Conservatives' Embrace of Obama

I'd be fine if Obama were the nominee; I'd much prefer him to Hillary.  He may well indeed be the best we can hope for. But this comment by feralman in repsonse to Joe Conason's piece  "Why conservatives love Barack Obama" captures my reservations about him:

I think some conservatives like Obama because they know they can sucker-punch him. His campaign theme is a variation on can't-we-all-just-get-along. He proposes to reform health care and accomplish much else by having everyone sit down at the same big table and just work things out. But the simple truth is, no, we can't all just get along. There are entrenched interests -- namely, the drug companies and insurance companies -- that will never willingly give up their privileged place in our health-care system. They will fight to the bitter end. They will relinquish their power and privilege only when we take it from them by force of law. Partisanship is the order of the day -- too bad, maybe, but undeniably true. Edwards knows it, and Clinton probably does, too. If Obama were to start off by not recognizing this fundamental truth about current American politics, his adversaries would be able to tie him in knots for years. His chance to make a difference will come and go while they have him pinned down by his own good intentions, giving him the Rodney-King but good.

I would feel a lot more supportive of Obama if he were saying something like, "Can't we all just get along? No? Then let's get it on." Let him talk that way, and see whether conservatives still play nice with him.

Every decent American hopes that we can find a way to get along. They understandably long for a politician who will transcend the partisan rancor.  Moderates think Obama will be acceptable to a majority of decent, reasonable Americans, even many who voted for Bush in the last two elections.  I think that's true, and I don't question the desirability of a candidate who has that kind of appeal.  The moderate fallacy lies in thinking that while Obama's conciliatory approach will have a wide appeal in the general population, that such an approach will be effective in his dealing with the entrenched interests and power blocs in Washington. Politics for these people is blood sport, and I don't believe for a minute that a reasonable, reconciliatory approach with these factions will have the slightest effect. I see them sharpening their knives as they await Obama's arrival. It's wrong to think that the reasonable, conciliatory way we strive to talk to our neighbors with whom we disagree is a workable approach when confronting these interests.

I hope I'm underestimating Obama's toughness, but a willingness to compromise with people who have no such willingness leads to the kind of ineffectiveness we've seen from the Democrats in the last year.  We've seen time and again that these factions on the right have no interest in compromise, and they look at compromisers as wimps.

The movement conservatives have conceded this next election to the Democrats, and they want the Democrat who presents the least threat to their agenda so they can buy time and regroup. I suspect that they see Obama as the one they can neutralize most easily precisely because of his conciliatory approach. Edward's pugnacity has probably disqualified him among moderates.  It's ironic that the man effeminized as the Breck girl would probably be the toughest candidate for the GOP to deal with. It remains a mystery to me why these conservatives can love a guy like Lieberman and hate Hillary so much.  She is the most Liebermanesque of all the Dem candidates; you'd think she'd be the Democrat they'd be falling over themselves to get her elected.  But that would assume a certain level of sanity and straightforwardness impossible within the funhouse hall of mirrors known as the Beltway.

Comments

[anon]

The reason conservatives don't like Clinton is because they probably believe that she is a genuine welfarist liberal hidden in moderate, Liebermanesque clothing. They remember the Hilary of the 1990's, intense feminist and all; a person who was willing to impose 'socialized' medicine as a national health-care policy.

I believe your concern about Obama being a malleable figurehead who can get kicked around fairly easily by corporate lobbyists is quite likely true. He seems to have to be awfully naive, and the idea that he can transcend partisanship isn't very believable. Do anyone honestly believe that anti-abortion advocates, pharmaceutical companies, and corporations will lay down, while Obama appoints liberal justices, creates a national health-care program, and increases taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals (for payment of his welfarist policies)? Considering that Obama is just as liberal as George McGovern and just as idealistic, isn't Obama just the present day McGovern?

[anon]

Not to mention Obama's very lax views on immigration policy. He's even farther to the left on immigration than Hilary Clinton.

On the other hand, Clinton's supposed 'experience' advantage over Obama is somewhat laughable. But first, Obama has virtually no experience running any kind of organization. He really only became popular because of his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Rhetoric is great, but if you look at his record, you must come to the painful conclusion that the guy hasn't created or passed any significant policy bill while as a US Senator. What has he accomplished?

Even though Obama lacks the experience as a public official, Clinton isn't much better. Being a spectator of politics isn't the same as being a participant. Most of her alleged experiences comes in the form of being first lady to her husband when he was Governor of Arkansas and president.

There's a reason why the last US Senator to be elected president happened over forty years ago. The president is in charge of a host of different agencies, and so executive experience is clearly a plus. If interviewing for a CEO position, you don't want someone who is only good at some particular technical skill, but you want someone with leadership and management experience. The same should be true for president.

Having said all that, I like Mitt Romney as a candidate. He's intelligent, articulate, and accomplished. He graduated at the top of his class at both Harvard law and business schools, started his own management and investing firm (something infinitely more impressive than what Obama or Hilary has done), ran the 2002 Olympic games, and was Governor of Massachusetts. If there's one thing that is undisputed, it's that this guy knows how to get things done and knows how to manage well. Although he has wavered on abortion, as a Catholic myself, I'm not so concerned about that because all that really matters as far as abortion policy goes is that he promises to appoint strict-constructionist (which is of course a code word) judges to the bench. The president can really only affect abortion policy through appointment of judges at this point in time, so no matter his personal views on the matter, as long as Romney delivers on the judges, Catholics and other pro-lifers should be satisfied.

[Ruth]

Jack,

As much as I used to like Edwards, it became clear very early in this campaign that his pugnacity is cheap and hollow. The two main conflicts of interest that ensnared Edwards in this campaign--the silly haircut but then the not-so-silly holdings in real estate companies that were holding down Katrina victims in New Orleans, where Edwards announced his candidacy--were directly related to the core issues and causes Edwards has elevated. His life and lifestyle make his words ring hollow in ways I couldn't see/know/appreciate in 2004.

Obama has held back in this primary campaign, to my regret. With that said, though, Hillary is doing just fine at imploding, so I can't blame Obama too much for playing it close to the vest.

If he wins the nomination, I will expect a great deal from him in the general election campaign. If he were to continue to sound conciliatory, mushy notes against the Republican nominee in a one-on-one confrontation, I would then be worried that that style would define an Obama administration.

But now, I don't think we're nearly at that point. Confrontationalism is something that Obama has--in manner if not in speech--tried to get away from on the campaign trail, and he's made it part of his overall appeal to voters. He's gotten this far with it; he can't get too pugnacious now.

If he wins the nomination, the substance of this post will truly (then) be put to the test.

[Matt Zemek]

Whoops!

My mom signed in... the above response was made by me (just got to Phoenix for the holidays a few hours ago...).

[anon]

"I would feel a lot more supportive of Obama if he were saying something like, "Can't we all just get along? No? Then let's get it on." Let him talk that way, and see whether conservatives still play nice with him."

I was recently invited to interview at the office of one of the biggest US accounting firms. The senior manager there asked me to describe conflict resolution scenarios I had faced, and I gave some naive-sounding idealistic answer that flew over the question. Looking back, I should have addressed the concrete particulars of my experiences and what specifically I would do if placed in like circumstances. I see Obama acting in this naive way all the time. If this really is his approach to politics, we can expect him to get politically kicked around and beaten up. Should be interesting!