Not that animal protection is likely to be high on the next President’s list of priorities, but, for what it’s worth, the Humane Society recently endorsed Obama-Biden. Interestingly, it seems this is the first time they’ve ever endorsed a presidential candidate (they routinely endorse congressional candidates), but were moved to this time in large part by the sheer awfulness of Sarah Palin’s record on animal and wildlife issues. Joe Biden, by contrast, appears to be a strong supporter of animal protection measures.
Category: Barack Obama
-
Come on in, conservatives; the water’s fine
For whatever reason, this post, A Conservative for Obama, has been getting a lot of traffic recently. Are there still disaffected conservatives out there who haven’t drunk the McPalin kool-aid and are looking for a reason to vote Dem?
Here’s a good place to start: conservative historian–and self-described “Obamacon”–Andrew Bacevich on NPR’s Fresh Air. Among other things, he argues (convincingly, IMO) that the current GOP is anything but conservative if your idea of conservatism includes things like a realistic view of the world, foreign policy prudence, and fiscal sobriety.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Why I won’t vote third party
Looks like Ron Paul, whom some of his supporters hoped would make a third-party run for president, is urging people who are sick of war, assaults on civil liberties, and, er, the Fed to vote for a third party–any third party!
I appreciate the arguments that the two major parties and their candidates are either too close in policy or fall unacceptably short on certain key issues. Indeed, I’ve made some myself (see the previous post, in fact). I personally find Obama’s backpedaling on FISA and his disinclination to challenge head-on the Bush/GOP paradigm for foreign policy the most troubling. It’s also clear to me that Obama just doesn’t share my views on, say, the scope of U.S. interventionism.
Nevertheless, I’m not going to vote third-party, even though I live in about the safest “state” in the Union. For one thing, none of the third-party candidates particularly appeal to me: Ralph Nader, much as I like him, seems to have passed his sell-by date; Bob Barr, the Libertarian, while staking out good positions in some areas, is still, after all, a Libertarian, and I’m not; Chuck Baldwin appears to be a bit of a far-right xenophobe; and Cynthia McKinney is, well, Cynthia McKinney.*
I think third-party advocates, while often correct in pointing out that the major parties are actually quite similar in significant areas (e.g. the “Washington consensus” on everything from foreign intervention to broadly neoliberal economic policies), often understate the dramatic difference that seemingly “minor” policy differences can make for people’s lives.
For instance, in the broad sweep of things, there may not be much difference philosophically between a neoconservative and a liberal internationalist, but it sure as shootin’ makes a difference whether or not we, say, go to war with Iran (for us and the Iranians). And means matter too; even if Obama and McCain both want to meddle excessively in the rest of the world, it matters a great deal which one is more likely to resort to military force to do it. And Obama is clearly the more dovish candidate. Just saying “They’re all interventionists!” papers over real differences with significant, real-world consequences. (And I haven’t even mentioned domestic policy, environmental policy, etc.)
At the end of the day, I’m just not neutral (or even particularly ambivalent or conflicted) in this election. I want Barack Obama to win, and I want John McCain (and, more broadly, the GOP) to lose. I feel like it would be dishonest for me to root so heartily for one side while trying to float above the fray.
—————————————————————-
*I would be interested in a viable Green Party (I voted Green in 2004), but the actually existing U.S. Green Party seems more like a dumping ground for every far-left pet cause under the sun than a party with a coherent philosophy and stance focusing on environmental issues, like European Greens tend to be.Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
On the radio: Greenwald and Yglesias
Very interesting discussion between Salon’s Glenn Greenwald and uber-blogger Matt Yglesias on the press’s coverage of the campaign.
But one of the most important points comes out toward the end where Greenwald and Yglesias both agree that the Obama campaign has, disappointingly, shifted gears since the primary, where Obama seemed to welcome a debate with the GOP on foreign policy first principles. Now the Dems are blurring the differences, as highlighted by the Russia/Georgia situation. Sarah Palin, being relatively untutored, stated in her ABC interview the plain implication of admitting Georgia and other nations from Russia’s “near abroad” into NATO: that we would be committing to going to war with Russia to defend those countries. This is plainly crazy and horrific, but Obama/Biden has essentially the same view. The difference is that they, being professional Washington pols, don’t come right out and say that this is the implication of admitting Georgia, et al. to NATO membership.
