The “Right” Choice
Joshua Foust on Apr 01 2008 at 5:53 am | Filed under: Election 2008, Foreign affairs
What to do when no one on the presidential ballot is a conservative? Conservative historian Andrew Bracevich—who has been opposed to the war since the start yet nevertheless lost a son in Iraq—says the war is reason enough to vote for Barrack Obama.
>Above all, conservatives who think that a McCain presidency would restore a sense of realism and prudence to U.S. foreign policy are setting themselves up for disappointment. On this score, we should take the senator at his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bush’s misadventures is irrevocable. McCain is determined to remain in Iraq as long as it takes. He is the candidate of the War Party. The election of John McCain would provide a new lease on life to American militarism, while perpetuating the U.S. penchant for global interventionism marketed under the guise of liberation.
The essential point is this: conservatives intent on voting in November for a candidate who shares their views might as well plan on spending Election Day at home. The Republican Party of Bush, Cheney, and McCain no longer accommodates such a candidate.
So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival.
I cannot meaningfully excerpt this article, as the argument is somewhat complex. But the case against John McCain’s relentlessly incorrect, militant militarism—especially in light of his pure domestic fecklessness—is certainly a compelling one. That is, if you believe in the inherent fallibility of the government.
Regardless, it is a fascinating discussion.
Sphere: Related Content
By all means, if you think a near complete withdrawal from Iraq is the best policy, then vote for Obama.
But, that is the ONLY thing the author has to recommend Obama. It’s not hard to summarize the argument, because it’s the same argument used in 2006.
Punish the Republicans because they aren’t following OUR BRAND of conservatism and exiting Iraq post haste.
And it seems the authors strategy is, elect this lightweight as the President, and the Republicans can’t do anything but look better.
Doesn’t sound too complex to me. Heck, if that’s all it takes to decide, and if you don’t mind voting for a guy with close ties to racists, why not just throw your lot in with Ron Paul? At least he probably won’t increase spending. Obama’s hedged on Iraq, and he clearly believes in US interventionism elsewhere, according to Keith’s link (why settle for Iraq when you can get Darfur, Congo, and Liberia instead?) He’s been duplicitous on NAFTA, who’s to say he isn’t doing the same here?
And then what was the link the other day to the video where Obama says he’d only leave Marine guards at the embassy? Only, I don’t think that he knew that it’s Marines that guard embassies.
All he does is hedge. At one speech he’ll try to assure all the “pull out now” people. In another he’ll try to act tough and say we should more or less invade Pakistan with no apparent regard to the domestic situation there.
I don’t think McCain is all that militant, despite “bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran”. I don’t expect that he’s got any real want for military conflict. He was in it and so are two (?) of his children. But the thing about that is that *I* don’t expect any military person, even those who are so frank as to publicly say that it’s “fun” to kill the bad guys, to really want war if it can possibly be avoided. And I think that a whole lot of people *do* expect a military person to *want* war.
It’s a prejudice.
And then there is the seemingly common notion that if we simply didn’t *have* a military there would be no war. Seemingly competent people seemingly express this thought with seeming seriousness. This is related to the idea that if we simply *stop* that it will simply *end*.
Obviously McCain doesn’t buy into that delusion.
Now, Obama seems to want those who do buy into it to project that onto him as a candidate while assuring those who don’t buy into it that he’s got an adult and realistic understanding of how war works.
And the thing is…. I haven’t noticed in my lifetime that one sort of president is any less likely to go to war than another sort of president. Clinton wasn’t noticeably reluctant. I expect President Gore would have aggressively deployed our forces, at least to Afghanistan, and who knows… maybe to Pakistan to go after Bin Laden instead of to Iraq. We don’t *know* but there is no reason to think, looking at History, that he’d have been reluctant.
There is no reason to think that Obama will be reluctant.
What we can be fairly sure of is that he’s of an ideological mindset that doesn’t want to engage the possibility of war… that doesn’t mean he *won’t*…. it just means that he hasn’t thought about it very much.
Oh, and McCain as a “conservative” is sort of funny. Or really funny. Or something. McCain as “George Bush take Two” is (or would be) hysterical if so many people didn’t seem to be so ready to swallow it whole. Chavez said so, and who’s to question?
Yes, what was that link? Anyone know?
Because I’d like to know how Synova came to this conclusion…
Did Obama stumble? Twitch? Soil himself?
Does Obama have a tell that I’m unaware of? Or does Synova possess supernatural powers?
Well, she is a woman, so I would bet on her standard womanly powers.
The only thing I’ve heard him say was that he’d keep troops in to guard the embassy. I haven’t heard anything more specific than that.
I must have missed the time having Marines guard our embassies was a scandal-worthy admission of foreign-policy naivete?
Heh. Well I wouldn’t doubt that women posses powers that men do not have. I couldn’t imagine a man having the power to force me to abandon a game on the television when its down to the final play to walk into the other room to kill a bug.
But women having the power to read people’s thoughts is not among the powers I think they have. Hell, if my woman could even read half the thoughts that I have every time my neighbor washes her car, my face would be blistered to tragedy.
I do need to know how Synova makes the jump from knowing that McCain isn’t militant from his “bomb Iran” sonnet yet knows Obama is ignorant to the fact that Marines guard embassies.
Seriously, did Obama wet himself or something?
And is it typical for world leaders to joke about bombing their enemies???
I can only imagine that if Iran’s Ahmamutherfucker were to joke about bombing the US, the Synovas of the world, after laughing hysterically at the lark, would dismiss him as a jester.
Wait, I can’t imagine that.
Note to Ahmamutherfucker: If you wish to joke about bombing the US, you should put it to the tunes of the Beach Boys. And I think chants of “Death to America” would go well with tunes from The Yardbirds. Ya’ know… Eric Clapton… That guy can rip.
That way, no harm… no foul.
Cheers.
http://thepage.time.com/video-obama-semi-heated-with-reporter-at-gas-station-presser/
Does it really sound to you like he knows what he’s talking about? Well, maybe it does because he wants you to project your preferences on him, and mostly it works.
But the guy asks… You said you’d leave a small force in the country to deal with terrorist attacks, when would you take them out?… then O says no-no-no and then eventually says… what I *said* was that I’d leave a small strike force in the country (outside or inside of Iraq) to deal with terrorist attacks. (He gives no withdrawl notion about that force at all.) But inbetween when he’s going no-no-no he says he’ll leave the embassies guarded.
Well, DUH.
He’s spinning the question for some reason. Do I need magical powers to wonder if he actually knows what he’s talking about?
He wants his cake and eat it too. He’s going to have strike forces in the region poised to act on foreign soil. Um, O baby, are you sure about that? But he’s absolutely NOT going to occupy other countries. Apparently he’s into hit-and-run. No? And he pretends that people are deliberately misunderstanding his statements that he wouldn’t leave our embassies unguarded?
Oy.
Mostly I was just making clear that Obama did NOT say he’d leave the regular Marine embassy guards because he did not use the word “Marine” so that was an assumption on my part.
If he knows that Marine guards embassies I’d expect he’d have said that or specified if that’s what he was talking about or not. But he makes a generality. But I wouldn’t necessarily expect that he knows who supplies embassy guards.
The first thing that popped into my mind was this scene from Cool Hand Luke:
Womanly powers indeed.
You get +10 Agility for the gratuitous cool movie reference
Yeah. I rule!.