Bacevich is a West Point graduate, a 30 year Army veteran who fought in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf during the two respective wars, and he retired as a Colonel. He holds a Ph.D. in American Diplomatic History from Princeton University and is a professor of international relations at Boston University. He has also taught at West Point and Johns Hopkins. His son, Andy Jr., 27 years young, a First Lieutenant, was killed in Iraq by a suicide bomber in May, 2007. Bacevich Sr. who has been an ardent critic of US interventionism, especially the Iraq war, since his retirement in the early 1990s, was said to have "actively participated in the death of his son" by right-wing lowlifes at www.freerepublic.com. Anyway, I digress.
His piece has been considered the most persuasive case for Obamacons. His Obama support is consistent with his wonderful definition of 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.
And the latest news on Obamacons is that Robert Novak suspects that Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell will be joining their ranks. I'm sure the McCain camp is not looking forward to the headlines if Powell announces such an endorsement.
My disdain for McCain and my belief that he is an awful candidate, especially considering his views on guns, the 1st amendment, immigration, tax cuts, civil liberties, and worst of all his mad support of Wilsonian interventionism and decades long military occupation have led me to come to the conclusion that I will, under no circumstances, vote for McCain. My biggest concern with Obama is on life issues, but Bacevich makes a relevant point:
"Social conservatives counting on McCain to return the nation to the path of righteousness are kidding themselves. Within this camp, abortion has long been the flagship issue. Yet only a naïf 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."
I may yet cast my vote for Barr. My vote isn't that important. But this movement is very unique and interesting. It shows what a failing party and a terrible candidate can do to an intellectual movement based on prudence and principle. It can drive the prudent and principled away. "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one."
17 comments:
I guess it shows how much Bush has put everyone's conservo-meters out of whack that some of us are looking at a solid liberal and saying "Yea, he's for me". The idea that an Obama presidency will be any better than a McCain one is ridiculous. You think there will be an once of "conservatism" with Obama and his rubbberstamp Democratic congress? you think prudence will be in and ideology will fly out of the window?
Let's hope McCain is right in one respect: this is just going to be Carter's second term, which means Obama will be one and done.
Someone didn't read the article...
No one is saying Obama is conservative, or that he will be an "ounce" of conservatism. "Barack Obama is no conservative" says Bacevich in his first sentence. C'mon Hunter, you could've read the first sentence, right?
The backward state of the Republican party and conservatism at large is personified in McCain. Woodrow Wilson would be more welcome in the current GOP than "Mr. Republican" Robert A. Taft. What does this mean for true conservatives?
It means only a repudiation of neoconservative militarism will save the party and the movement. While Obama may ruin the country financially or socially, a nation morally ruined by continued military expansionism and foreign occupations is much worse. That is the argument Bacevich makes.
This election is about the lesser of two evils. Both will be bad for the country. One will be bad for our backyard, the other for out adventures abroad. But you can't take care of your backyard and the empire. So let's come home, regroup as conservatives, and fix our country.
I don't know what a conservo-meter is, but I know that if Bush has thrown it out of whack, McCain will be worse. Now we will have to grapple with conservatism meaning more military escalation, attacks on the 1st amendment, and more amnesty.
I don't like Carter either, Hunter. But Bill was right before, his senseless policy killed a whole lot less people than Bush's have.
I will NEVER vote for a man who voted in favor of allowing abortionists to kill LIVING FETUSES while OUTSIDE THE WOMB. Never.
Logan the principled life defender,
What's the difference between a "fetus" directly outside the womb or one a few inches inside one? What biologically is different between the two to warrant different treatment? At least Obama is consistent, which is more than I can say for all the folks that draw arbitrary lines in the sand over the life issue.
Inside the womb it's an abortion. Outside the womb it's a murder.
Even a moderate pro-lifer such as myself can be anti-murder.
What biologically changes between the womb and outside the womb? in those few seconds and few inches, what changes? Inside the womb you can't see her skull opened up and her brains sucked out, I guess that would make you feel better than it being done outside the womb.
Actually,
Biologically when a child takes its first breath there is a change to the make up of the lungs. That and its crying, feeling pain and using its eyes for the very first time.
So you are tying life to the ability to breathe on your own, cry, feel pain (which many studies have shown can happen in the womb), and the ability to use your eyes? I think there are some living people who will be upset to hear these alarming "signs of life."
I'm not. I was just answering your question as to what distinguishes a "fetus" from a child, which is.. nothing.
