Conservative Doubters Need To Get A Grip
Posted by: Jubal | 10/13/2008 10:07 PM
I'll just say it: I cannot understand those conservative friends and colleagues of mine who have decided not to vote for John McCain.
Don't get me wrong. I understand how they feel. I share the abhorrence of McCain-Feingold and the dislike of McCain's subscription to nostrums about global warming and cap-and-trade. I'm there when it comes to frustration with what is either McCain's refusal or inability to refute the great con job that is Obama's tax plan. I, too, want to pull out my hair when he proposes buying foolish people's bad mortgages with my tax money so they can skip the consequences of reckless decisions.
But here's a news flash: the primaries ended a long time ago, and John McCain won. It's a little late in the game for buyers remorse, sulking or prematurely shuffling off to the tall grass of the wilderness.
I'll concede to no one's conservatism, but believe in dealing with the reality confronting us. Our choice is between an Obama Administration and a McCain Administration. Each one entails very different policy consequences, and from the perspective of anyone who values liberty, the former is much worse news than the latter.
Now this is the point at which some conservative or libertarian perfectionist will doubtless yell that it doesn't matter who wins because they're both terrible -- which is both misguided and untrue on its face. The differences are very real.
Is it a great choice? Of course not. Is McCain the perfect standard bearer for conservatives? Nope. But only one of two people is going to the White House, and it ain't Bob Barr.
On any of the handful of issues that give conservatives heartburn, Barack Obama is infinitely worse. And on other vital issues, McCain is immensely superior.
Would conservatives rather have Barack Obama or John McCain appointing Supreme Court justices? This year, this Republic was only a single justice away from having the Second Amendment pronounced a dead letter. Dissatisfied conservatives should keep in mind that we don't get a do-over even if the miracle treatment of four to eight years in the wilderness restores the Republican soul.
Barack Obama will raise taxes and make federal finances even more dependent on the small fraction of Americans who already bear a tax burden far out of proportion with their numbers. At the same time, he will redistribute more wealth from those who earned to those who did not. And does any thinking conservative believe the tax man's grasp will end at the $250,000 level? Will kowtowing to unions, deep-freezing free-trade agreements and piling taxes and regulations onto the economy generate prosperity?
I empathize with conservative frustrations with McCain's zig-zagging in search of an economic policy and his populist rhetoric about "Wall Street greed and corruption" when the problem is one of government's making.
But we're voting for President, not Treasury Secretary. That is to say the Presidency is broader than the economy, which is not really is primary focus. That honor belongs to national security, and I would like to see any conservative advanced an informed argument that America will be more secure against foreign enemies with Barack Obama at the helm rather than John McCain. I had thought Barack Obama merely naive on foreign policy. It was not until the second presidential debate that I realize he literally does not know what he is talking about on a scale that goes beyond "What is the Bush Doctrine?" silliness.
John McCain is ardently pro-life on abortion. Barack Obama is radically pro-choice. He has voted against providing medical care to babies who survive abortion (a subject on which he is characteristically disingenuous). He has promised that his first act will by to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would enshrine the archaic Roe v. Wade decision in federal statute. Then there was the "above my pay grade" evasion. Any conservative who favors even limited restrictions on abortion should be appalled at the prospect of a pro-choice extremist like Obama in the presidency.
I could go on, but I think readers get the point. To my mind, John McCain is a transitional figure and the fight for the GOP's soul can be waged just well under his Administration as under an Obama regime. And McCain can restore the party's credibility in a critical area, squandered under Bush and the GOP Congress: government spending. For years of vetoing Democratic spending bills would do wonders on that score.
An Obama victory, taken together with a Democratic Congress, will embark the United States into a Great Leap Leftward that will be very difficult for any future Republican White House or Congress to undo.
This election isn't over, nor is an Obama victory inevitable. It's maddening to watch so much of the conservative online punditry embracing defeatism. It reminds me of how the Franco-British fleet, amidst rapid, heavy losses, broke off its effort to force the Dardenelles in 1915 -- just as the Turkish batteries were running out of shells and preparing to surrender.
