Obama the Conservative Choice

Huffington Post progressives should look to the conversation that is going on among traditional conservatives if they are seriously interested in nominating a candidate who would be both electable and good for the country. As a conservative, it is frankly incomprehensible to me that anyone would want to go back to the sleaze, constant political triangulation, sense of aggrieved entitlement, and low-life characters like Sandy Berger that characterized the Clinton White House. Nor is it possible to understand why anyone would want to cast a vote that would seem to establish a dynastic principle in American politics in which the White House alternates between people named Bush and Clinton. The American people and the country surely deserve something markedly better than the Bushes and Clintons that we all have experienced. Jeb and Chelsea, step aside please! Find a real job.

Taking aim at the deficiencies of the Clintons is not to exonerate George W. Bush, who has been a far worse, more corrupt, and much more dangerous president than Bill Clinton ever was. But let's face it, as presidents go, Clinton was an ethical mess, actually making George Bush look good on the personal integrity scale. Hillary is in the same mold as her husband as she lies, dissimulates, and misspeaks her way through her campaign and makes clear that, in her own mind, she was born to rule. There is also the practical issue of electability. If Hillary is the nominee it would surely galvanize the Republican Party base, which despises both her and Bill. If progressive Democrats want to do something to bring out the GOP vote to produce the ultimate horror of a President John McCain, nominate Hillary.

Many traditional conservatives (not the neo-con subspecies) are embarrassed by George Bush and are looking for a way out of the foreign and domestic policy nightmare that he has engineered. They also understand that John McCain would be more of the same or even worse. There is a lively discussion of Barack Obama that is taking place both in the blogosphere and in the media directed at a conservative audience, and much of the discourse is surprisingly receptive to the idea that Obama, though a liberal, could bring about genuine change that will benefit the country. A recent article by Boston University professor and former army officer Andrew Bacevich appeared in The American Conservative magazine and is available on the internet at www.amconmag.com. It is entitled "The Case for Obama" and makes the point that Obama is a candidate that is certainly no conservative, but he is the only real hope to get out of Iraq and also avoid wars of choice in the future. Bacevich rightly sees the Iraq war and its consequences as a truly existential issue for the United States, one that should be front and center for voters in November. Any more adventures of the Iraq type will surely bankrupt the country and destroy what remains of the constitution. Bacevich also notes that the election of John McCain, candidate of the neoconservatives and the war party, would guarantee an unending series of preemptive wars as U.S. security doctrine and would validate the disastrous decisions to invade Iraq and wage an interminable global war on "terrorists." Electing Obama instead would be as close as one could come to making a definitive judgment on the folly of Iraq and everything that it represents, a judgment that is long overdue. Many conservatives would agree that the Obama commitment to leave Iraq is the right way to go and long to return to the days when America only went to war when a vital interest was threatened.

Other conservatives have observed that Obama might also seriously address the hemorrhaging of America's manufacturing base that has taken place under the auspices of President George W. Bush, a trend that would undoubtedly continue under either McCain or Clinton, both of whom are either ambivalent about or committed to globalism and free trade. America must put its own house in order first and it is time to challenge many of the economic and social assumptions that have driven policy over the past 15 years.

In short, Obama for president is beginning to look pretty good to many conservatives and that means that a Barack Obama administration might actually bridge the gap between right and left, finally bringing together American citizens who are intent on righting the foundering ship of state rather than preserving the status quo. Clinton and McCain represent little more than two nightmarish visions of an out-of-touch political reality that has manifestly failed and should be rejected.

Comments

[DennyCrane]

As much as Republicans dislike McCain, they will gladly take him over Hillary. If Hillary is the nominee, Republicans will come out of nowhere for no other reason than to vote against her. People underestimate just how reviled she is.

