My column from Friday contemplating the worst case scenario of an Obama administration generated a lot of reader response, and many readers surprisingly thought I was being overly optimistic. But what I was really wondering was whether Obama would be able to advance liberalism the way FDR and LBJ did, which would be irreversible, or if he would be more like Carter and Clinton, who were both inconsequential historically. I am under no illusions as to the far left policies that Obama would like to impose in his heart of hearts were he to get his way, but ultimately it doesn’t matter what he wants, it matters what he can do. If he is too inept (like Carter) or too much of a phony (like Clinton), he won’t actually be able to accomplish anything of lasting import. His reversals on a number of policy issues don’t seem genuine to me, but they do suggest that no matter how liberal he may be, like Clinton, his personal political ambitions come first. That’s why I ended the article by arguing that if Obama were elected, it would be up to conservatives to drum up opposition to his policy proposals to get him to fold like a cheap suitcase.
UPDATE: I see Robert Stacy McCain wrote that my column “expressed a very widespread belief among younger conservative intellectuals that an Obama administration might not be so bad.” Again, I think that Obama would be a disaster for four, or, Lord help us, eight years. But what most concerns me is whether we’ll still be reeling from his policies 70 years from now, as we are with FDR.