I care deeply about restoring the Republican Party as the party of limited government, free enterprise, lower taxes and a strong national defense. And for me, the choice is easy and unhesitating: John McCain. For all his flaws, it's John McCain in a heartbeat
Don't get me wrong. I understand how they feel. I share the abhorrence of McCain-Feingold and the dislike of McCain's subscription to nostrums about global warming and cap-and-trade. I'm there when it comes to frustration with what is either McCain's refusal or inability to refute the great con job that is Obama's tax plan. I, too, want to pull out my hair when he proposes buying foolish people's bad mortgages with my tax money so they can skip the consequences of reckless decisions.
But here's a news flash: the primaries ended a long time ago, and John McCain won. It's a little late in the game for buyers remorse, sulking or prematurely shuffling off to the tall grass of the wilderness.
I'll concede to no one's conservatism, but believe in dealing with the reality confronting us. Our choice is between an Obama Administration and a McCain Administration. Each one entails very different policy consequences, and from the perspective of anyone who values liberty, the former is much worse news than the latter.
Now this is the point at which some conservative or libertarian perfectionist will doubtless yell that it doesn't matter who wins because they're both terrible -- which is both misguided and untrue on its face. The differences are very real.
Is it a great choice? Of course not. Is McCain the perfect standard bearer for conservatives? Nope. But only one of two people is going to the White House, and it ain't Bob Barr.
On any of the handful of issues that give conservatives heartburn, Barack Obama is infinitely worse. And on other vital issues, McCain is immensely superior.
Would conservatives rather have Barack Obama or John McCain appointing Supreme Court justices? This year, this Republic was only a single justice away from having the Second Amendment pronounced a dead letter. Dissatisfied conservatives should keep in mind that we don't get a do-over even if the miracle treatment of four to eight years in the wilderness restores the Republican soul.
Barack Obama will raise taxes and make federal finances even more dependent on the small fraction of Americans who already bear a tax burden far out of proportion with their numbers. At the same time, he will redistribute more wealth from those who earned to those who did not. And does any thinking conservative believe the tax man's grasp will end at the $250,000 level? Will kowtowing to unions, deep-freezing free-trade agreements and piling taxes and regulations onto the economy generate prosperity?
I empathize with conservative frustrations with McCain's zig-zagging in search of an economic policy and his populist rhetoric about "Wall Street greed and corruption" when the problem is one of government's making.
But we're voting for President, not Treasury Secretary. That is to say the Presidency is broader than the economy, which is not really is primary focus. That honor belongs to national security, and I would like to see any conservative advanced an informed argument that America will be more secure against foreign enemies with Barack Obama at the helm rather than John McCain. I had thought Barack Obama merely naive on foreign policy. It was not until the second presidential debate that I realize he literally does not know what he is talking about on a scale that goes beyond "What is the Bush Doctrine?" silliness.
John McCain is ardently pro-life on abortion. Barack Obama is radically pro-choice. He has voted against providing medical care to babies who survive abortion (a subject on which he is characteristically disingenuous). He has promised that his first act will by to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would enshrine the archaic Roe v. Wade decision in federal statute. Then there was the "above my pay grade" evasion. Any conservative who favors even limited restrictions on abortion should be appalled at the prospect of a pro-choice extremist like Obama in the presidency.
I could go on, but I think readers get the point. To my mind, John McCain is a transitional figure and the fight for the GOP's soul can be waged just well under his Administration as under an Obama regime. And McCain can restore the party's credibility in a critical area, squandered under Bush and the GOP Congress: government spending. For years of vetoing Democratic spending bills would do wonders on that score.
An Obama victory, taken together with a Democratic Congress, will embark the United States into a Great Leap Leftward that will be very difficult for any future Republican White House or Congress to undo.
This election isn't over, nor is an Obama victory inevitable. It's maddening to watch so much of the conservative online punditry embracing defeatism. It reminds me of how the Franco-British fleet, amidst rapid, heavy losses, broke off its effort to force the Dardenelles in 1915 -- just as the Turkish batteries were running out of shells and preparing to surrender.
I care deeply about restoring the Republican Party as the party of limited government, free enterprise, lower taxes and a strong national defense. And for me, the choice is easy and unhesitating: John McCain. For all his flaws, it's John McCain in a heartbeat
CATEGORY:
2008 Elections, Making of the President 2008
Anonymous, you have an excellent point. Sometimes people become annoyed by a person or event, to the extent...