[Disparaged]

Denny, I am so glad to hear someone say, "People underestimate just how reviled she is", because I have been trying (I mean really trying) to understand how any of HRCs supporters can still support her knowing full well that she lied to them; not only about Bosnia (Tuzla), but also about the Ireland Peace Talks, SCHIP, the Family Leave package, etc. I truly WANT to understand how she can still have people supporting her - is it that they simply disregard these things or is it that these fabrications just don't matter to them or what. If someone is out there who supports HRC, could you please answer this for me because I am desperate to understand. I have found the following links to get a better picture of HRC and predicated on these alone, I simply cannot understand how she still has supporters left. I know I'm not the brightest person around, but I know that I am not that stupid either, so I am begging for someone to give me an answer. Anybody pluuueaseeeee. Thanks.

http://prorev.com/connex.htm
http://prorev2.com/connex.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8464923602139974671

[AnninCA]

Let's see.......Kennedy brought my dad over from Kenya. Nope, outted by reporters on that lie.

I never heard Wright speak this way. Admitted in his speech that was a lie.

Nobody in my campaign contacted Canada. Ooops.......memo documented the meeting.

Shall we really compare to Bosnia?

That's the only one I can think of that Hillary got nailed about.

Oh, there's always the "I don't smoke." :)

[AnninCA]

I would think that conservative Democrats would have a huge problem with the Wright fiasco and with his stance on Iraq. My guess is that they would be far more attracted to Hillary's platform.

[Darkbane]

Ann.........you don't seem to realize but you will if Hillary gets nominated. The level of hatred for the Clintons in the Republican party is Boston Red Sox vs The Yankees level. The same way everyone is surprised at the democratic turnout ......that will be the Republican turnout to fight Hillary. The elect Hillary ploy by Rush and Ann is just a trick.......They know full well the best way for a Republican to win is going against a Clinton.

A one legged squirrel would beat Hillary in this election because the Republican party would move heaven and earth to avoid having a Clinton in the white house again.

[AnninCA]

So the threat goes. Frankly, I see the tactic being used by Obama against the Clintons, too. I think we've heard all the shots fired. She is still standing.

:)

[JudgeCrater]

Great article and it's wonderful to discover that Republicans like you still exist. Question: did you vote in 2004? I cannot see how you did since neither candidate would have been remotely acceptable.

Based on the available evidence, fiscal conservatism in the GOP is long-dead and spinning in its grave. It's another one of the hoary old chestnuts that those who are currently in charge of the Republican party bring up every once in a while in a weak attempt to criticize a Democrat. Usually with a straight face, even.

[Oldgypsy]

Well spoken thoughts and observations Mr. Geraldy. Ever hear that the true test of another man's intellegence is the degree to which he agrees with you? My greatest frustration this campaign year is trying to communicate these observations to others. Of course, "the others" that need convincing don't come to sites like these or any sources that take them away from "The Jerry Springer Show." Clinton or McCain would be a nightmare from which this country would never waken. At least I can honor McCain's patriotism. He should just retire now and write his memoirs (in private, not on tour). The Clintons scare me. It constantly amazes me that the media give so little coverage to "Clinton life". How can people intellegently vote without knowing where and for whom Bill has been/is working? How he may influence Hillary in office, should she be elected! The media haven't even scratched the surface of Hillary's "experience". Her part in getting Bill to pardon FALN terriorists SHOULD BE reported. That certainly tops Obama's affiliation with the Trinity Church. What are the media afraid of? Obama is the ONLY one that can be trusted in the Oval Office this term! People seem to have missed the subtle way Hillary brought the Dem. Campaign down into the gutter and gotten at least half the blame put on Obama. After watching Obama speak a few times, I thought we were in for a refreshing treat...a "clean" and issue-oriented campaign.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

I certainly agree. Senator Obama is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, however he is the only hope of any real change. Otherwise we are faced with the Janus headed figure of McCain-Clinton looking forward into the past. You would have to be intellectually blind not to realize that Hillary Clinton will mobilize voters for McCain, primarily the Evangelicals, who otherwise would not support him.

[AnninCA]

I'm convinced that Hillary is truly the change agent this year. Obama is just another one of the boys. His campaign has been absolutely retro-style. His endorsements? All the boy's club in the Washington elite. His platform? Watered down and unworkable. It's absolutely the same ole, same ole.

