The Conservatism of Barack Obama
In my unsolicited and potentially wrong opinion, Andrew Sullivan is at his worst when he fixates on Sarah Palin. He’s at his best when he writes about the conservative motifs in Obama’s words and governing style. In the latter category, consider one if his posts yesterday, “The Tragedy of Hope.” An excerpt:
When I have been asked why I, as a conservative, support [Obama] the way I do, I can only answer: listen to him. What is the philosophy that most affirms “the imperfections of man and the limits of reason”? What philosophy sadly demurs when told that peace is possible on earth, that history is leading to utopia, that war is over, that “freedom is on the march”? And this is the critical distinction between Bush and Obama: Obama is far more conservative than his predecessor. He sees that the profound flaws in human nature affect us as well as them; that we “face the world as it is,” not as we would like it to be; that the decision to go to war is a moral and a pragmatic one; that ends have to be balanced by a shrewd and sometimes cold-eyed assessment of means.
For peace to exist, there must sometimes be war. A statesman will sometimes have to bargain with evil men. A statesman will also sometimes have to let evil flourish because he simply does not have the proportionate means to counter it. Human nature is alloyed between good and evil, and evil often wins.
Hope is not optimism. We have little reason for optimism given the first decade of the twenty-first century. Hope is a choice. As much a choice as faith and love.
10 Responses to “The Conservatism of Barack Obama”
Too wordy for me. I will still watch O's actions and mute his words.
When I say it's a Nice speech, it's a style comment.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Robert Edwards, Robert Edwards, Robert Edwards, Robert Edwards, Robert Edwards and others. Robert Edwards said: MailDistro New post: Climate Gate: How To Make Your Own Hockey Stick, A Guide (http://cli.gs/DuBma) [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by FSBlogs: MailDistro New post: Climategate Denial: A Tale of Two Lisas (http://cli.gs/NGntm)…
Let's all congratulate our President and Commander in Chief Obama for realizing George Bush was right about Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan; the United States of America is the land of the free because of the brave, and the left (the people who elected him) hate everything about our Country, our People, and our amazing heritage so it's time to stop pandering to them for the sake of those who do love our Nation.
Where have all the Peace Protesters gone?
They're irrelevant, everyone.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Thank you,
America is a better country with the Bush-Obama doctrine securely in place.
When I have been asked why I, as a conservative,
ROFLMAO
The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-me…
19. Andrew Sullivan
Senior editor, The Atlantic The Daily Dish
Andrew Sullivan has been Obama's biggest cheerleader since the 2008 campaign started and will kiss the ground he walks on. Trusting his opinion on Obama is like trusting Mark Steyn's on George Bush.
As a registered Rep., I ask you if you are in the right place on this blog and in history?
Leonidas, your Forbes article defines a liberal as:
Several of those elements are so broadly stated as to be essentially meaningless (right to an abortion… at all? In the first trimester?…. a rejection of the McCain-Palin ticket? Seriously?????)
I think you (and Forbes — and many others, for that matter) mistakenly confuse support for social issues like gay rights with liberal ideology.
I agree, though, with their assessment of Sullivan's influence, at least on the gay rights issue. He's been driving and grooming the dialogue for many many years.
I'd say there's some truth to what Sullivan is saying with regards to parts of Obama's foreign policy compared to Bush's. Basically though that's just a recognition that conservatism traditionally was less idealistic in foreign policy goals, and the alignment of neoconservatives with the GOP was a new development.
On domestic policy it's a completely different story though. Try reading this paragraph as Sullivan describes Obama's conservative inclination on foreign policy:
And then think about how all of that applies (or doesn't) to Obama's apparent inclinations on domestic policy. Isn't it utopian to claim that we can expand healthcare coverage to all without anyone having to sacrifice? Or that spending more and expanding enrollment will lead to 'bending the cost curve' to stabilize future entitlement spending? Isn't it true that facing the 'profound flaws of human nature' and 'facing the world as it is' should also lead to the conclusion that the same people that participated in policies leading to our financial meltdown are unlikely to correct those problems now? That balancing with 'a cold eyed assement of means' should also mean balancing priorities during a time when we have exploding deficits?
“I will still watch O's actions and mute his words.”
You don't get to hear clipped and over-emphasied, percussive consonants, and overdone sibilantsssssss.
It's an improvement not to listen, even though Obama is just annoying sometimes, not painful to try to hear as Dubya often was.
You can always read the text later. His Nobel acceptance speech was very good in fact.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/rema…
* * *
“Isn't it utopian [...]“
Yes. He is keeping naive, unrealistic, often-childish, Hope [tm] for such Change [tm] alive.
“19. Andrew Sullivan.”
He has been routinely liberal. Add to that something else: He's one of the few liberals remaining who have not ended the honeymoon swoon. He's still smitten (lustfully, too?) by Obama.