Understanding An Obamacon
Since I am now one of those “Obamacons,” I wanted to ask a question of those who are questioning those who would jump-ship and vote for someone that is so opposite from our views.
Daniel Larison can understand why people are upset:
the most credible pro-Obama argument that can be made is that the GOP must be held accountable and Obama is not McCain, but I still don’t think that is a persuasive case for casting a vote for Obama, much less urging others to do likewise. You have to believe strongly that a McCain Presidency would be an intolerable disaster for our country, but for the most part the people who are most inclined to believe this about him are not the ones going over to Obama. Many have hedged their Obama endorsement with paeans to the “old” McCain whom they once liked and their alleged Obama endorsements are filled with disappointment that McCain has let them down, as if to say, “I can’t believe you’re making me do this.” Pretty clearly, the Obamacon phenomenon is on the whole not really an endorsement of Obama or anything he proposes to do, which is why most of the endorsements coming from the right cannot withstand much scrutiny. That’s the whole point: the Republican ticket is so unappealing to these people that they will vote for its defeat in full knowledge that there is little or nothing to say on behalf of the man they’re electing. That is how complete Republican failure now is. Imagine how much worse it might have been had the Democrats nominated another “centrist” Southerner.
But he also thinks we are kidding ourselves:
Endorsing Obama is a vote of no confidence in the Republican Party, but in a weird way it is also an expression of what is probably utterly misguided hope that the Republicans will learn from the defeat and adjust to new political realities. It is also a failure of imagination to the extent that Obamacons sometimes rhetorically ask, “How much worse could it get?” It could get much, much worse, and Obama endorsers have put themselves in the odd position of taking on some responsibility for what is to come while having absolutely zero influence, but if it doesn’t bother them I can’t get very worked up about it.
In fact, we might be. We could be electing a very liberal president with a liberal Congress that will basically leave Obamacons high-and-dry. But I think instead of saying that we are setting ourselves up for a heartbreak, one should be asking why people are defecting. To put it another way, instead of mocking the people who jump off the ship, the GOP and the conservative movement should be asking why the ship is sinking. Larison alludes to this in his last paragraph:
Far more important in the aftermath than coming up with new and amusing ways to mock the Obama endorsers is an effort to understand and remedy the profound failures that made this phenomenon possible before a major realignment does occur.
Right now, that question is not being asked. That’s understandable, since the leadership of the GOP is probably in denial right now. However, after Tuesday, bloggers, writers and GOP leaders need to ask what has happened to Good Ship GOP and how to best right the ship. (Pun intended.)
The truth is, people having been jumping ship since long before McCain ran for President. There have been many Republicans that have been disgusted with how the GOP has run the country over the last few years. But the leadership has ignored those voices. So, the people decided to answer in a way that people would understand: by not voting for the Republican candidate and voting for the other party’s candidate.
Is it silly? Maybe. I can say personally that my vote is less for Obama, than against the GOP. I don’t know, how else can people send a message that things are not going right among conservatives?
Will it work? I don’t know. Having the GOP lose Congress in 2006 didn’t do much to help the GOP understand that it has a problem and that it needs to change.
I don’t really want a liberal mandate. But the conservative movement is in such a shambles, maybe it needs to have a “time out” before it can assume leadership again.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Understanding An Obamacon”
Dennis,
I think that even if Tuesday ends in a crushing defeat for the Republicans, those currently in the leadership will simply follow the same lines they've said for years when elections don't go their way. It's all the fault of the biased MSM for not putting forth the proper explanation of their answers for our problems. It will never even occur to them that they just might be wrong. Maybe a political philosophy rooted in the 1920s, including the religious revivals of the time just aren't viewed as the answers to problems of the 21st century.
I'm not sure things are as great of a mystery as Larison wants them to be. Most defecting Republicans have fit a broad mold. Typically, they are fiscally conservative but socially liberal Republicans. The more strident group of the Republican party lately has been the social conservative side, which means the part of the platform with which “moderate Republicans” have been most at odds has been enhanced. Moreover, the idea of fiscal conservatism, which many moderate Republicans might stay in the GOP for, has taken a beating. On the one hand, there has been almost no actual fiscal restraint over the last 8 years, and, even more, non-partisan evaluators rank McCain's budget plans as bringing on an even higher deficit than Obama's. However, I'm guessing that's only part of the issue. It's also that for large parts of the Republican party, fiscal conservatism has become less and less of an encompassing governmental philosophy and more and more of a single slogans: Lower Taxes. Period. The deficit takes almost no priority. If one is a Republican who wants to lower the deficit, there are as many Blue Dogs on the Dem side as they are real budget hawks now on the Republican side. Add all this to some personal opinions about the individual candidates and voila.
Excellent post. Excellent questions, Dennis.
I don't see why you believe so strongly that the GOP is in denial. I've seen nothing but hand wringing over the past two years, and people trying to figure out a new direction and correction for the movement. I don't see a scintilla of denial of the problems we face.
In fact even the nomination of McCain disproves your belief of denial. If the party still had its head in the sand, it would have rallied around somoene with socon cred or someone who met Club for Growth's litmus test on taxes while ignoring spending. McCain represents a true change because he has always been a spending hawk and he's shown that he contemplates tax changes in the context of the current state of the economy, not as a knee jerk ideological stance.
The real question is, how do you expect the party to regroup and reorganize itself when you jump ship during difficult times? Why not stay and help bail out the water, instead of leaving only a few behind and then complaining that they're allowing the ship to take on more water that will sink it? (Pete, this means you- because yes, I'm angry that you reversed yourself on your decision to work toward reform of the party.)
And I guess at the very least, Dennis and Pete, I would think you'd realize that it's bad form to leave the party and then complain that those you left behind aren't doing enough to clean up the mess.
CStanley, I don't really expect or care that people in the party will look kindly on my choice. And I have not left the party, Pete has, but I have not. I will still vote for the GOP on many of the downballot races including Senator. I'm complaining, but I am staying in, so get your facts straight. I will continuue to fight for change by staying in.
Again, I think that instead of getting angry at the people who leave, there needs to be more thought given into why people are leaving the party altogether or are voting for Obama.
OK, Dennis, I apologize for lumping you in with Pete and others who have decided to turn away from the party altogether, but with the balance of power shifting the way it is I don't see that it's much more defensible to endorse the opposing party's presidential nominee either.
That's not to say that you don't have every right to do so- but my complaint is when you then question those of us who are sticking it out with McCain as though we're the problem and we just don't get it. We get it alright- we just know there's a lot of work to do and it might take more than one election cycle.
IOW, again, I disagree with your whole premise that the party isn't working hard enough to reform itself, and I feel like you are giving up before we've even had a chance to start getting there.
Personally I feel that there's excellent reform happening at the lower eschalons- a really good group of spending hawks in the House, and some great young governors. And if the complaint is that the central, higher level leaders aren't similarly reform minded, then how does it make sense to punish John McCain for that when he at least has a credible record as a spending hawk and fighter of pork, and thus a more sensible fiscal conservative brand- not to mention a more sensible social conservative brand as well?
Also, I meant to mention earlier that I would welcome anyone back who decides to vote Obama but still remain in the GOP. I'm not into shunning anyone; I just don't welcome the supposedly constructive criticism from those who aren't here doing the reconstructive work right now. Either come back in the tent and help hold up the poles or go work on your new tent, but you can't have it both ways.