Her health care plan is the bold one. Ditto for her economic recovery plan. Ditto for her constiuents, who are the heart and soul of the Dem party.

His? I feel like he's a big rip-off to Democrats who would like to have the power restored to them. You'll not get it with him.

[ohsaydidyousee]

I have been saying all along that we have endured 20 years of Bush-Clinton Bush. And asking, Do we really want another 8 years of Clinton? And if that's the case, will we be ready for Jeb to replace her? Potentially 36 years of the same two families in the White House. That's not change. And it is not democracy.

Great blog Giraldi. It's about time somebody addressed this sense of entitlement that belongs to the Bush Clinton people. Now if the mainstream media can pick up on this it would open a lot of eyes and end this ridiculous democratic primary post haste.

[progresemulo]

Glad to have your support

[Caringthinkingperson]

Fascinating article Mr. Giraldi. It is nice to hear a conservative who is not interested in trashing the progressive point of view. For those of us who are not voting for Senator Clinton you are preaching to the choir. We have long felt that the benefits perceived during the Clinton Administration were far outweighed by the drama, incongruity, and general level of deception.

If conservatives would consider Obama's concept that we have more in common than not, it would be appreciated. As far as I can tell a true conservative would never have run this horrific deficit.. A true conservative would find the profitable future in green technologies as we conserve the environment. A true conservative would find value in their company not having to compete with the rising levels of health care costs. A true conservative would welcome tax breaks for corporations providing jobs locally. A true conservative would find value in the survival of the middlle class as the vast tax base that keeps the wheel turning.

A conservative may very well be a progressive with a large income. Or close to it. On the taxation of incomes over $250,000 you will not find much sympathy from progressives - even the ones that have that kind of income. But, if you look at all of the benefits accrued from stabilizing the real estate market, education, and health care prior to expensive emergency proceedures - well maybe even there we aren't that far off.

[Herrington]

Well Mr. Giraldi, you have certainly brought out a variety of responses. Reading down I see defenses of Bush, defenses of Clinton, both of them, defense of Obama, attacks on Obama and attacks on the Clintons and the Bushes. This makes me think you are on to something. Being attacked by everybody means you are either a prophet or Charles Manson.

I'm going to pretend you are a prophet and align myself with you in a thought experiment. Suppose that not all Republicans are, excuse the hyperbole, not all greedy wild eyed free trade deregulation racist bigot Wall Street NASCAR Rush dupes. And, assume not all Democrats are not all tree hugging vegetarian health Nazi Marxist Robin Hood utopian latte drinkers hooked on entitlements. Now, casting aside stereotypes, we get back to the basic question. Is the government supposed to be large or small? It seems to me that the peripheral issues have gotten in the way of what is a perfectly reasonable argument, as illustrated in the aforementioned stereotypes.

I, for one, roundly support a return to a reality that has been suppressed by the exuberance of politicians ‘on the make‘, left or right.

[jjc4good]

Well put. Although I have to argue with this notion of "is the government supposed to be large or small?" First of all, unlike "truths that are self-evident" I don't see a formula for the "right" size of government inscribed in our founding documents (nor in the Bible, if that's something you respect). So this notion of what's "supposed" to be the size of government is a red herring. The *purpose* of government is to govern, which includes providing services for the common good and maintaining public goods (such as roads, fire departments, parks, etc.). The notion of common good and public good includes ensuring some basic human rights to even those that can't afford to provide for themselves, such as education, a national military, and, yes, health care. If the government is operating such that it's main concern is rubber stamping the legitimacy of corporate profits at the expense of public good then it is not doing what it is "supposed" to, regardless of its size. Free markets can create prosperity for everyone, but deregulating ourselves to the point that we have in recent decades is catastrophic in the long term and morally unconscionable. ----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-- A white middle class male for Obama.

[freedomis]

jjc4good;if I live to be 80 (I'm 72) I could not have put it any better.thanks,Tony

[tbone99]

Strange with your belief you don not call out B.O. for his support of CAFA, a law pushed and lobbied to the tune of many millions by corporations for years and finally passed with the help of Obama.

