved… confused and erratic. His behavior appeared to reaffirm his opponents’ criticism just as the public was really tuning in to the race. The equivalent for Obama would be for him to immediately have convened a meeting of his economic advisers William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko, followed by a statement that the economic crisis was evidence that indeed, God was finally damning America. Obama, in fact, made what was (politically) the right call: He recognized his limited ability to shape the legislation, surmised the final product was almost guaranteed to be a political stinkbomb, and took as low a profile as possible. Three cheers for the guy who had the good sense to hide during the crisis!
“The essence of McCain” — gah, sounds like a cologne — is a weakness for media adulation, an obsessive belief that the bipartisan course is the right course, a casual disinterest in issues beyond his favorites; generally conservative instincts but boredom with deep thinking about philosophy or broader issues; an instinct to attribute bad motives to those who disagree; an allergy to explaining why he believes a particular course of action is right, and an inclination to take wild gambles whether or not the circumstances call for it.
“Undermining the essence of who he is” is one of Sarah Palin’s greatest accomplishments in this election year.
With all of that, you’re probably saying, ‘wait, if this is the case for him, why vote for him?’ Because we don’t need him, or Palin, to play the role of Savior of the Party/Movement/Country. We need him (or her) to play the role of Emergency Brake. (More on this below.) The Democratic Congress is in the driver’s seat of our national automobile, foot on the gas, accelerating faster and faster toward the cliff. A President McCain can at least grab and yank the parking brake; President Obama will be turning in the adjustable rear-view mirrors in order to reduce wind resistance.
2. By using Colin Powell as your keystone example of an anti-Palin conservative, you’re picking the guy who has the best claim to “sincerity of duty and honor.” You know who I’m talking about when I mention New York Times profiles (Buckley, glossing over personal controversies that might otherwise dominate the article) and appearing on the Colbert Report (Kathleen Parker, who has now asserted, sans evidence beyond the voices in her head, that sexual attraction was what spurred McCain to pick her. I very, very rarely second-guess those who sign my paycheck, but Parker’s column was unworthy of publication in NRO — or many other places).
We’ve discussed elsewhere, that Powell’s reputation as one of the most respected men in Washington has a glaring issue of his testimony to the United Nations about WMDs, and he himself has called it a blot on his record. Few of those who think less of Powell for that testimony would have given his reputation a second chance if he had endorsed McCain. By endorsing Obama, his ‘redemption’ for his role in the Bush administration is clear. I don’t doubt that Powell genuinely thinks that Obama is the better choice, but let’s not kid ourselves about his incentives for each choice.
3. “When good people stand up and speak their mind or profess a view that differs from the party line, they are ostracized.”
Can we agree that if you are a conservative, you seek to further the conservative agenda? And if you call yourself a conservative, don’t you have some obligation to not help advance the liberal agenda?
If you’re a conservative, and you are making an effort to elect Obama… what makes you a conservative anymore? Barack Obama is quite likely to take office with the Democrats having 60 votes in the Senate and a gargantuan majority in the House. Congressional Republicans will have little or no ability to stop he, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid from enacting most or all of their agenda. And what part of that agenda is a conservative supposed to appreciate? “Spread the wealth around”? Card check, eliminating the secret ballot for the decision to unionize? The Fairness Doctrine? Opposition to school vouchers? Treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant? A mewling hesitation on nuclear power? Opposition to offshore drilling? A cursory at best reexamination of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? An increase on FICA taxes above $250,000? Issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants? Pledges to renegotiate NAFTA? Eliminating missile defense research? Requiring women to register for Selective Service? Pledges to meet without condition with every dictator, face to face, within one year? Need I get into his record on guns? Need I get into the talk of eliminating the tax advantages for 401(k)s, or raising the tax rate for most or all small businesses to 50.3 percent? A 25 percent reduction in defense spending?
What is conservative about Barack Obama?
Not only has Barack Obama achieved the rare task of making Bill Clinton look conservative; he achieved the near-impossible task of making Hillary Clinton look more conservative by comparison.
There was a time when I believed that as much as I might disagree with Obama on policy, that it would be good for the country to have an African-American president and that an Obama administration might improve race relations. Events have proven that belief wrong. Not only his surrogates but Obama himself have invoked the race card with disturbing frequency. McCain’s ad with Obama and Paris Hilton? Racist, his critics charge. His ad with Franklin Raines? Racist, Time magazine editors assure us. McCain’s ad tying Obama to William Ayers? Racist, too, according the Associated Press. If Obama wins, every routine criticism of the president’s decisions, standard-issue for the past generation, will be shouted down as a despicable expression of bigotry. This is a formula for lingering resentment, distrust, and a step backwards from what we hope to achieve.
Balanced against all of that, certain conservatives would have us believe that we should prefer… the candidate’s “temperament”? Quite reassuring, to know he’ll be calm and collected as he enacts more liberal policies than Clinton, Carter, and LBJ combined.
This is the “thoughtfulness” that I am unfairly ostracizing?
“With us or against us” can be deployed too often, but you have to have standards. I don’t often quote Frenchmen, but I believe it was Jean Luc Picard who said, “We’ve made too many compromises already; too many retreats… The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!”
After the election, it may be unfair to call a conservative who backed Obama a “traitor.” But it’s almost equally unfair for them to keep calling themselves “conservatives.”
