Andrew Bacevich's attempt to make the conservative case for Obama that
Jim linked to earlier is rather silly, even when viewed through his
own anti-Iraq War perspective.
At the beginning of the article, Bacevich articulates his vision
of authentic conservatism:
- a commitment to individual liberty, tempered
by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an
absence of restraint;
- a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the
rule of law;
- veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense
of stewardship for Creation;
- a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social
arrangements;
- respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with
a wariness of the market's corrosive impact on humane values;
- a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation
of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.
He spends most of the article discussing how President Bush and
John McCain are deficient in these areas, and no doubt there is
plenty of fault to find in both Republicans. However, Obama would
be far worse in any of these areas.
Bacevich wants limited government, and yet Obama wants to raise
taxes, as well as drastically expand the role of the state in
health care, education, energy, and so on. Any domestic problem to
Obama requires a big government solution translating into more
subsidies and regulations.
Bacevich has "a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional
social arrangements," but I'm not sure how he'd square that with
Obama's invocation of the Sermon on the Mount to defend
his support for same sex unions. Bush has not done enough for the
pro-life cause for Bacevich (even though he vetoed increasing stem
cell research funding and appointed Alito and Roberts to the
Supreme Ct.) yet he makes the case for Obama, who is pro-choice,
would appoint pro-choice judges, and would support increasing
funding for stem cell research.
And seriously, Bacevich professes "a deep suspicion of utopian
promises" and is willing to get behind a candidate whose entire
candidacy is based on some vague pledges to initiate sweeping
changes in Washington by restoring hope and bringing people
together?
Ultimately, Bacevich's case for Obama boils down to the fact
that "this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat
role in Iraq." From Bacevich's perspective, an Obama victory would
translate into "a definitive judgment of the Iraq War" and put an
end to the imperialist fantasies of neoconservatives. However,
there's no guarantee that Obama would be able to end the Iraq War
as promised once he's in office, and even if he tries to, there's a
decent chance that his inexperience would mess things up so badly
that the resulting chaos would only serve to strengthen
neoconservative arguments. Furthermore, as Bacevich himself seems
to recognize, despite Obama's opposition to the Iraq War, his
foreign policy in general in no way represents a
non-interventionist mindset. Quite the contrary, Obama is all about
foreign aid and is sympathetic to humanitarian intervention. While
Bush argued that for Americans to be secure we needed to end
tyranny in the world, Obama has argued that American security is
linked to ending poverty in the world.
I could go on. And to be clear, I don't share Bacevich's vision
of conservatism. But more than anything, I think the self-delusion
exhibited by Bacevich in his article underscores how formidable
Obama can be. Given that he has a genial demenor and such a thin
public record, people tend to see in him whatever they like, even
if the reality is quite different. But just because Bush or McCain
don't fit into your definition of conservatism, it doesn't mean
that Obama is defacto a better option.
topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Health Care, John McCain, Law, Iraq, Conservatism, Energy, Oil, Unions
