The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama

[Bucky]

from Andrew Sullivan. How many of these apply to you, too? (My points are in italics)

10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.

        Of course the mush of what political ideology labels mean is hard to pin down from year to year, but if you take the original meaning of liberal and conservative--those who favor the pursuit of human liberty in politics vs those who favor the retaining of key cultural traditions to maintain a stable republic--then ending identity politics is at least as liberal an idea as it is conservative.

9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.

        Again, this is really a liberal issue. In the post-Vietnam era, the liberal presidents have all been deficit hawks. And the conservative presidents have all been big spending, fuck-the-debt conservatives. Balancing the budget is our issue. The Republicans simply can't handle the responsibility.


8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s.

        Foreign policy isn't liberal or conservative. Since Vietnam, Democrats pursued cautious, respectful, coalition-backed foreign policies. In that same time frame, Republicans have been war starters and have meddled in other nations' affairs. Reagan and Bush II both have supported terrorism as instruments of foriegn policy. I agree this is an issue that is good for Democrats to highlight, but realism vs delusion isn't exactly a political debate; it's common sense.


7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.

        see above


6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.

        I'll agree Obama has a more conservative temperament, assuming you strip the word "conservative" of its political connections.


5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.


        I give this one to wingers.

4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.

        :banghead:


3. Two words: President Palin.

        :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.


        I don't share Sullivan's rejection of the laws of supply and demand and of human character. Republicans are crooks because they embrace a culture of greed. That which made them corrupt this last time will make them corrupt next time they are in office

1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America's reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.

Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama.

[msallied]

1. Good points overall, though I have to say...

I think the "War on Terror" is a bunch of propaganda and war profiteering bullshit, and THAT is the greatest threat to our society. It's no different than the wars against Communism or the "War on Drugs." Bullshit. The "cure" for that which ails us is actually what ails us.

But I'll let Sullivan appeal to the better natures of these troglodytes who can't understand such a thing.

[drmeow]

2. I would partially agree

"Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West" - Islamic terror only remains a threat to the West in so far as the West has apparently declared a crusade against Islam, will do anything to control the world's oil (much of which is under Muslim countries), and provides unquestioning support of Israel. If we change those things, the threat of Islamic terror drops exponentially.

However, religious extremism/religious fascism is one of the greatest threats to most people world wide (not just the West - if people think that there are not people in other theocracies worldwide who are suffering from the religious fanaticism in their countries, they don't know much about human beings). It has the potential to return parts of the world to the dark ages. This includes US religious extremism. If the "War on Terror" was not as you pointed out, a bunch of propaganda and profiteering bullshit (like all the other "wars on x"), they would be fighting the Neo Nazis and Anti Choice people instead of riling them up. Divide and conquer - fight amongst yourselves while we screw all of you and convince you to blame the other.

[msallied]

4. I will concede your point. You are correct.

Religious extremism is truly at the root of this.

[anonymous171]

3. Wow. I'm saving this link.

Good find :thumbsup:

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

5. How can a guy as smart as Sullivan

think that a bunch of ragtag assholes living in caves is as great a threat to the West as the awesome Soviet military machine? Admittedly, the Soviet Union was run by rational men who had no particular desire to immolate the world, but they did have large armies and lots of nukes. The fundamentally rational nature of the Soviet Union was revealed in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Neither Khrushchev nor Kennedy wanted nuclear war. "Islamist terrorists" cannot conquer this country. Shit, turn an LA street gang loose on them and they wouldn't last 25 minutes. At most they can spread fear and make the occasional strike, but they are no more a threat to this country's existence than Timothy McVeigh,


Kerry had it right. Terrorism is ultimately a law enforcement and intelligence problem. We need the intelligence that Barack Obama will bring to the White House.

[drmeow]

6. Terrorism is also

a diplomatic problem. If the US was treated the way we have treated countries/people in the Arab/Muslim world, we'd be terrorists, too. Look at the way we reacted to 9-11, an act which was paltry compared to some of the acts of violence we have committed worldwide. As my signature says, "You could say that terrorism is the privatization of war. Terrorists are the free marketers of war. They are people who don’t believe that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence." Arundhati Roy 2004. We reacted to terrorism by starting two wars. How are those two behaviors different? Have fewer innocent people been killed in our two wars than in the terrorist acts committed on US soil? Are the people in those countries any less fearful than people in NY after 9-11?

Terrorism doesn't exist in a vacuum. The 9-11 terrorists didn't suddenly decide, "Gee, we'd like to attack someone. The US seems like a good target." They had very specific grievances. While there are always the McVeigh's for whom law enforcement is pretty much the only route to go, if we were a little less bullying with other countries, there might be a fewer people who want to bomb us and less need for law enforcement and intelligence.