Buckley for Obama

[Lisabob 13]

You may have heard that Christopher Buckley endorsed Barack Obama last week, much to the consternation of many conservatives including those who run his father's magazine & conservative standard, National Review. Today he announced his departure from the National Review. I thought this quote from Buckley, explaining his logic and his departure, was pretty interesting as a summary of the collapse of the conservative movement's ideological standards in the last decade:

 

"So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say its a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

 

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of conservative government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case."

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired

 

 

 

As a liberal and a Democrat, of course I'm happy that Obama received Buckley's endorsement, no matter what his reasoning. But I'll be honest. I'd be happy too, to think that the conservative movement had a coherent and sound ideology these days. I find I have to agree with Buckley's assessment (echoed here by several regular posters as well) that the conservative movement has lost its way down some particularly unpromising back alleys. It is always better to be able to respect your opposition. On that, I suspect Buckley would agree.

[scoutldr 732]

And which part of Obama's "plan" is going to fix "the ruinous expansion of entitlement programs"?

[BrentAllen 10]

I hate to admit that I mostly agree with Buckley, in his second paragraph. That doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly become a liberal. No, I'm going to try to work on the Republican party to get back to their conservative roots.

 

Does he actually think the GOP big tent would welcome those who support the opposition?

[packsaddle 753]

Neither one of them will fix that, at least from what they have published as their current proposals.

So-called 'conservatives' made the mistake, I think, of working from ideology rather than thoughtful ideas. Anyone can make that mistake and the political process seems especially susceptible, but the so-called 'conservatives' have done a spectacular job of it.

[Lisabob 13]

Gee Brent, the NR didn't oust William F. Buckley when he endorsed Joe Lieberman (then still a Democrat)...nor when he called for the decriminalization of many drugs, in an acknowledgment that the "war on drugs" wasn't working and a different approach might be necessary.

 

Scoutldr - I encourage you to read C. Buckley's sort-of endorsement of Obama. I've put the link below. He comes right out and says that he disagrees with the man on a variety of issues. What he laments is the disintegration of any ideologically consistent and defensible position within the conservative movement. What he finds inviting about Obama is Obama's "first-class temperament and a first-class intellect." Buckley takes McCain to task for not showing either of these characteristics in this election cycle (in Buckley's view). Of McCain, he writes:

 

"This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget by the end of my first term. Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?"

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama

 

Buckley's point transcends specific issues and goes to the notion of having people in power who will really, deeply, examine the options that are on the table and then pick the right one(s). Now that may be naive. I do not think that any candidate is likely to suddenly change their ideological stripes upon being elected (though I think circumstances will force either candidate to be more moderate than they sound right now). But this willingness to think! Not to belittle people who have - and also use - their intellectual capacity to the fullest, even when it means reaching uncomfortable or inconvenient conclusions! Yes, I believe Buckley has it right that this matters a great deal, and seems to have been sorely lacking in recent years.

[eisely 13]

Buckley was not mistreated by the National Review. He resigned. The following was pasted in from the National Review Online as written by the editor, Rich Lowry.

 

Buckley is certainly free to endorse anybody he wants to, but he should not expect kind treatment from those who may feel betrayed by him. Not that I feel betrayed. I didn't even know who Chris Buckley was until this came up.

 

__________________________________

 

A Word on Christopher Buckley [Rich Lowry]

 

Chris is up with a post at The Daily Beast, "Sorry, Dad, I Was Fired." Id like to clarify this firing business. Over the weekend, Chris wrote us a jaunty e-mail with the subject line "A Sincere Offer," in which he offered to resign his column on NR's back page and said that if we accepted, there "would be no hard feelings, only warmest regards and understanding." We took the offer sincerely. Chris had done us the favor of writing the column beginning seven issues ago on a "trial basis" (his words), while our regular back-page columnist, Mark Steyn, was on hiatus. Now, Mark is back to writing again, andI'm delighted to saywill be on NR's back-page in the new issue.

 

Just one other point: Chris says that his Obama endorsement has generated a "tsunami," that e-mail at NRO has been running "oh, 700-to-1" against him, and that there's a debate about whether to boil him in oil or shoot him. Chris is either misinformed or exercising poetic license. We have gotten about 100 e-mails, if that (a tiny amount compared to our usual volume), and threats of cancellations in the single digits (we never like to lose any readers, but circulation is way up this year). No doubt part of what upset these readers was the dim view Chris expressed of them in his first Daily Beast post. So it goes. It's an intense election season and emotions are running high. We continue to have the highest regard for Chris's talent and wit, and extend to him warmest regards and understanding.

 

 

UPDATE: The Daily Beast headline has been changed to "Buckley Bows Out of National Review."

 

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Logical, reasoned thinking along with honesty and integrity in punditry? What is this world coming to? The next thing you know, cats and dogs will be sleeping together.

 

I hope Buckley's ailment starts catching on both sides of the aisle.