Greenwald further makes the important point that, in a supposed democracy, this kind of stuff should be laid out clearly so people can see the implications of the policies their leaders are proposing. As always, I fear that in trying to be a pale imitation of GOP bellicosity rather than staking out a genuinely different position, the Dems will get rolled.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Yes we can
Defend the Constitution, that is. I’m with John (and Ezra Klein): more please.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
The “empire of consumption” and Obamanomics
John Wiener interviews Andrew Bacevich on our “empire of consumption” and the limits of Obama:
But he’s not one of those radicals who argue there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. “I call myself an Obama-con, Bacevich says, “a conservative who will vote for Obama – because of the Iraq war. He has vowed that he will end the war and withdraw US combat forces. If he does that, it will render a verdict on the Iraq war: that it was a mistake and a failure. That verdict might open up the possibility for a debate about the fundamentals of US foreign policy. If McCain gets elected, the chances of us having that debate are close to zero.”
Interestingly for a self-identified conservative, Bacevich cites Jimmy Carter as the one president in living memory who really understood the predicament we face: an unsustainable way of life that drives our quest for military hegemony.
At the risk of being overly optimistic, though (not usually my problem), I have read some things recently that suggest that Obama may grasp the need for for a major shift in our economic life. This interesting piece on his economic philosophy, for instance, ends on this note:
Shortly after I boarded Obama’s campaign plane this month, one of his press aides warned me that the conversation might not last long. She explained that he was exhausted from two days of campaigning in Florida and might decide to nap as soon as he got on the plane. But a few minutes later he summoned me to the plane’s first-class section, evidently choosing an economics discussion over a DVD of “Mad Men,” which was sitting on his side table. His eyes were tired, and he looked a good deal older than he had only four years ago, on the night that he became famous at the 2004 Democratic convention. But we ended up talking for an hour. After I returned to my seat, the press aide walked back to tell me that Obama had more to say.
“Two things,” he said, as we were standing outside the first-class bathroom. “One, just because I think it really captures where I was going with the whole issue of balancing market sensibilities with moral sentiment. One of my favorite quotes is — you know that famous Robert F. Kennedy quote about the measure of our G.D.P.?”
I didn’t, I said.
“Well, I’ll send it to you, because it’s one of the most beautiful of his speeches,” Obama said.
In it, Kennedy argues that a country’s health can’t be measured simply by its economic output. That output, he said, “counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them” but not “the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.”
The second point Obama wanted to make was about sustainability. The current concerns about the state of the planet, he said, required something of a paradigm shift for economics. If we don’t make serious changes soon, probably in the next 10 or 15 years, we may find that it’s too late.
Both of these points, I realized later, were close cousins of two of the weaker arguments that liberals have made in recent decades. Liberals have at times dismissed the enormous benefits that come with prosperity. And for decades some liberals have been wrongly predicting that economic growth was sure to leave the world without enough food or enough oil or enough something. Obama acknowledged as much, saying that technology had thus far always overcome any concerns about sustainability and that Kennedy’s notion had to be tempered with an appreciation of prosperity.
What’s new about the current moment, however, is that both of these arguments are actually starting to look relevant. Based on the collective wisdom of scientists, global warming really does seem to be different from any previous environmental crisis. For the first time on record, meanwhile, economic growth has not translated into better living standards for most Americans. These are two enormous challenges that are part of the legacy of the Reagan Age. They will be waiting for the next president, whether he is Obama or McCain, and they’ll probably be around for another couple of presidents too.
Obama hit these themes pretty hard in his acceptance speech, but whether as president he would really be interested in using his clout to mobilize the country behind this kind of paradigm shift, and what that would look like, are, of course, big questions.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Obama’s speech
This is too little too late in blogospheric terms but, hey, it’s my blog, right? I thought it was very good, but I have no idea how it will play to the mythical “undecideds.” Good stuff on McCain and the Republicans (the line about McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time, the business about the “you’re on your own” society). Very good deflections of the GOP sniping (the “celebrity” meme, the patriotism canard). Obama showed he can give as good as he gets. And, of course, you would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by the sight of a black man accepting the nomination of a major American political party.