I would NEVER vote for a secret Muslim black who has a crazy pastor and a wife who says Whitey and is probably just working for Osama to bring down this country. BLACK! MADRASSA! FUNNY NAME!
But my asshole liberal-mongering aside, I was excited to read the comments here and then was disappointed.
The abortion issue has nothing to do with this post. I want to know how the other writers feel about this. It's an interesting phenomenon that I don't think many people anticipated.
This isn't a post about a single issue (TUMMY CELLS ARE ALIVE!), but is more about whether or not the election of another talk tough President would actually do anything for conservative ideals including abortion. A lot of people are slowly realizing that it wouldn't.
We have dug ourselves into a hole the past eight years and one candidate has his shovel ready. The other one is saying, "Wait a minute. Some one could fall in this hole. Look how big this hole is!" And other soaring rhetoric. (HINT: That one's Obama).
George Bush fucked up. He terribly damaged the future of conservatism. Would voting for someone who is running on continuing a lot of those policies help your movement? If McCain wins, I could honestly see conservatism crumbling. You can't fix a problem until you admit there has been a problem and work back. McCain would not do this. McCain would continue to shatter the reputation of the Republican Party and conservatism in general.
An Obama Presidency is good for both political parties, because it would allow the republican party to heal from choices made by Bush.
Now get back to the issue in the post, and stop debating (pre-)baby death.
Thanks, Travis. That was my point.
I know that you're not too concerned with "conservatism" as an idea, but Bush has wedded conservatism with all the wrong things, most prominently and endless war on a tactic. An Obama victory with Republican cross-over votes may be the only hope for a conservative wake up.
"Now get back to the issue in the post, and stop debating (pre-)baby death."
But abortion is part of the issue, for those pro-life would-be "Obamacon" voters that feel Obama's stance on abortion is unacceptable.
Obama is the avant-garde of the avant-garde.
If you want the government to takeover healthcare, finance, and energy, Obama's your man.
If you're for live birth abortions, sex ed for Kindergarteners, reduced penalties for gang crime, porn in schools, gun grabbing, and other things Comrade Obama voted for down in Springfield, then you're voting for the right guy.
If you think America should dismantle its military and be friends with every killer dictator on the planet, then Obama is your man.
You can vote for Obama. But if you think the Marxism-Leninism he correctly advertises as revolutionary change is "conservatism," then the right has philosophically decayed beyond recognition.
Jason,
The backward state of the Republican party and conservatism at large is personified in McCain. Woodrow Wilson would be more welcome in the current GOP than "Mr. Republican" Robert A. Taft. What does this mean for true conservatives?
It means only a repudiation of neoconservative militarism will save the party and the movement. While Obama may ruin the country financially or socially, a nation morally ruined by continued military expansionism and foreign occupations is much worse.
I said that above, but I'm going to assume you didn't read it. But for a neocon as yourself to bemoan the "philosophical decay" of the right is laughable. Having rooted the right in Wilsonian progressive-militarism, neocons like you attack Obama as a man who will kill babies, distribute hardcore porn to children, free all the dangerous blacks from prison, and become buddies with "islamofascists". In so many words, you are a joke, a Tory socialist that uses the word "conservative" to describe yourself when you are in no way conservative.
Here's a way to fix philosophical decay: read Burke, Kirk, Adams, Eliot, and put down Kristol (Irving or Bill), Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter.
"You can vote for Obama. But if you think the Marxism-Leninism he correctly advertises as revolutionary change is "conservatism," then the right has philosophically decayed beyond recognition."
A useful heuristic: anyone that uses the label "Marxism-Leninism" to describe any nominee of either main party in an American Presidential election (a) does not understand what "Marxism-Leninism" is (outside of it being bad and having to do with "big government"), and (b) is really not worth listening to.
If the voters of France can reject the socialism of Segolene Royale, surely the voters of America can reject the far-left liberalism of Barack Obama.
There is nothing good in Obama's platform. There is nothing conservative in his ideas or ideals. He cannot be trusted to keep any promise. He represents nothing but the failed policies of redistribution of wealth that history has shown to be as useless as they are dangerous.
Abstain from McCain if you must. But I cannot understand how any good conservative could endorse a candidate of such terrible personal and political caliber.
Post a Comment
The Patriot accepts anonymous comments [unlike the draconian editors at the Hatchet]. However, we strongly prefer that you USE A NAME. Mostly it's because we don't take anonymous comments seriously, but it's also because we hate bullshit. Have a nice day.