[lovethesinner]

Great argument, Philip, both here and in that article, "The Right Choice" at the American Conservative. What you both seem to be saying is that America is more important than either party's agenda. In that article at The American Conservative, I was especially glad to see the very sober assesment of the real and lasting damage the Bush/Cheney neo-cons have done, both through the unitary executive and their fiscal irresponsibility.

Now if only we could convince people of the fact that a neo-liberal and a neo-conservative is the same creature. That Hillary Clinton and John McCain are just two sides of the same coin. And, if there is "a dime's worth of difference" between the two of them, the only one that I've been able to find is the one pointed out in that article:

"... only [the naive] would believe that today’s Republican Party has any real interest in overturning Roe v. Wade or that doing so now would contribute in any meaningful way to the restoration of “family values.” GOP support for such values is akin to the Democratic Party’s professed devotion to the “working poor”: each is a ploy to get votes, trotted out seasonally, quickly forgotten once the polls close."

But, the ironic thing is that Obama has the best chance of restoring family values with his personal story, and his comittment to the working poor with his plans to remove tax breaks for corporations.

Obama-Webb '08

[verlaine]

This is one of the most insightful, intelligent, and sensible posts to appear on Huffington Post.

Hillary Clinton is an atrocity and an abomination. She's run a race baiting, fear mongering despicable campaign.

She constantly demeans and belittles Obama while she and her husband bend over backwards to praise McCain.

Obama has won more caucuses, primaries, delegates, and popular votes and Queen Hillary has the chutzpah to to tell Bill Richardson that he can't beat McCain in November.

Hillary is a meglamaniac who can't accept the fact that Obama is kicking her rear-end.

[frustratedinohio]

He's kicking her rear-end by 1 %.

[indie17]

1414 is greater than 1252 by 6%.

[tbone99]

Obama bends over backwards to kiss the butt of dead repugs, At least we know that H,C and McCain happen to be friend, which explains her praise of him.

But Reagan is dead so whats his excuse?

[PrdAmerican]

Thank you for your post and it SHOULD be a wake up call to those who are supporting Clinton. There is a reason FOX is pushing Clinton, and you have the likes of Hannity, Scarborough, Carlson, Murdoch, Schaife, and Limbaugh singing the praises of HRC; They want her on the ticket because she is sure to LOSE and will certainly be good for their careers as they continue to bask in the glow of Republican rule. Read the signs around you....as much as you might want a woman in office (which as a woman I can totally understand) she is not the one. Obama is far from perfect, but he is a change, and will not be carrying the same baggage that Clinton is sure to haul with her...including the polarizing nature of her politics. When you listen to those who understand politics, who live politics...their choice is pretty clear and based on political understanding, and it's pretty unanimous that it should be Obama...you may not want to hear it, your heart may agnoize....but this should be a cerebral decision....not an emotional one.

[JAsonMA]

Great Article

[MsLiz]

I welcome the contributions of traditional conservatives, who seem to have disappeared. The Republican party is no longer a conservative party, as I think of conservatism. Fiscally, they are not conservative, whereas Obama is a "pay as we go" Democrat. In terms of size of government and intrusion into the lives of the citizens, I'd say the Bush years have not been conservative. Certainly the foreign policy has not been traditionally conservative, as the author points out. Judicially, the Federalist Society/Heritage Foundation have been total activists, implementing judicial theories that did not have any following when I took Con Law in 1981-82.

Come away from the dark side, traditional conservatives. We want some of the same things.

[IslandGyal]

Thanks for the voice or reason. I hope what you say is true, as Clinton thinks Obama is not "electable".

[maggieb]

He's not!

[JudgeCrater]

Oh! I speak 'gutterese.' Here, let me try to talk to you in your native language: "I know she isn't but what are you?"

Which brings me back to my usual question: are there any adults left in the Clinton campaign? If so, it's getting pretty hard to spot them.