I would’ve liked to hear more about a different foreign policy vision, not just that Iraq was a strategic blunder and that he’ll hunt down Bin Laden (though I suppose that was necessary). Also, what about the Constitution, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.? (John Kerry of all people was excellent on this stuff in his speech on Wednesday.) I understand that economic anxiety is a more immediate issue for most people, but this would’ve fit perfectly with his theme that America can be better than the last 8 years. The last line fell flat for me; I don’t like it when politicians ascribe qualities to the American dream that properly belong to God. YMMV.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Who’s got the messiah complex now?
Good analysis from Chris (of Lutheran Zephyr) on McCain and Obama’s answers to Rick Warren’s “Does evil exist?” question at the Saddleback Church forum.
Obama’s response–noting that only God can ultimately defeat evil and that the potential for evil lurks in our own hearts and in our best intentions–was very Niebuhrian.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
The pessimist’s case for Obama
I somehow missed it when it was first posted, but this lengthy post by Daniel Koffler at AotP is the best response I’ve seen to the civil libertarian/anti-war case against Obama, in part because it concedes many of the left/libertarian/paleo critiques (on FISA, the war, etc.).
Obama is never going to be as anti-interventionist as I, for one, would like him to be. That doesn’t mean, though, that it’s not a big deal whether or not we withdraw from Iraq, start a war with Iran, etc. I’m in no position to begrudge anyone their third-party vote, but it’s good to be clear that there is more than a dime’s worth of difference between the parties.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Left and Right: the prospects for liberty*
John is wondering how committed “the Left” is to civil liberties given that Barack Obama is largely getting a free pass on his deviations, while Bob Barr, a genuinely pro-civil liberties candidate, is being ignored. Meanwhile, in reviewing Bill Kauffman’s latest, W. James Antle III seriously questions whether “there is still such a thing as an anti-war right.”
I’m not any kind of doctrinaire libertarian, but on the issues of civil liberties, executive power, and war I’m in their corner. So, naturally, the question arises which party is better for “liberty,” broadly conceived as this bundle of issues. (If, as Randolph Bourne said, “war is the health of the state,” it makes sense to me treat these together.)
Given the last 8 years, most people would probably say that on the whole the Right is worse, and the Left better on these issues. After all, the Bush administration has pursued preventive war, an expanded national security state, unchecked executive power, and harsh interrogation procedures (that’s “torture” to you and me) with very little dissent from its supporters on the Right. And the grassroots Left, if not the official Democratic Party apparatus, has been quite vocal in its opposition to most, if not all, of this.
Yet we shouldn’t underestimate how the turning wheel of fortune might change things. Expanded discretionary power seems much less threatening when your guy’s wielding it. And let’s not forget how forgiving, or at least muted, much of the Left was during the Clinton administration, despite its generally poor record on civil liberties (not to mention its sharp tack to the Right on economic issues). Add to that the long record of executive power-grabbing and war-making by Democratic presidents, the undeniable charisma of Barack Obama, and the feverish devotion he inspires in some people, and you could have a recipe for a a kinder, gentler version (at best) of Bushism.
All that said, I think Antle is right and John is perhaps overly optimistic that there remains on the Right a principled core of anti-war and pro-liberty sentiment. Checking government power just doesn’t seem to be what motivates the conservative masses anymore, if it ever was. Red-meat culture war issues like gay marriage and immigration, liberal bashing, and apocalyptic fear of the great Islamic Other are, best as I can tell, far closer to the pulsing heart of contemporary conservatism. (Hence my growing alienation from it over the last 8 years.) However much antipathy for President Obama a right-wing opposition might have, my bet is that it’s far more likely to zero in on this stuff.
—————————————————–
*Yes, I’m burnishing my libertarian street cred by stealing a title from Murray Rothbard.Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky