The Perils of Obama

"You'd vote for Barack Obama, wouldn't you?" Ambinder demands of me in the latest edition of The Table. The answer is no, but as I've said before, I have the same sentiments about him - respect, admiration, interest in what he has to say - that many conservatives seem to feel, which makes me instinctively prefer the notion of an Obama Presidency to the idea of having Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. But as I've also said before, these sentiments coexist with an awareness that an Obama Presidency might be much, much worse from a conservative point of view than a Clinton Restoration - not only in the very long term, with Obama playing a liberal Reagan to a larger leftward shift in American politics, but in the world of short-term politics as well.

What do I have in mind? Well, possibilities like this , for instance. I know conservatives weren't great admirers of Bill Clinton's AG choices either, but the prospect of Attorney General John Edwards is exactly the sort of thing that ought to make right-wing Obamaphiles think twice.

Comments

Ross, I'm curious: of the current GOP contenders, you'd vote for any of them over Obama?

Rudy?

Huckabee?

Really?

Posted by matthewcc | January 26, 2008 1:13 PM

The post doesn't seem to understand Edwards' true nature:

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39333

And, here should be the cure for Obamaphilia, although it probably won't be for many.

Posted by TLB | January 26, 2008 1:57 PM

matthewcc-

I think the issue is that for me, at least, I have no idea what Ross believes on most of the important issues of the day.

He's a cultural conservative, that's evident.

But on the war, he's a cipher. He argues that Iraq is the main reason the GOP has been struggling and that GOP candidates need to be able to pivot on Iraq, but when pressed for ages, he eventually simply lined up on the side of The Surge, and hasn't written about the war since.

On economic issues, he's just as much of a cipher. The Sam's Club proposal was a couple of small-bore neoconservative proposals and a lot of hand-waving that could serve either as the beginning of an actual conservative reckoning with social democracy or hald-assed rhetoric to paint social security privatization as a boon to the underclass. Does he support the repeal of the inheritance tax? Universal health care? Quasi-universal health care? A stimulus package based on more money for food stamps and unemployment insurance? The extension of the Bush tax cuts?

On the biggest issues facing the nation, I have absolutely no idea what Ross Douthat believes in. So, I'm never exactly surprised to read his quasi-endorsements. They're the best information we've got as to what he thinks.

Posted by DivGuy | January 26, 2008 2:17 PM

the prospect of Attorney General John Edwards is exactly the sort of thing that ought to make right-wing Obamaphiles think twice

Ok. Why?

Edwards would surely work to fight against illegalities in the practice of big business, from union-busting to tax evasion to offshoring. These sorts of projects, armed with the law of the land, should be exactly the sort of thing that would appeal to a Sam's Club Republican - Edwards wouldn't be expanding the safety net in ways that the Republican party might not be ready to accept - he'd simply be forcing big business to play by the same rules that the rest of us do.

I mean, Edwards would be pro-choice and whatnot, but so would every AG a Democrat appoints.

This isn't about social conservatism - Edwards' progressivism is only exceptional in its economic aspects, and as AG, he would be fighting for economic justice within the limits of the law, not creating new laws. I have no idea what in that picture so upsets Ross Douthat. May I ask for clarification?

Posted by DivGuy | January 26, 2008 2:24 PM

Boy, I really don't get conservatives. Why, exactly, would they object to Edwards as AG? The general sentiment is that he would crack down on violations of labor laws. I realize conservatives are reflexively anti-union, but do they really have a problem with labor laws being vigorously enforced?

I know a lot of liberals complained about Ashcroft, but mostly this was because of concerns about civil liberties, which are concerns shared by a lot of people on the more libertarian right, and aren't inherently left or right.

Are conservatives worried that Wal-Mart is going to have its rights trampled on? Really?

Posted by Jason C. | January 26, 2008 2:29 PM

Edwards will make a terrific AG if the Justice Department gets into the business of suing doctors on a contingency fee basis.

Posted by Aaron | January 26, 2008 2:32 PM

Edwards will make a terrific AG if the Justice Department gets into the business of suing doctors on a contingency fee basis.

To the degree that conservatives are voting purely on emotional distaste for a candidate, rather than on any analysis of what the person would actually do, Ross' statement holds true.

Posted by DivGuy | January 26, 2008 2:36 PM

Boy, I really don't get conservatives. Why, exactly, would they object to Edwards as AG?
Because he's Lionel Hutz incarnate?

Posted by matt foley | January 26, 2008 3:01 PM

Oh Ross, this is such a sad way to end a promising career - believing the rumor-mill formerly known as Robert Novak. Please, talk about something substantial. Also, since when was it reasonable to talk about an Obama plan which has no official backing - as a means for blaming Obama? How is this better than whispering that he's a Muslim?

Posted by sashaqz | January 26, 2008 3:03 PM

"He's a cultural conservative, that's evident."

But his actual reasons are often left as a mystery, or as an exercise for the reader.

"but do they really have a problem with labor laws being vigorously enforced?"

Probably they do for the same reasons they don't like tax laws to actually ever get enforced against corporations: not enforcing a law is like de facto rescinding it without all the trouble of the courts or the legislature.

Posted by Bad | January 26, 2008 3:13 PM

Because he's Lionel Hutz incarnate?

So in other words, you have no reason.

Posted by Jason C. | January 26, 2008 3:21 PM

From your "Tory" perspective, I can see where this would make you nervous.

That said, if this goes to the convention, BOTH Clinton and Obama will need to offer Edwards something. And, if he must be in the cabinet, AG probably makes sense for him.

This all is a long way of saying, Ross, that this doesn't necessarily foretell a rejection of any Burkean qualities Obama might have. It's simply being pragmatic in what could be a long, drawn-out fight.

And sashaqz has a point: Novak isn't awful, but don't take it as gospel.

REMEMBER: Novak recently posited that establishment GOPers were about to rally behind McCain. Uh, really? How's that workin' out?

Posted by KevinA | January 26, 2008 3:25 PM

So in other words, you have no reason.

As Mr. Hutz would say, emotional distaste and pre-logical tribalism are kinds of reasons.

Posted by DivGuy | January 26, 2008 3:27 PM

From your "Tory" perspective, I can see where this would make you nervous.

Where?

I'm asking honestly. What is un-Tory about enforcing the laws of the country against the excesses of major corporations?

Posted by DivGuy | January 26, 2008 3:29 PM

Douthat,

As a big-government conservative, I don't think you have much to fear from an Obama presidency, other than maybe he'll spend other people's money on things you'd rather he spend on something else, and he'll trample civil liberties, while you'd prefer they'd be trampled in other ways.

Seriously, you're both a couple of statists. Stuff it.

Posted by Jeff | January 26, 2008 3:57 PM

>

FACTS ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

1. He was accepted into Columbia and Harvard because of affirmative action (not academic merit)

2. His black nationalist church in Chicago has called for the execution of all white people

What more needs to be said? I'm not even going to go into his comments about raping white women.

>

Posted by Liz Matheson | January 26, 2008 4:20 PM

"Are conservatives worried that Wal-Mart is going to have its rights trampled on? Really?"

Isn't Mr. Douthat a fan of wal-mart. Hence the party of sam's club?

Posted by Gordo | January 26, 2008 4:38 PM

"FACTS ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

1. He was accepted into Columbia and Harvard because of affirmative action (not academic merit)

2. His black nationalist church in Chicago has called for the execution of all white people

What more needs to be said? I'm not even going to go into his comments about raping white women.

>Posted by Liz Matheson | January 26, 2008 4:20 PM"

How nice to see that former president Clinton is now posting on this board. But can't you just call yourself Hillary as per norm - and not confuse people by changing your alias? I mean, Liz sounds perfectly nice, but Hillary gets more attention. Oh, and cut out the yellow suits - they make you look like a rabid canary. Much love.

Posted by sashaqz | January 26, 2008 4:59 PM

"He was accepted into Columbia and Harvard because of affirmative action (not academic merit)"

Pure horseshit. The guy ended on the Harvard Law Review. They don't have affirmative action for that.

Posted by Rid | January 26, 2008 5:45 PM

How long before Obama's GPA and SAT score becomes a source of debate? They did it with Bush, so why not Obama?

Posted by Mike | January 26, 2008 5:57 PM

But his actual reasons are often left as a mystery, or as an exercise for the reader.

Really? Ross is a Catholic. He's quite open about the fact that his religion informs his views on social policy.

Posted by Freddie | January 26, 2008 9:29 PM

Obama wants to give amnesty. Unskilled immigration is the most important issue facing this nation and Obama is terrible on the issue. He even strenuously objected to skills and education based visas being expanded at the expense of family reunification visas in the last amnesty bill.

Posted by pjgoober | January 26, 2008 9:51 PM

Entirely academic. Romney beats Clinton in November.

Posted by Ased | January 26, 2008 10:00 PM

Social conservatism is a no brainer. Social liberalism already gave us a near 70% african american illegitimacy rate and 49.9% hispanic one.

Posted by pjgoober | January 26, 2008 10:45 PM

Mr. Goober,

No doubt 'social liberalism' would also explain why the 'illegitimacy' rate in El Salvador, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic is much higher than in the United States. (These three countries are highly religious, and in fact have a state religion; non-Church weddings are not even legally recognized in the DR.)

(I wouldn't consider myself a social 'libral', nor a social 'conservative', but I would like us to have some balance and perspective here.)

Posted by Hector | January 27, 2008 12:03 AM

"I know conservatives weren't great admirers of Bill Clinton's AG choices either, but the prospect of Attorney General John Edwards is exactly the sort of thing that ought to make right-wing Obamaphiles think twice."

Yeah, because Ross thinks that creatures like Alberto Gonzalez who see nothing wrong with Americans fistfucking Muslims on spec are legitimate AGs, but you just can't have someone in that office who doesn't gobble corporate units all day long.

Sometimes I wonder if Ross has been dipping into Rush's medicine cabinet.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 27, 2008 12:20 AM

"Really? Ross is a Catholic. He's quite open about the fact that his religion informs his views on social policy."

This is like saying that "I'm a Democrat!" explains WHY someone things universal healthcare is a good idea. It isn't informative or detailed enough to tell you much of anything about the actual reasons. And presumably, Ross is a Catholic because it fits his reasoning about what's best for social policy, not the other way around.

Posted by Bad | January 27, 2008 1:11 AM

Really? Ross is a Catholic. He's quite open about the fact that his religion informs his views on social policy.

Per DivGuy's comment, I don't think he's very open about this at all. He might admit that it's the case from time to time, but he never discusses it in any detail.

jenny

Posted by jenny | January 27, 2008 1:29 AM

presumably, Ross is a Catholic because it fits his reasoning about what's best for social policy, not the other way around.

To a secular person like me, that would be true. But "the other way around" is precisely how some religious voters have formed their political positions in this country for our history. I don't suggest that Ross blindly or unthinkingly follows the tenets of his faith. What I do know, however, is that for people who have actual faith, rather than the American approximation of it, failing to confront the consequences of their religious beliefs when forming their politic positions is nonsensical. If you really believe that there is a God, that Jesus is his messenger, that the Bible is his message and the Catholic Church is his church, it would be absurd for you not to weigh religious matters in discussion of policy. The religion-lite that most people seem to practice these days, where they ostensibly believe in a religious identity but where that identity makes no material difference in their daily lives-- that makes no sense, when you actual confront the assumptions behind it.

Whats more, when you say that what I said has no descriptive value, I have to object. A committed Catholic might very well say simply "I am opposed to abortion because God's vehicle on earth, the Catholic church, says it is sinful." And while you or I may not agree with that reasoning or it's legitimacy, it does, in fact, explain why that person holds that view. It explains that precisely.

