-
The Origins of Romneycare and Coultercare
February 9, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Rick Santorum Pulls the Trifecta
February 8, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Mark Levin on Clint Eastwood
February 7, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Ninth Circuit Court Panel Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 | 79 comments
-
Obama Flip-Flops on Super PACs
February 7, 2012 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Paul Mirengoff has a thoughtful post arguing that conservatives should be less relieved by the large presence of Clinton holdovers -- and perhaps Hillary Clinton herself -- in the incoming Obama administration. His case is threefold. First, he argues that Bill Clinton's moderation was largely a product of the Republican Congress and other outside political conditions. Second, even if Clinton was truly a moderate many of his staffers were not. Third, the differences between Hillary and Obama during the primaries may have been more opportunistic than ideological.
There's a certain amount of truth to all three points, particularly the first. Bill Clinton's administration was further to the left in 1993-95 than it was after the arrival of the Republican Congress. Clinton made a career for himself as a DLC Democrat in recognition of the more conservative political climate of Arkansas and also to compensate for his party's political weaknesses during the Reagan era. But it was only after the voters rebuked his turn to the left during his first term that Clinton embraced triangulation.
Nevertheless, the differences between the Clinton and Dean wings of the Democratic Party are not all window dressing or different reactions to existing political circumstances. Bill and Hillary have, since the 1990s, been more willing to use military force (even if not always when U.S. national security interests were most at stake). Rahm Emanuel is certainly more hawkish than your average liberal. And the relevant fact isn't whether partisan Democrats eventually became critical of an unpopular war initiated by a Republican president -- that part was inevitable -- but how long it took these Democrats to follow the rest of their party to that point.
The real question mark here isn't Hillary's foreign policy views. It's Barack Obama's, which may or may not turn out to be more hawkish than either his supporters or detractors suspect. If conservatives do end up liking his foreign policy better than they originally thought, those conservatives probably won't be the Obamacons.
View all comments (4) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/11/25/dont-hype-the-clintonistas
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Current Wisdom
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Down in the Desert
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob| 11.25.08 @ 3:31PM
It is absolutely true that there is no reason to believe that the executive branch of the government won't move left -- it will. The question is how far. Obama's picks so far ARE closer to the center than to the most progressive left. However, the big change won't be ideological, it will be twofold -- competence and execution. There is no doubt that the people Obama picked are extremely smart. He has put them in the right places, for example Larry Summers in the WH and Geithner at treasury. These people are far more competent than Alberto, Harriet, and Brownie. Furthermore, this is the first administration since Nixon to put in people who can work directly with Congress and know where the bodies are buried. This is the most experienced administration in recent memory.
We must get away from liberal/conservative labels and work towards pragmatic solutions if we want the Republican party to survive. We must get away from intolerant parts of the party (like so-cons) and be more inclusive. We must appeal to growing segments of the voting population like young voters, blacks, and Hispanics. We must embrace smart, educated, successful people, not berate them.
The party cannot move backwards, it must move forwards. The principles should be the ones that bind the libertarian and so-con segments, not the ones that divide them.
The future of the party is more in the hands of Obama, than it is Republicans. If he succeeds in remaining center-left, we won't win in at least a generation.
MC| 11.25.08 @ 4:11PM
Bob, I agree with you we must get away from the liberal/conservative labels in order for the Republican party to survive. We need to see how we can help get the country back towards progression socially, and economically. The illuminati politicians are more centered and that demonstrates a chance for them to be the dominant party for some time.
Robert Stacy McCain| 11.25.08 @ 6:05PM
"More hawish than your average liberal." Wow, talk about damning someone with faint praise . . .
Bob| 11.26.08 @ 9:17AM
RSM -- a good chief executive would be neither hawkish or dovish. Any military response should be situational. Bias in either direction is dangerous. That's why I call for pragmatic conservatism (as opposed to the ideological and reactionary conservatism that is promoted here).