[scoutldr 732]

Thanks, Lisabob. I will read it. As a "conservative libertarian", I believe that McCain is what the country needs right now. Throughout history, those who were most against wars, were those who had fought them. McCain knows what it is to fight a war, which we need to continue to do to a peaceful resolution. Obama does not. He thinks naively that we can "make nice" with the Islamofascists who want to kill our children and believe Allah is telling them to do it. You can't reason or negotiate with religious fanaticism, of any flavor. We need to win the war on terror, not engage in sweeping social reforms that we can't afford. I agree that the middle east is not worth one more drop of American blood. But regardless of how we got there, we need a systematic strategy for winning and getting out...in that order. Secondly, we need energy independence, so that we can thumb our noses at OPEC. Thirdly we need to fix the economy. Sending me another 600 bucks is just stupid and is not the answer. I still haven't spent the first check (good thing!). Everything Obama has promised has a price tag to it, and he's not telling how he's going to pay for it...except by getting out of Iraq which is being paid for with deficit spending anyway. Neither candidate can be truthful because it means pain to the voters any way you look at it. So they promise anything to get elected. Jim Gilmore (yes, a Republican) got elected Gov of Va on the single plank of "No More Car Tax" and the sheep voted him in by a landslide. Well guess what, he paid for it by eliminating state services (like laying off half the DMV clerks which means we now wait 4 hrs for a license renewal), and the tax never got fully phased out. People (like me) questioned it from the beginning..."how is he going to replace that revenue stream." Same question for Obama...if you're not going to raise my taxes, where will you get the money? Seems like a simple enough question.

[BrentAllen 10]

Lisa,

Lieberman is fairly conservative. I believe he has even endorsed McCain. I know several conservative Libertarians that feel the same way about drugs. I think the common thread he is conservatism, which Obama is not.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Joe Lieberman is a fine honorable man......but he is not, I repeat NOT conservative. The conservative radio talking heads and pundits love him because on one issue (the war) he sided with their view and not with his own party. For being a "maverick", they think he is a hero. The same exact thing they happen to hate McCain for. Go figure.

[Lisabob 13]

Yes Lieberman is fairly conservative. These days, technically he's not even a Democrat although he remains part of the Democratic caucus in the Senate (he got re-elected as an Independent after losing the Democratic nomination the last time he was up for election). If the Dems get a large enough majority in the Senate, I'm sure there are more than a few who would daydream about formally kicking Lieberman out of the caucus in return for his endorsement of McCain though. But still, W.F. Buckley endorsed Lieberman back when he was still really a Democrat.

 

Beaver, looks like we posted at about the same time (and my response was directed at Brent's post). I guess it depends on what the basis for comparison is. In comparison to a lot of liberals, Lieberman is relatively conservative on some social issues. For example he supported parental warning labels on music or videos that contain violence or explicit images/lyrics. He supported NCLB and charter schools (usually opposed by Democrats). But I can see where some of his other stances (pro-choice, in favor of supporting stem cell research) do not line up with typical social conservative views.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

[SR540Beaver 116]

Lisa, let me qualify my statement. Lieberman is conservative by Democrat standards. By Republican standards, he is not. He is a regular guest on Hannity's radio program and Sean always tries to entice him to join the Republicans and Joe always respectfully declines the invitation. You already know the history of why he became independent. The party was angry with him and punished him. Early on before McCain won the nomination, there were many in the Republican party who wished the same treatment of McCain that the Dems gave Lieberman for being a "maverick". So yes, Lieberman is more conservative than many Dems, but he can't really be called a conservative.

[eal51 10]

Lisa -

 

I'm going to give you the Connecticut view of Joe Lieberman. I am going to date myself and many of you may understand.

 

Joe Lieberman is a Kennedy Democrat as in Jack Kennedy - JFK. That means he is conservative on issues of national defense, supporting our allies and some fiscal restraint. On social issues, the old Democratic Party, JFK's Democratic Party, was more progressive on social issues, but no where near what we see today from the Democratic party. That also means decisions are made that are in the best interests of the country, not one party's entitlement seekers.

 

And yes today's Democrats will make Joe pay for his endorsement of McCain. He will loose his status. But they should have seen it coming. The Democratic Party hard core (less than 25% of the voting population in CT) forced him into a primary by their chosen candidate because of one issue - the war in Iraq. Joe lost the primary, ran as an independent and won. Why, because the majority of us in CT find Joe to be a honest man who has a deep love for his country and his state. And his country comes first, we know it. Many of us remember when Joe was our State Attorney General and the great job he did in that office. And the majority of voters in CT are registered as Independents, not Democrat or Republican. And I am proudly one of those Independents. We like our Joe.

 

So, if the Dems are stupid enough to kick out Joe, I feel sorry for this country. That will be the ultimate statement by the Democratic Party of the 21st Century - agree with us on everything or be gone. And one wonders why we are in the mess we are in! Party ideology has replaced common sense - both parties. Party ideology has replaced negotiation and compromise - both parties. Party ideology has replaced the United States of America - and that's you and me!

 

Now Buckley's endorsement of Obama is for his thoughtful process, not his policies. That is a far cry from a ringing endorsement.

 

Time will tell what is in store for us, but I am fearful that we are going down a slippery slope and the results are not going to be pretty.