Now, while I don't mean to speak for him, I really don't think it's Ross's style to make that kind of an argument-- "My religion says so, and so it's so." But at the same time, again, if his religion has actual meaning, I don't see how his morality can possibly not be informed in some sense by it. Belief in a supreme being, and belief that he has laid out certain edicts for mankind to live by--if it has actual belief in it at all--isn't something that can be held casually.

Posted by Freddie | January 27, 2008 10:13 AM

"The guy ended on the Harvard Law Review. They don't have affirmative action for that." Oh, really?

Posted by Aaron | January 27, 2008 10:19 AM

Oh, really?

Yes. Really.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Obama is unworthy of the academic heights he's achieved? The assumption that someone is the beneficiary of affirmative action is really a pernicious thing, because people feel no need to cite evidence to support the notion, and it's very difficult to "prove" that it didn't happen.

Posted by Freddie | January 27, 2008 10:35 AM

No, not really. Harvard adopted a race-based affirmative action policy in 1983.

Posted by Aaron | January 27, 2008 11:36 AM

Its Law Review, that is.

Posted by Aaron | January 27, 2008 11:37 AM

Its Law Review, that is.

Here in the real world, we require evidence to support empirical claims.

What's more, it would specifically require evidence that Obama himself was the beneficiary of affirmative action.

But let me guess, you're a brilliant white genius who would have long ago risen to the top of our society if not for affirmative action, right? Because the white man just can't get ahead in American society today. You just have no opportunities as a white man.

Posted by Freddie | January 27, 2008 1:54 PM

I really think this will be a "cool kids" election. If you are at a party and the presidential race comes up, are you really going to say I voted for the rich white guy (Romney)? Really? Do you want to see your chances with every single female there go down to zero?

We have got to vote our own self-interest, people.

Posted by Thomas | January 27, 2008 2:16 PM

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672

Deal with it. BTW, there is this wonderful new tool out there that you should check out. It's called Google.

Posted by Aaron | January 27, 2008 2:23 PM

And that article mentions Barack Obama specifically where, exactly? Point it out to me, oh sage of sages.

And, by the way, legacy admissions and admissions affected by monetary donation from parents affects more people and has a greater effect than race-based affirmative action. So why aren't you trolling around the Internets casting aspersions on the likes of George W. Bush? You being this warrior for egalitarianism, that is.

(No, no, I know. If it wasn't for those blacks taking all they can get through racial preference, your name would ring throughout the hillsides of America. I get it.)

Posted by Freddie | January 27, 2008 2:27 PM

I think you are confusing me with another commenter. I never alleged that Obama is a product of affirmative action. I am only here to refute your point that law reviews don't use it. The Crimson article gives a detailed history of the affirmative action program in place at the Harvard Law Review. I have no idea whether affirmative action helped Senator Obama. Neither do you.

Posted by Aaron | January 27, 2008 5:29 PM

Freddie:

You inspired me to look into Obama's experience on the HLR. It turns out that Senator Obama himself believes that his position at the LR was a result of affirmative action. See e.g.:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/

I'm telling you. Google. It really works!!

Posted by Aaron | January 27, 2008 5:35 PM

Freddie: The traditional Catholic position, however, as exemplified by Thomas Aquinas, is not that something is right or wrong because the Church says so, or even because God says so, but because God commands and the Church teaches what is already in accord with natural law. Some Protestants (maybe including Huckabee, for all I know) do tend to a more fideistic interpretation of the Christian life.

Posted by James Kabala | January 27, 2008 8:34 PM

Aaron:

The article you linked to doesn't prove as much as you think. According to the article, "[Obama] never... mentioned that he believed he had benefitted from affirmative action." There's no clear indication, however, that the benefits Obama received included his position on Law Review, rather than, for example, his admission to Columbia or HLS. Furthermore, it's a matter of record that Obama was not only on LR but also had a GPA in the top 10% of his class. Even if Obama's presence at Harvard and on the Law Review was due to affirmative action, his overall academic record in law school was still outstanding.

Posted by Jayhawk10 | January 27, 2008 9:19 PM