Marshall, responding: Jim, I understand perfectly your point of view on this, but I cannot agree. You ask, what is conservative about Barrack Obama? I agree that a careful search would unearth nothing.
But I ask, what is conservative about John McCain? And I give the same answer. Therefore, if neither candidate is a conservative, on what basis can conservatives make their decision? You make a compelling case that we must do so on the basis of comparative risk. But again, what makes us think that the risks of a McCain presidency are any less than the risks of an Obama administration? You point to the possibility that McCain would surround himself with conservatives, and put conservatives in key positions. But that’s hardly reassuring given McCain’s hands-on, even meddlesome, style of running his campaign. And in the end, it will be his name on the laws that he signs. So I don’t find the possibility of McCain possessing better advisors at all reassuring.
On this, I am quite certain that we will not agree. You will point to McCain’s statements and record are argue that if he is not a conservative, he is at least more so than Obama, but no facts you can offer in this regard will convince me. Conservatives can look at the two candidates and find no natural home. And so they search their minds and their consciences and come to their own conclusions. I do not believe we should fault them for doing so. Indeed, I believe we are worse off if do.
And that takes me back to the larger point. Are we, as conservatives, better served by having men like Colin Powell and Charles Fried as a part of our coalition? Or should we chuck them out when they deviate from the movement view? I believe we’re better off recognizing that we do not have a monopoly on wisdom, experience or insight, and recognizing that thoughtful people can disagree, even on something as serious as a choice for President.
At this point, the conservative movement is only shrinking. The broad appeal has been lost. And if we can’t find room for men like Powell and Fried, I despair for our future. In that construct, we are far more likely to wind up like the Tories here in the UK: Perhaps winning the occasional election, but only on the basis of the opposition’s failings, not on the basis of our own appeal.
On final aside: I think your assertion that Colin Powell acted as he did on the basis of some desire to rehabilitate himself is unfair. Perhaps that will be the effect, but I feel quite secure in believing that such thoughts would have counted little or nothing as he considered his decision.
This from E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post.
Conservatives are at each other’s throats, and here’s what’s revealing about how divided they are: The critics of John McCain and the critics of Sarah Palin represent entirely different camps.
Apparently E.J. hasn’t been reading this blog.
what we see here is a deep split between parts of the conservative elite and much of the rank and file.
For years, many of the elite conservatives were happy to harvest the votes of devout Christians and gun owners by waging a phony class war against “liberal elitists” and “leftist intellectuals.” Suddenly, the conservative writers are discovering that the very anti-intellectualism their side courted and encouraged has begun to consume their movement.
The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity — and Sarah Palin. Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans, learned manifestoes by direct-mail hit pieces.
Oh, please. Listen to Air America lately, E.J.? Tuned in to Keith Olbermann in the past year or so? Have you heard any liberals on television or radio thoughtfully discuss Hobbes, or Dewey, or any other liberal philosophers? Or have we been overwhelmed by propaganda, slogans, and direct-mail hit pieces?
What Dionne says is wrong with conservatism is actually what’s wrong with politics in general. Here’s the theory of my manifesto-in-progress:
Our founders set up this country to be governed by a small set of the population, in part because their idea of who “The People” are wasn’t as evolved as our own, but also because they feared the running of the government by a mob of uneducated people ruled by their passions. That’s why we have the Electoral College (which some would like to undo), why the state legislatures elected Senators (which we scrapped in 1913), and why the Supreme Court was ultimately given so much power. The government they designed runs best when “The People” are as educated and informed, as reasonable and reasoned as possible.
As we’ve expanded our understanding of who “The People” are, and as we’ve given more direct power to “The People”, the people haven’t upheld our responsibility. Think of it this way; the state legislatures used to elect U.S. Senators, because the founders believed the state legislatures would make wiser, more informed decisions than the people. When we got the power to start electing our senators directly, did we become more informed? Did we become more knowledgeable about politics? Did we make wiser decisions? I doubt it.
In 2003, a study sponsored by National Conference of State Legislatures called “Citizenship: A Challenge for All Generations” concluded:
This public opinion survey shows that young people do not understand the ideals of citizenship, they are disengaged from the political process, they lack the knowledge necessary for effective self-government, and their appreciation and support for American democracy is limited.
The problem isn’t that Republicans are anti-intellectual, or that Democrats are anti-intellectual. The problem (to state it very generally) is that as our world has gotten more complex, our knowledge has become more and more specialized. We’re lacking the common tools needed to effectively manage our government, and many of us may not even feel like We the People are the ultimate authority anymore… even though we are. We may have lost the knowledge, or lost the will to do our job, but until we change the Constitution, the ultimate responsiblity rests with us.
For some further reading along these lines, check out the books “Distracted” by Maggie Jackson and “The Dumbest Generation” by Mark Bauerlein. Both are very good books with the same point: We’re in deep trouble, and the fixes aren’t easy… even if they are necessary.
Marshall, chipping in: Cam, I love this post. And I confess, I’m a bit torn. Part of me wants to agree wholeheartedly. But part of me wonders how we balance your point with the reality that technology (especially the Internet) is driving a broad democratization. We’re seeing that democratization impact governments, businesses, and all institutions to varying degrees, and the impact will only increase over time. So if all communications, government and business is becoming more democratized, how do we also ensure that decisions of all sorts are imbued with the best thinking? Do we assume that in the marketplace of ideas, the market will manage to select the best ones?