"17 things you should know before voting for Barack Obama"
http://tomnelson4.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-played-hardball-in-first-chicago_6561.html
Jubal, I would agree with you IF our votes in California mattered. But as you know they do not. In our state, a protest vote against big-government, Bush, McCain and the entire GOP establishment does no harm and may, in fact, do some good in sending a message.
I'm not voting for any more Republicans who only give lip service to an idea of balanced budgets. If you're only the party of lower taxes, and incompetent kleptocratic government, all you're doing is running up the debt that our children and grandchildren owe for our greed.
And if McCain runs the country as erraticaly as his bus full of lobbyists has run his campaign, we're all in trouble.
With respect, Matt, this post is a stellar example of precisely what's wrong with the Republican Party.
1) It's all about fear: lefties! abortion! taxes! I do understand that members of your party are afraid of losing right now and you are voicing that fear. But in general, fear has become your party's cudgel and I believe the American voter is tired of it.
2) Most Republicans and Libertarians, and a large number of Democrats, agree with you about limited government, free enterprise, lower taxes and a strong national defense. But MANY Republicans, and most Libertarians and Democrats, disagree on the social issues. We don't like Bush's Supreme Court appointees and we don't want Roe reversed.
Conservative social issues and the selling of fear are causing you to lose voters and elections.
I personally like a balanced government where neither party reigns supreme. But unless your side changes its tune in the next 8 years I believe we'll be going back to a Johnson era of overwhelming Democratic Party dominance.
Missy:
Let me get this straight: conservatives who favor lower taxes, free enterprise, oppose abortion, want the reduce the size and government and want a strong national defense should not fear the election of a candidate (Barack Obama) who is hostile to those things?
Maybe you should listen to Barack Obama and Joe Biden and listen to them selling their brand of fear.
I'd be interested in finding these MANY Republicans who have opposed Pres. Bush's SCOTUS nominees. I certainly haven't encountered any.
I'll grant you there are a number of GOPers who have become so obsessed with social issues that they don't recognize that religious conservatives are 80% their friends, and not 20% their enemies. That myopia drives a shocking number of them to help elect, either actively or by sulking at home, to elect candidates who are 80% their enemy and 20% their friend. I saw it in 1992, and I'm seeing it again. It goes to show that intelligence isn't synonymous with common sense and the ability to learn from experience.
Should they be voting for Obama? Well, a number of them seem to be planning to do so, but that's not my point. My point is merely that I think the tactics being used by your party are causing you to lose.
As a Dem, I know and talk to a lot of moderate Republicans. I don't talk politics with a lot of conservative Republicans. And yes, the Republicans I talk to are unfailingly opposed to Bush's Supreme Court nominees. I'm often surprised to find them to be even more liberal than I am on social issues -- abortion, drug policy, religion, the environment, etc.
I have encountered the very same type of moderate GOPers. In my experience, they tend to be wealthy, materialistic people who live by the coast and look down their noses at people with "too many" kids. That may seem harsh,, but that's my experience. Frankly, if access to abortion, hostility to religion and rich man's environmentalism are more important to them than limited government, lower taxes and the embrace of free enterprise, then they should just become Democrats, rather than agitating to turn the GOP into the business-friendly wing of the Democratic Party.
The second post says it all. Here in California, we have an opportunity to send a message without meaningfully assisting Barack Obama -- who is, indeed, as awful as you say. I took it.
I understand that part, Josh. Just as enthusiasm is contagious, so is pessimism, especially in the age of the Internet.
I say the California Republicans should unite and vote for Barak Obama! What the he**! I mean its not like McCain is a true conservative anyway.
What say you OC Reps? Baraks gonna take the State of California anyway. We might as well send a message to the GOP in OC, Sac and Washington DC that we are not gonna stand for these types of RINO's. If they want to foist these types of fake Reps on us we might as well vote for the other side.
Who is with me?
I won't vote for a known socialist like Obama,but what concerns me the most are the wolves in sheeps' clothing i.e. the McCains of the world who purport themselves to be conservatives and for free markets, but have proven themselves to be nothing of the kind.
BTW Matt I don't think its helpful to keep slamming Republicans for trying to hold their elected leaders feet to fire on the principles they said would uphold when they were elected. This is what happens to the party when there is no leadership.
Look who's got a sense of humor this time around?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140280327316